Win a copy of Beginning Java 17 Fundamentals: Object-Oriented Programming in Java 17 this week in the Java in General forum!
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Tim Cooke
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Ron McLeod
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
Sheriffs:
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Rob Spoor
  • Paul Clapham
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Holloway
  • Tim Moores
  • Jesse Silverman
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Al Hobbs
  • Piet Souris
  • Frits Walraven

no war

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Best case scenario:
lower ranking iraqi officials turn against saddam
10,000 top elite republican guards are captured
Saddam and his inner circle is dead in two weeks
hardly any iraqi civilian casualties
hardly any ameircan casualties
hardly any Isreili casualties
no uproar in arab nations, no terrorist attacks
little damage to iraqi properties
little damage to the environment
US military gets to test new High Powered Microwave (HPM) missiles and other new secret weapons
Gets to use Predators that were tested in Afghanistan.
An indication to N. Korea to come to terms.
War is over in weeks not months
Democratic Republic of Iraq gets its new parliament/congress
US economy grows. World economy grows.
Bush, Rumsfeld, and Frank, are the celebrated heros of the new century. Bush is re-elected
bin laden's will power is shattered. hunt for bin laden continues with more focus and vigor
Do we want war? yes.

Worst case scenario:
saddam burns out all the oil wells as he sees his defeat. New democractic government won't have enough oil left to make economic sense
saddam loosens all the chem/bio weapons before fleeing and kills thousands. Kind of scorched earth policy.
more then 100,000 republican guards are killed
thousands of iraqi civilian caualties
a couple of thousand US soldires are killed
hundreds or even thousands of Israeli, turkey, kuwaiti military/civilians are killed
Unrest grows in arab nations
war is still not over after two-three months
large amount of properties are destroyed, environment is polluted and start affecting the neighboring parts of the continents
Saddam goes into exile but is not dead. Saddam in power is a saddam in check. Saddam in exile remains unchecked.
Baa'th party is destroyed and majority shi'ites take over. Behind US military's back, there is a holocaust for the left over minority sunni moslims
Kurds (if they are left alive) spread terrorism into the trying-to-be-democratic-shiite-majority iraq
Hurts the economy of other nations that are relying on iraqi oil
Hurts US economy because of the length of war.
Bush looses elections.
North Korea smiles.
Sometimes later saddam-in-exile joins hands with several other terrorist organizations. Saddam strikes back.
hunt for bin laden continues. hunt for saddam continues. new youths join terrorism
Do we want war? no.

Mid-case a bit realistic scenario:
Add/modify/delete the above lists.
Do we want war? ...???
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
You defeat yourself, please check your links and review the attacks you made against pacifists--i consider this discussion closed from my point of view and i will not dignify any responses from you with an answer ... peace


One of us is not interpreting things correctly. Nowhere have I dismissed anybody's arguments because they are a pacifist, or anything similar for that matter. Maybe one of our resident wordsmiths can render an official ruling.
 
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
quote:


...The only thing that people who perpetrate such crimes acknowledge is brute force. On the other hand, it is the arrogant selfishness of "pacifists" who, unable to see anything past their left-wing politics, are willing to continue to let others suffer.


SA: if that is not an ad hominem attack, then i don't know what is.
ME: If you can take that personally you're at least half to blame for the perceived offense.
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
The NY Times/CBS poll is interesting. 66% of Americans favor military action to remove Sadaam. Although 63% say we should wait for the support of our allies. The unasked question was, "if the allies choose not to support an attack on Iraq should we still go forward with it?"
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:

The problem has been created by the citizens of Iraq and their new found wealth. They don't have the maturity to have all the wealth they enjoy.


Have you ever realized where (non Eastern Asin) civilisation started off? Have you ever realized where these root came from? Have you ever realized how very *civilised* Iraqi people really are? Do Mesopotamia, Euphrat and Tigris mean anything to you? 'new found wealth' give me a break please.
kind regards
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
That's a damn good argument if you're building the Fourth Reich.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 38
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
I hope the war mongers remember that any strike(s) will have civilian loss of life. Even if one innocent civilian is lost the war is unjustified.
Remember that a JUST WAR is one in which the victor has no finincial gain.
If the UD really wants to help the Iraqi people; then after Sadam is removed the UN should step in and manage any transition to Demoracy etc. not Tommy Franks or some other BUSH Poodle..
I wish BUSH , Rumsfield, Rice, Powell et al recall
Matahma's Gandhi's life and works

LOVE YOUR CHILDREN but also love your neighbour's children, even more if the need is greater.


Just as Side:
North Korea currently has
5000 tons Sarin,
at least 3 nuclear war heads with rockets that could reach the west coast,
Lots of Anthrax,
unknown quantity of Small Pox.
So let the people dedcide who is more of a threat.
my 2cents
Jawahar
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2937
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator



Jawahar Rajan wrote:
LOVE YOUR CHILDREN but also love your neighbour's children, even more if the need is greater.


I hate children. These little annoying bastards are ruthless in their selfishness and disrespect. They like to kick the back of my seat in the movie theater, they tend to defecate all over themselves when they are near me in a restaurant, they scream right in my ear when their parents drag them beside me in Home Depot, and they ask all these stupid questions, like "Where did I come from?" and "Why are we here?" (that is, "What's the meaning of life?"). And when they grow up, they take my job and send me to a poorhouse. I think someone said, "If there is hell, it's the place for children". Now, that's what I call a Russian absolutism!
Eugene.
[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
I can't agree that the loss of one innocent civilian makes the war unjust. There will be civilian deaths in any war.
I'm not sure how big a deal financially removing Sadaam from Iraq will be for the US. We don't get a lot of oil from the Middle East and since Iraq is a member of OPEC they won't be pumbing out billions of gallons to drive the price down. The country that would suffer the most would probably be Saudi Arabia which would have to cut back production because of the Iraq production that would be available with the end of the export ban.
I would hope that the post-Sadaam Iraq transition will be managed by the UN. I hate to think of the US having to remain in Iraq on a long term basis. Get in, remove Sadaam, install a new democratic government, and get out.
As far as North Korea goes, the problem is that it is impossible to invade them. They have too many weapons and they are too close to Seoul (a city of 10,000,000 American allies). In any war Seoul would be devastated if not destroyed. And so far, North Korea has shown no interest in actually using their weapons. My personal feeling is that they intend on using their weapons to blackmail South Korea into sharing their wealth with the North.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I will be more impressed when Europeans wake up and start protesting the mass murderers of the world like Sadaam. "Useful idiots" is the term to describe this bunch. These are the same type of idiots who demanded that the French stand by and let the nazis re-militarize the Rheinland. When there are 3,000 dead in Paris then we will listen to the French tell us about whether we should attack Sadaam or not.


Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Are you saying that because the US did something stupid 15 years ago that we have to do something stupid today? Can't we learn from our mistakes?


Are you saying that only US people learn from their mistakes
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
On the same token, the US is also taking a position which reflects the majority of American public sentiment.
It seems to me that this point is often missed by many overseas who try to claim that they are anti-Bush, not anti-American. While they think they are lashing out at Bush policies (which I always got the impression they thought weren't popular here), what they are really lashing out at is the American people who encourage and support these policies.


Well you're right, from here Belgium, we do not see that American people are supporting Bush. In fact the last demonstrations tends to proove the opposite. I have some friends that came back from US 2 weeks ago, they are all saying the same things: In a big majority the people are not supporting Bush.
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Yeah, trot out the old oil thing again. :roll: First off, the US gets very little oil as a percentage from the Middle East. Most of our imported oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela.


Nobody is fool enough to think that you're going to war for freedom or because of 9/11. For how long will those oil reserves stay?


Second, if we ever attack North Korea, there will be millions of dead South Korean civilians. Seoul, a city of 10 million people allied with us, is within cannon range of North Korea and within easy walking distance for 1,000,000 North Korean soldiers. Tokyo, another city containing millions of our allies is within missile range of North Korea. if you own a map, take a peek and figure it out for yourself that Iraq is in a slightly different position than North Korea.


So South Koreans civilians matters, but not Iraquis civilians? Why?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
So South Koreans civilians matters, but not Iraquis civilians? Why?


The civilians of both countries matter but South Korea is an innocent party that has nothing to do with the actions of North Korea. Lats tiemwe fought against Iraq there were very few civilian casualties, some independent analysts put the number as low as 100. In the event of any war with North Korea the number of dead civilians could be in the tens or hundreds of thousands.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Nobody is fool enough to think that you're going to war for freedom or because of 9/11. For how long will those oil reserves stay?


Actually Canada has plenty of oil reserves including sources not even tapped yet.
http://www.capp.ca/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=603
The US has plenty of oil in Alaska. Iraqi oil is not important to the US. With Russian and other fUSSR countries coming online, Iraq will be even less important in the future.
[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
 
Wanderer
Posts: 18671
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
As a general note for everyone, please remember the "friendly" nature of this forum. While this thread may be not nearly as bad as some we've seen in the past, the level of antagonism does seem to be decreasing. Tossing around words like "stupid", "idiot", "arrogant", etc is just increasing the chances that others will take something personally and respond in kind, even if you're not targeting the opposition directly. I hate trying to play referee in threads where gradual escalation of insults occurs - I'm much more likely to simply close a thread if it starts getting out of hand. Just wanted to remind everyone of this. Thanks...
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Bert Bates:

...
1) - I never said the inspectors would find anything, I said that having them there hobbles Iraq to some degree - seems like relatively cheap insurance. Not perfect, but some benefit for very little cost - if you compare the cost of inspections to the cost of war.
...


Do you think that US government mind about the cost of war? In Gulf war I they paid 12% of the costs. The coalition paid the rest. In fact for them, it's just a big business. A war each decade, a healthy economy. Does anybody think that US is searching for UN or Europe approvals? IMHO they are just searching for people to pay their dirty war and gain benefits from the begining until the end.
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

... But we don't need an "excuse" for our present behavior. If anything it is France, Belgium, and Germany who need excuses for theirs.


We don't need any excuse, we have the international rights for us, we have Blix's report going our way and last but not least we have quite the world public opinion by our side?
And you what you have? Some fanatic murderer like Sharon and others oil Society.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

The civilians of both countries matter but South Korea is an innocent party that has nothing to do with the actions of North Korea. Lats tiemwe fought against Iraq there were very few civilian casualties, some independent analysts put the number as low as 100. In the event of any war with North Korea the number of dead civilians could be in the tens or hundreds of thousands.


Sorry please check the facts, the casualties of any war are both direct casualties and indirect, UN estimates put the total number of casualties of any conflict in iraq as high as half a million both direct results from the war and indirectly from the consequent starvation and disease that will inevitably ensue.Are we to say that ordinary iraqis are not human beings entitled to a peaceful existence just like we are?. Let us think through these things carefully. Even if the number of direct casualties is about 100 who are we to judge that a certain number of casualties is "acceptable". We should respect the sanctity of human life and stop being hysterical and attacking other countries just because we can. BTW Saddam is a very bad guy, we know that. Being anti-war does not imply that one is pro-saddam -- check your history, this guy was a creation of previous US administrations and armed by previous administrations
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

In Gulf war I they paid 12% of the costs. The coalition paid the rest. In fact for them, it's just a big business. A war each decade, a healthy economy.


O.k. 12% of costs. Rest comes as transfer from abroad. Agreed.
All the money is invested in bombs and rockets, which you can use only 1 time.
How to turn this in a healthy economy
Has anyone figures about the transfers of allied countries in relation to the US-trade deficit?
I suppose this will be 10% or even less.
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

Do you think that US government mind about the cost of war? In Gulf war I they paid 12% of the costs. The coalition paid the rest. In fact for them, it's just a big business. A war each decade, a healthy economy. Does anybody think that US is searching for UN or Europe approvals? IMHO they are just searching for people to pay their dirty war and gain benefits from the begining until the end.


War is not two sides bashing each other in the head out of rage and disgust. War has a very certain economy to it; the primary motivations may be conceptual (freedom, justice, etc.) but there must be a way to sustain all that. You need only look at the empire-building ambition of any country, present or past, to understand that.
Your cynicism here merely emphasizes that aspect. I doubt you come from a country that fights for truth and justice. Every country goes to battle out of some degree of self-interest.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

Couple things in all this, Jos:
Peace-keeping is not a passive process; people die all the time in the name of preserving it, of whom the "innocent" probably rank low in number.


I whole heartly agree with you here. Keeping peace takes a lot of effort. But starting a war in order to gain peace is like fucking for virginity. (and there's a whole lot of (philosophical) truth in this.

We're all connected, Jos, and if pacifism helps you forget that, maybe you should look for a new faith.
Pasifism never, ever forgets that we're all connected; it's them war mongers that forget what it's all about; I know, it sounds cryptic, but please think about it. I don't consider you as my enemy, I consider imbeciles as Saddam Hussein as an enemy against human kind. If a mosquito spoils the fun of your BBQ, you don't kill all your Sunday aft guests, you simply smash the mosquito to where it belongs.
BTW, I'm not looking for any faith at all, neither religion, neither political propaganda. Humanitarian behaviour is fine with me thank you.
kind regards
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
...
As France, Germany, and the placard carrying idiots ...
It's not the hawks making things more dangerous, it's Saddam Hussein and those who are wittingly or unwittingly supporting his position that are making things more dangerous.


The idiots placard carryer, will carry higher.
As somebody stated before: we are not Pro-Saddam, we are against this war. But as usual, information is corrupted in your country and you are the one who is transmitting this false info right now. So who is the *** placard carryer now?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
we are not Pro-Saddam, we are against this war.


That's just the point, you all don't realize it but you are supporting Hussein. One need only look at Iraq press for proof of that.
Why aren't these people carrying signs that urge Saddam to comply with inspections? Where are the signs expressing support for the oppressed Kurds, Shia, and Marsh Arabs living in Iraq? Where are the signs urging Saddam to respect human rights? All conspicuously absent from these so-called "peace" protests.
If you look at who is organizing many of these marches, and if you look at the character of the signs being carried, it is crystal clear what motivates many of the "peace" protesters.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
***********************************************
The US has plenty of oil in Alaska. Iraqi oil is not important to the US. With Russian and other fUSSR countries coming online, Iraq will be even less important in the future.
************************************************
quotes from Iraqi Ambassador:
US oil reserves are depleting. In 20 years they have to double their production at a reasonable price. Alaska oil reserves are very expensive. The Iraq oil barrel costs half a dollar. Saudi Arabian oil barrel costs 2 dollars and the US oil barrel costs more than 30 dollars.
Iraq is an ocean of fortune for the US. It requires the control of Iraq to inject new blood in its ailing economy. The US is waiting for the long-awaited opportunity to reshape the world. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, America wanted to redesign the world. It expects to do it now by attacking Iraq.
*************************************************
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
People have been asking how we're going to pay for this war. I believe much of it will be paid through Iraqi oil subsidies. In other words, the Iraqis will be footing the bill.
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

O.k. 12% of costs. Rest comes as transfer from abroad. Agreed.
All the money is invested in bombs and rockets, which you can use only 1 time.
How to turn this in a healthy economy


Well we are talking of billion dollars going to the US weapons industry. And you're asking me how good it is for the economy? It is good from the beginning until the end for the US. For the US govt, they renew their stocks for quite free, they use and test their new "precision" weapons, they get more powerfull with the money of the allied and they will have a hand on the greatest stock of oil (energy will be the power of this millenaire). US weapons industry takes the money.
Axel, I think you're the one who said " I'm sick of those anti-americans...". I agree with you, at least if the europe had the power of their ambitious, US would have to count with us. Or maybe that Europe would be the USSR of the 3rd millenium.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
UN estimates put the total number of casualties of any conflict in iraq as high as half a million both direct results from the war and indirectly from the consequent starvation and disease that will inevitably ensue.


They predicted the same for Afghanistan. Of course that never happened.

Are we to say that ordinary iraqis are not human beings entitled to a peaceful existence just like we are?.


Exactly. The surest way to ensure that they are able to live in peace is to remove Hussein. Representatives from the opposition have acknowledged that they expect there will be some civillian casualties on their side, but also state that the overwhelming feeling is that it is a price they are willing to pay.

Being anti-war does not imply that one is pro-saddam -- check your history, this guy was a creation of previous US administrations and armed by previous administrations


When Saddam receives comfort from your actions and exploits it for propaganda and other purposes, whether you choose to realize it or not, you are lending support to Hussein. And if as you say he was a creation of previous US administrations (btw he was heavily armed by Europe, France in particular), then it is up to us to correct our mistake and remove him.
[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

War is not two sides bashing each other in the head out of rage and disgust. War has a very certain economy to it; the primary motivations may be conceptual (freedom, justice, etc.) but there must be a way to sustain all that. You need only look at the empire-building ambition of any country, present or past, to understand that.
Your cynicism here merely emphasizes that aspect. I doubt you come from a country that fights for truth and justice. Every country goes to battle out of some degree of self-interest.


Oh you see my cynism, but you don't get Bush's cynism. In fact, the main problem is that I don't get the conceptual motivation, but I see well the self-interest.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Well you're right, from here Belgium, we do not see that American people are supporting Bush. In fact the last demonstrations tends to proove the opposite. I have some friends that came back from US 2 weeks ago, they are all saying the same things: In a big majority the people are not supporting Bush.


You are very mistaken. Simply go back and read the opinon polls that people have been linking to. The demonstrators are very much in the minority it seems. In fact, I believe Bush's approval ratings are still high enough to currently rank him as one of the most popular US Presidents.
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
I think you're giving Bush way too much credit if you think he's capable of cynicism.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
I agree with you, at least if the europe had the power of their ambitious, US would have to count with us. Or maybe that Europe would be the USSR of the 3rd millenium.


And now you get to one of the main reasons France stands in opposition to us. Keep in mind though, that the majority of the governments in Europe are in our camp on this one. Public sentiment is of little importance if a politician believes he is doing the right thing. If you go back to public sentiment during WW2, you will see that many were against war with Germany. Public sentiment was also against some of the cold-war moves of the 80's, but luckily Reagan, Thatcher, and Kohl were smart enough to disregard a public opinion that was flat out wrong. Ditto public opinion for getting involved in the Balkans.
On the other hand, if you think France, Germany, and Belgium are in opposition out of some altruistic stance, I'm afraid you are mistaken.
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

You are very mistaken. Simply go back and read the opinon polls that people have been linking to. The demonstrators are very much in the minority it seems. In fact, I believe Bush's approval ratings are still high enough to currently rank him as one of the most popular US Presidents.


Well, I see the polls and I just can't believe it's true. One reason, europeans people don't give much credit to US polls is that we think you are manipulated by the media (I know the good old song). The latest tends to prove it. CIA saying Bush is exagerating. Blix standing on your way, Blair(witch) project, the voicetapes saying something and the US translation saying another things. Documentary on how the US govt manipulates the media...
You may say that we are the manipulated guys, but now it is six months that US is talking about proof, and it is six months that we are waiting for the shadow of a proof. That's all
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
I think you're giving Bush way too much credit if you think he's capable of cynicism.


I'm going to sleep on this good mood.
 
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

When Saddam receives comfort from your actions and exploits it for propaganda and other purposes, whether you choose to realize it or not, you are lending support to Hussein.
[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]



i respectfully disagree, being anti-war does not imply that one is giving comfort to Saddm Hussein,i am fully in support of the inspections regime. and containing him.Most estimates i have seen put iraq's millitary capability at less that 30% of its pre-gulf war strength. Why is iraq being attacked?, its an easy target -possibly a quick victory would ensure a republican victory in 2004 - yes i know that's a cynical view but that's my opinion and i am entitled to it.
If we are so "concerned" about the safety and well-being of the American people North korea should have been attacked a long time ago.
An unneccessary war will not neccesarily make us any safer.BTW, a little bit of history for anyone who cares to check, the previous inspectors (UNSCOM) were not thrown out of iraq, they were told to withdraw from iraq by the previous administration . just my $.02
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

On the other hand, if you think France, Germany, and Belgium are in opposition out of some altruistic stance, I'm afraid you are mistaken.


I know exactly why France is in the opposition. I don't know about Germany, but I really think my country is fighting for rights and not fighting for their rights.
 
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Simply go back and read the opinon polls that people have been linking to. The demonstrators are very much in the minority it seems. In fact, I believe Bush's approval ratings are still high enough to currently rank him as one of the most popular US Presidents.


It stands to reason that those who are happy with the current administration don't protest it; you would always expect the minority to do so. And even in today's war-mongering, socially-backward U.S., you don't hit the streets to proclaim the virtues of war.
That said, a President who loses the popular vote at election but appears among the most popular seems like a fallacy of sampling at the wrong time. The only way to compare all presidents is by considering their popularity on exit. Show me one president whose popularity was as high on leaving as it was during his term(s). (Hint: I can think of just one)
[ February 18, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]
 
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
To all the people on this board who are so gung-ho about a war to disarm iraq and "liberate" its people this article should be interesting:http://www.msnbc.com/news/869606.asp?0cb=-81b133692
 
shay Aluko
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
and this :http://www.msnbc.com/news/873553.asp?0sl=-12
 
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator


Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

I know exactly why France is in the opposition. I don't know about Germany, but I really think my country is fighting for rights and not fighting for their rights.


McCain speech post (at end of page)
France is trying to push its way into a position of importance by being the "Anti-American". In time, I believe Bush will be vindicated and Chirac will be the leader of an isolated country.
The joke on this side of the Atlantic is "Germany & France are together again. - Same old game, just a different set of players..."
Btw, I was really touched when I visited the coast of France and saw towns with the American flag flapping in the wind. It really bought a tear to my eye. Wow, how genuinely grateful...
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Well, I see the polls and I just can't believe it's true. One reason, europeans people don't give much credit to US polls is that we think you are manipulated by the media (I know the good old song). The latest tends to prove it.


I wonder how American leaders could overlook the only Serious Threat to the world peace - Russia! This country is full of nuclear, chemical and biological weapon! Who is her president? He was a KGB officer for 20 years, don't you know what KGB was? Don't you know that this secret police (under different names) is guilty in torturing and killing MILLIONS of its citizen for 70 years? Russia leads a war in Chechnya for many years - only try to imagine the USA bombing, let’s say, state of New York for years! Imagine the USA federal government destroying the whole city of New York. Do you need any other proof how evil these people are? This country is largely run by mafia, do you want mafia to have control on nuclear, chemical and biological weapon? Tell me, and tell me the truth. This country is not Iraq. You complain that Iraq, with its size of California, cannot be searched by UN inspectors. Russia is about 1,8 times bigger than the USA. There is absolutely no way for world community to have any control on her weapon! And since there is no chance former KGB officer Putin will voluntarily leave his post and transfer power to American military personnel, Russia must be bombed and invaded ASAP.
Thank you for your attention. We will continue tomorrow, the same time. Stay tuned...
 
WHAT is your favorite color? Blue, no yellow, ahhhhhhh! Tiny ad:
Building a Better World in your Backyard by Paul Wheaton and Shawn Klassen-Koop
https://coderanch.com/wiki/718759/books/Building-World-Backyard-Paul-Wheaton
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic