Why do UK people see Bush as a bigger threat than Hussein ?

[shay Aluko]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
We have empirical data about the change in terrorism as a response to military action. What's ever happened with Khadafy and the Libyan state sponsored terrorism?
That was another case where the French refused to cooperate. How can there be a City of Light in a country of darkness? Betrayal is such an ugly act.

I think that is wrong.France does not become a traitor simply because it does not allow America to have its way,Its not suprising for a country that is used to other countries being yes-men to all its decisions to now start accusing france of betrayal. I believe the the dissenting countries have shown some back-bone and the beauty of it is there is nothing America can do about it. A a true friend will tell you the truth and not simply acquiesce to all your decisions.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Is it claiming that everyone saw the weapons of Deseret Storm and thought they were really cool and so they bought them?

Do you want to say that it is not the case ??

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
So you protest when France is trying to "bully" East-European countries, but it's Ok for the USA to do the same?

We are not "bullying" the small countries of Africa and Latin America who have yet to publicly declare their position. Likely we are offering economic inducements for them to sign on, not threatening them, in order to secure their position on an upcoming security council vote. France on the other hand told non-Security Council nations that they shouldn't be even supporting the US position period.
France on the other hand is its own special circumstance. France as far as I am concerned is actively engaged in diplomatic hostilities with the US that goes far beyond the Iraq issue, and should be dealth with accordingly when the smoke clears, imho.

but what I cannot understand is why does the USA need certain "morale support" for its war on Iraq from countries whose "morale support" was simply bought?

We need it because the UK and to Australia need it. If we were acting only on our own, you are correct, we probably wouldn't be fooling around with the UN.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Do you want to say that it is not the case ??

Ravish, we had weapons deals with many of these countries long before Desert Storm. Remember for the most that not long before Desert Storm, most of the world either bought from the US or from the Soviets, depending on whose sphere of influence they were in. As such, most of these nations have been buying from us for quite some time, and will continue to do so as they have established relationships with American companies and their supply and maintenance systems are streamlined for these weapons systems already in many cases.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
We are not "bullying" the small countries of Africa and Latin America who have yet to publicly declare their position. Likely we are offering economic inducements for them to sign on, not threatening them, in order to secure their position on an upcoming security council vote.

It probably takes to be an American, to notice the difference. :roll:
I just read that the American ambassador warned Russia that many economical programs will be cut down in case of "veto".
If America is trying to buy UN support, then America is trying to buy UN support. Why to talk about "morale"? Or does morale have its price? Like if anyone doubt...

[Mapraputa Is]

I can see why people could get this perception. What it doesn't address is why the US public is so much in support of this war. If anything, it seems to conveniently ignore US public support or worse, to write it off as some masterful brain-washing and propaganda campaign over an ignorant populace.
You mean that most Americans do not rely on what TV said to them, but conduct their own investigation?

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by AOL:
CAMP NEW JERSEY, Kuwait - A U.S. warship sails to the Persian Gulf with a banner of the twin towers. Troops name their desert camp for one of planes hijacked on Sept. 11. An officer uses slides of the World Trade Center to motivate his troops.
The Bush administration says the military buildup is designed to force Iraq to disarm and to remove Saddam Hussein if it doesn't. But American fighting men and women are evoking the imagery of 9-11.
For many of them, a future war in Iraq has little to do with U.N. resolutions about disarmament. They see a coming battle simply as an extension of the global war on terrorism - despite the United States never having claimed Saddam had any direct role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Regardless of what the media says, our command lets us know we're still fighting terrorism here," said Pfc. Shon Emmert, a 26-year-old soldier from the 101st Airborne Division based here at Camp New Jersey. "They keep our minds and eyes focused."

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I just read that the American ambassador warned Russia that many economical programs will be cut down in case of "veto".

Power politics are going on here Map and there is much at stake. Do you think we shouldn't re-examine the various aspects of our relationship with countries who are acting counter to our interests? As a taxpayer I sure think we need to take a good look at where some of our money will be going.
If you want to play you have to be prepared to pay. Each of these nations needs to decide for itself whether its best interests lie in propping up a dictator and trying to weaken our security and political position for their own gain, or in maintaining strong ties with us. Keep that in mind because that's all it is at this point.
The US going into Iraq is a given. Unfortunately we made a grave error by thinking the French, Russians, and some others could be trusted to act responsibly and present a unified front supporting a credible threat that may have convinved Iraq to disarm without hostilities. That's all it would have taken.
We never had to go to war, but Saddam had to think that the world was willing to. War was made inevitable the day a couple of powers with delusions of grandeur and long-lost glory decided it was more in their interest to further their own political agendas than it was to support the integrity of the UN process and maintain world peace.
The price we will pay for their continued support of the dictator and hostility towards us is that more American troops are likely to be killed than maybe would have. Now the only thing left to be examined is how much this monumental stupidity on the parts of France, Russia, and some others is going to cost them.

[Thomas Paul]

Ask the Hungarians how they feel about Kruschev. Ask the Czechs how they feel about Brezhnev. Gorbachev worked for Andropov who used the KGB to squash any dissidents who dared to speak out against communism. Gorbachev no doubt participated in this or he wouldn't have been promoted into Andropov's inner circle.
The one thing I will never understand about you, Map, is how you can not see the inherent evil in communism.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Do you want to say that it is not the case ??

So Ravish, your claim is that the only purpose of the war is so we can show everyone how cool our weapons are?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
...only purpose of the war is ...?

not ONLY, but it could be one of reason.
I have not seen any proof that there is any link between Iraq and terrorist. I cant see any reason to believe that its an extension of Afganistan war/ war against terrorism.
But obviously there has to be reasons for going for war.
And as I told, 'removing dictatorship' theory is not good enough for me who believes that there is nothing like charity. Every action has some meaning.
I dont want to repeat but this is US only who is supportinga dictator and terrorist supporting country.
SO I have a VALID reasons to NOT to believe in 'dictatirship theory'.
[I would luv to get some comment on this.]
I did not post this
link yesterday.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
...Ask the Hungarians how they feel about Kruschev. Ask the Czechs how they feel about Brezhnev...

Is US doing a good job??
Ask Afghanistanis, Iraqies....

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The one thing I will never understand about you, Map, is how you can not see the inherent evil in communism.

Ask yourself: do you see the inherent evil in "capitalism"? probably not. Why do you expect me to see more evil in "communism" than you see in "capitalism"?
I am tired to quote sources that prove that the US' version of capitalism is not pretty at all -- for other countries. But you do not care.
how you can not see the inherent evil in communism.
I saw it. then I saw what was after communism. I saw that ordinary people were happier under communism than they are under "democracy". What should I do with this knowledge? Ignore it and repeat like a parrot that communism is all about murdering its own people? It is not.
Gorbachev worked for Andropov who used the KGB to squash any dissidents who dared to speak out against communism.
And Putin was a KGB officer for 20 years! Yet you do not have problems with him leading "democratic" Russia. :roll:
The thing I cannot understand about many American people, how can they apply double standards all the time and not even notice it?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Is US doing a good job??
Ask Afghanistanis, Iraqies....

You mean like the Afghani women and girls who can now work, go to school, and walk down the streetwithout being beaten? Or maybe the Iraqi Kurds who are now living almost in autonomy because of the protection afforded by the US-UK imposed no-fly zone in northern Iraq?

[Mapraputa Is]

Ask the Hungarians how they feel about Kruschev. Ask the Czechs how they feel about Brezhnev.
Of course, these were only communists who invaded other countries! :roll: So when communists do it, ot proves that there is "the inherent evil in communism", but when other countries do it... Well, it proves nothing. They all have their own different and sometimes valid reasons. National security, and all that.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Ask yourself: do you see the inherent evil in "capitalism"? probably not. Why do you expect me to see more evil in "communism" than you see in "capitalism"?

There is an inherent evil in capitalism. But it is one of the least evil systems of economics that man has devised. But in any case, capitalism is not a system of government, it is a system of economics. The correct comparison is between communism and democracy. So let me ask you, do see democracy as being inherently evil?

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

I saw it. then I saw what was after communism. I saw that ordinary people were happier under communism than they are under "democracy". What should I do with this knowledge? Ignore it and repeat like a parrot that communism is all about murdering its own people? It is not.

So your argument that a system of government that kills millions of its own people is OK as long as most people who live under it are OK? To me, there is little difference between communism and fascism. They both exalt the state above the individual and they both kill large numbers of their own citizens in the name of creating a greater state. How would you feel if an ex-Nazi told you that nazism was actually good for germany and it was only certain leaders who were bad? How would you feel about a German in 1948 complaining about how much better things were under the Nazis?

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
And Putin was a KGB officer for 20 years! Yet you do not have problems with him leading "democratic" Russia. :roll:

Putin was in the KGB for 15 years where he worked as a spy. His job was to gather intelligence on the west. Compare this to Gorbachev who was involved with Andropov in crushing disidents within the USSR.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
You mean that most Americans do not rely on what TV said to them, but conduct their own investigation?

Are you implying most Europeans don't get their news from local media but conduct their own investigation? Not that I'm sure what this has to do with anything, much less my statement. Map, Americans aren't getting their news from state-run media outlets.
[ March 12, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Of course, these were only communists who invaded other countries! :roll:

Give me a counter example where a western nation continued to occupy the invaded country for 40 years.

[Mapraputa Is]

Tom, if you think that the small country who is under economic sanctions for more than 10 years in ME, the country many Americans would have problems to find on a map, the country all whose "threat" is one airplane, constitutes such an enormous threat to the US security, that the US find it necessarily to "change regim"...
Can you imagine that the country that just lost 20 millions in WWII had some security issues about the countries it actually bordered? No? Not at all?
Or what is "security issues" for the USA, is called "the inherent evil" when we are talking about other countries?

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Give me a counter example where a western nation continued to occupy the invaded country for 40 years.

What are you talking about?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
They see a coming battle simply as an extension of the global war on terrorism

I stated this before Map. Iraq is an extension of the war on terror. The war on terror does not consist only of a war against al-Qaeda. Any international terrorist organization or any regime that supports international terrorist organizations may be included.
Even if you refuse to buy the links with al-Qaeda for some reason, the links with Palestinean terrorist organizations responsible for the deaths of Americans is much more defined. Further, preventing the proliferation of WMDs to terrorists is part of the war on terror.
Iraq and the WOT are closely linked in the eyes of most Americans. This is where we differ from other parts of the world who won't allow themselves to make this connection. Go back to the speech that Bush gave right before we went into Afghanistan, I think it was the "with us or against us" speech, and you will see the basis for making this connection.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Gorbachev no doubt participated in this or he wouldn't have been promoted into Andropov's inner circle.

Gorbachev gave millions of people the chance to participate in democracy and market economies (with all inherent problems.
[And I have arranged new job with better company right now, old company broke. And this is the most darkest crisis my country have experienced for 55 years and don't tell me there are no problems with our great democracy and market economies]
)
What American president can claim to have archieved similar (with the exception of George Washington and Franklyn Delano Roosevelt in coalition with other countries)?
As far as I know Gorbachev was a reformer from the very beginning of his political career. What do you expect from him:
Having hoisted American flag in his garden every morning after haven taken first coffee.?
Even if he would have been a hardcore communist during his youth.
Germany had outstanding sovietic intelligence corps-trained politicians in 50/60/70ties like Herber Wehner. At least Wehner had believed in something in his life. After the war he distantiated himself from communism, and was much, much better politician than those clowns who govern now and had no other goal in their life but to become self-marketing professionals.
Those ex-sovietic intelligence corps guys would never have sold an ally to win elections.
In Germany there is a saying:
If with 20 you are no communist you have no heart.
If with 40 you are still communist you have no brain.
[ March 12, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Mapraputa Is]

The correct comparison is between communism and democracy. So let me ask you, do see democracy as being inherently evil?
No. Neither do I see "communism" as being inherently evil.
So your argument that a system of government that kills millions of its own people is OK as long as most people who live under it are OK?
I think, I already stated I do not believe in absolutes. Is this system Ok - compared to what? Compared to "democracy" Russia has now, communism was more democratic and far more human.
I like what I see in the USA much beter than what I saw in the USSR.
I like what I saw in the USSR much beter than what I saw in post-communist Russia.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

What Bush calls a coalition od the willing the man on the street sees as the coalition of the billing.

[Mapraputa Is]

How would you feel if an ex-Nazi told you that nazism was actually good for germany and it was only certain leaders who were bad?

I am ready to admit that nazism was actually good for Germany. "Fall" of nazism was bad. Why to deny it? The main problem is that what was good for Germany was achieved at the expense of other countries, and these countries finally imposed their will on Germany. If not, we all would be sitting here and praise fascism in this forum. :roll:
Please, do not read it as support for fascism, but if fascism did not bring anything good for Germany, why would it gain such a support? If you really want to understand some complex social phenomenon, you should not simplify it to make your morale feelings happy.
How would you feel about a German in 1948 complaining about how much better things were under the Nazis?
What is the problem with that? If your German said "let's restore fascism" -- this is another matter. But to simply state that things were better for ordinary people under the Nazis than they were in 1948 - I imagine this is true.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

I am ready to admit that nazism was actually good for Germany. "Fall" of nazism was bad. Why to deny it? The main problem is that what was good for Germany was achieved at the expense of other countries, and these countries finally imposed their will on Germany. If not, we all would be sitting here and praise fascism in this forum.

No.
1st: a lot of germans don't like prais fascism.
2nd: A lots of job were created first. But only for the prize of a huge national debt.

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
[qb]
Please, do not read it as support for fascism, but if fascism did not bring anything good for Germany, why would it gain such a support?
[qb]

This is the same as to say: If those crack addictive take it any day, it must bring anything good to them.

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
[qb]
What is the problem with that? If your German said "let's restore fascism" -- this is another matter. But to simply state that things were better for ordinary people under the Nazis than they were in 1948 - I imagine this is true.
[qb]

Democratizing the country worked, because the overwhelming mayority knew that they had done something terrible wrong in the 12 years before.
[ March 12, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Cindy Glass]

< hi-jack >
MAP You JUST hit 6000!!!
< /hi-jack >
OK - back to the political stuff . . .

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
< hi-jack >
MAP You JUST hit 6000!!!
< /hi-jack >

I notices that my NOP is close to 6000 when I re-builded the contact page, but I figured it will take a week or two before I reach it. I should stop to post in MD!

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I should stop to post in MD!

Congrates ...

[John Smith]

Mapraputa Is wrote:
Khrushev? Bregnev? Gorbachev?
And as a person who actually lived under communism, not just was fed anti-communist propaganda, I will claim that communism was not evil.

To balance the opinion of my former compatriot, I'd like to point out that although Khrushev and Bregnev were not as evil as Stalin, they certainly didn't inspire me, to put it mildly. The political repressions continued under both fellows. Bellicose Khrushev caused the famine in the country as a result of his agricultural policies, suppressed the science and culture, and almost started a WW3 because of his political ambitions. Bregnev exported and supported communsm around the world and drove the country in the prolonged stagnation and misery while he enjoyed his privilages until his death. If you are using these two comrades to point to the merits of communism, that's a really bad argument that only strengthens everybody's opinion that communism is, indeed, evil.
Perhaps the best proof that communism is evil is that I am, the saint, is now here, in US.
Now, I don't like the terms "good" and "evil" because they have some religious connotations and are more appropriate in theological discussions, but what I can say with certainty is that communism is inhumane. The intrinsic and axiomatic right of a human being is to be free from the society and the state, and that's the right that communnism most emphatically denies.

Eugene.
[ March 12, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Mapraputa Is]

I did not mention Khrushev and Bregnev as examples of great leaders, I wanted to point out that there were leaders other than Stalin. To equal communism with Stalin serves only to demonize communism.
How did Khrushev "almost started a WW3 because of his political ambitions"?
The intrinsic and axiomatic right of a human being is to be free from the society and the state, and that's the right that communnism most emphatically denies.
"axiomatic right of a human being is to be free from the society and the state" - you must be kidding. Where did you find such a state? Were those sent to Vietnam war and killed, free from the society and the state?
Perhaps this is the word evil that bothers me, I smell absolutism here and I hate absolutes To ask was communism worse in some particular aspects than some other form of government makes more sense to me. If this is the question, then I would say that system of government we had in the USSR in, say, 1970-80s was worse that many other systems, and better than yet other.
but what I can say with certainty is that communism is inhumane.
We are arguing over whether the glass is half full or half empty. You think that contemporary Russia is more human?

[Ashok Mash]

May be this graph shows why rest of the world is not too happy with the USA.

This plus the arrogant attitude of the Bush administration (that is - screw UN, we will do it our self AND 'if you are not with us, you are against us' logic) is a lethal combination, and this can get really messy in no time.

[John Smith]

Originally posted by Ashok Krishnan:
May be this graph shows why rest of the world is not too happy with the USA.

This graph is misleading, -- try the one that shows the military spending as a percent of the country gross domestic product. The military spending then shows the true picture, -- 4% and 25%, for US and North Korea, respectively.
Eugene.

[Jason Menard]

Also keep in mind that it is the US military that provides defense for different parts of the world that enable others to spend much less on military than they would otherwise have to. Canada is a good example of this, as is Japan, and NATO. There are others of course.

[John Smith]

How did Khrushev "almost started a WW3 because of his political ambitions"?

Well, during his speech to the international community, he took off his shoe, slammed it on the table, and promised, "We will bury you all [capitalist countries]". Subsequently, he loaded an arsenal of nukes on a carrier and sent it to our friend Fidel with the intention to install them 60 miles from Miami.

"axiomatic right of a human being is to be free from the society and the state" - you must be kidding. Where did you find such a state? Were those sent to Vietnam war and killed, free from the society and the state?

Well, at least the Americans were free to protest the war. What would happened to you in the Soviet Union if you went out the street and protested the Soviet-Afgan war in the 1980?
As I argued in my previous posts, I believe that the best form of government is no government at all. But if we must have one, it better be democracy, not communism. Don't you think so?
Eugene.
[ March 13, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Thomas Paul]

Map seems to believe that a system of government is OK as long as the average person who keeps their mouth shut is treated OK. Her claim that Germany was better during Nazism for the average person shows her inability to see the underlying truth. In Germany, was the average Jew better off in 1938 or 1948? What about the average communist? What about the average socialist? Map, would a system of government that treated 90% of its citizens like princes but murdered 10% of its citizens every year be OK? How about 5%? So what percentage would be OK? The USSR was a state run through terror and murder. Murder of its own citizens as well as citizens of foreign countries.
As far as Hungary goes, can you explain why an independent Hungary was a threat to the USSR in 1956? And why the Soviets had to kill 25,000 Hungarians to put down this attempt at independence? The communist head of Hungary executed 2,000 people for participating in the revolution. Another example of a fine, upstanding, humantarian communist leader?

[Mapraputa Is]

This graph is misleading, -- try the one that shows the military spending as a percent of the country gross domestic product.
This graph would be misleading if it was used to prove a danger of overspending for a country economy or something. The question was "why rest of the world is not too happy with the USA" - for this absolute numbers are more appropriate than relative.
Eugene, if somebody invaded your country would you be interested how many times his army is bigger than your, or you would be interested what percent of population this Army makes?
Here are a lot of different indicators, for 1997 year, unfortunately. If you have fresh data, feel free to post them...
http://www.fas.org/man/docs/wmeat98/rank98.pdf

[Thomas Paul]

All the graph proves is that the US makes the best (or the most expensive) weapons in the world. If Russia was asked to increase its sales of weapons by 100% do you think they would refuse because it is immoral? Or would they say, where do I sign the contract? Do you really think these countries would be spending their money on something other than weapons if the US didn't sell them weapons? To me it sounds more like jealousy than anything else.

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:

This graph is misleading, -- try the one that shows the military spending as a percent of the country gross domestic product. The military spending then shows the true picture, -- 4% and 25%, for US and North Korea, respectively.
Eugene.

I was only trying to answer the original question. That sort of spending with other facts mentioned in that post is make UK people (and others all around the world) see Bush as a bigger threat than Saddam Hussein.

[Ashok Mash]

To explain it further, if a small poor country in one corner of the planet decides to spend 100% of its GDP on its military, no one will give it a rats a*se. So, its not the percent of the GDP that matters, but the actual figure that goes into it, and the real life interests and influence leaders of that power has, that matters - Or should I say, 'threatens'?