One step closer to tyranny

[clarky003]

But the more than two dozen countries that have offered some measure of backing to the United States have complex motives that in many cases have more to do with placating the world's only superpower — or trading their support for huge sums in U.S. aid — than with a desire to rid the world of Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction.

other countries arnt the only ones with complex motives. the US Gv most certainly has a list of them. As this isnt just a war of the present, but a plan for the future. god knows what they are thinking of

 

[seinfeldrules]

Applying this to a smaller scale - you are supporting vigilante tactics?

e.g. I say that there is just too much jealousy and greed between people for national governments and federal courts to work. So I'm just gonna get my gun and shoot everyone who I think is a criminal.

Why have you lost faith in international laws, when the rest of the developed world seems to get along fine?

You can always leave the country if you disagree so greatly with the gov't. A country cannot leave the world.

So you are saying that the only thing important in the Alliance between the US and Australia is support for your war? Is not he relationship stronger than just providing military support? Your analogy is flawed, by the way.

I dont blame the Bush administration for being angry when he (Mark Latham) would make such comments as these:

But in his first major foreign policy address, Mr Latham yesterday likened the Iraq war to Vietnam and said Australia had entered the conflict as an unthinking deputy sheriff.

In comments sure to infuriate Washington, Mr Latham pronounced the Bush Administration's doctrine of pre-emption as dead and described the war as "one of the great debacles of Australian foreign policy".

I'm also saying that I dont see what is so wrong for withholding aid from countries that dont join us. If they are unwilling to lend us a helping hand, why should we do the same for them? It makes no sense that people spit at the US behind our back, then demand money and aid a year later.

Your quotes are not proof of WMD. At best, they only prove that Saddam would like to have WMD. That he was perhaps spending money to try and get them. But after the monumental intelligence failure before the war, how do we know they got THAT part right?

Well, if Saddam truly didnt have them, then every Western intelligence agency was wrong. I personally think they are in Syria.

Can you make the distinction? Or does being anti-Bush automatically make you anti-American?

I can see where you can disagree, but calling the leader of our country a baffoon and Hitler sure is crossing the line. That is an insult to any American who has this man leading them.

I beg to differ

And there is more where that came from.

Former Soviet-bloc countries in Eastern Europe. Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary remain grateful to the United States for winning the Cold War and for backing their admission to NATO, which they regard as safeguarding their independence and security. Ten other former East bloc states, all NATO aspirants, are also offering verbal support and limited military aid: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Small states in the Persian Gulf. Countries such as Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar see the United States as a guarantor of their security against big neighbors: not only Iraq, but also Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I wonder why they dont see the UN as their guarantor of peace......

Seems like we really held a gun to all of those country's heads.

 

[clarky003]

I totally see where your coming from Seinfeld, whenever you write

I wonder why they dont see the UN as their guarantor of peace......

Seems like we really held a gun to all of those country's heads.

good to see your realising that it really is a screwed up world. granted some of whats said around these events driving the war maybe true. but theres really quite strong opposing opinion and evidentual News. .. Army's going off into wars with doubt and questions is a rare thing (although some follow, just because its their job, hate to say it but some of these people seem to like killing) , it altleast raises the question,, WTF is going on?


I feel its almost as if the general world population dont even have a say in this anymore. and its out of our hands. no control.. because of reasons we cannot fathom? because the world is full of large ego politcians who want to try and please the majority of the population by seemingly doing the right thing. .. not enough collective thinking gets done in this world.

 

[Pogrom]

You can always leave the country if you disagree so greatly with the gov't. A country cannot leave the world.

So your answer is yes? Because the USA doesn't like how the world works, it can feel justified becoming a vigilante?

I dont blame the Bush administration for being angry when he (Mark Latham) would make such comments as these:

How Bush felt about the statements is irrelevant. He is still interfering in the domestic politics of another nation.

You didn't mention Chile.

I'm also saying that I dont see what is so wrong for withholding aid from countries that dont join us. If they are unwilling to lend us a helping hand, why should we do the same for them? It makes no sense that people spit at the US behind our back, then demand money and aid a year later.

I don't recall mentioning aid anywhere. I thought I was talking about trade issues. Such as the up and coming US-Aus Free Trade Agreement, as well as standing steel, beef, sugar etc industries. TRADE.

We sell. You buy. You sell. We buy. Not aid.

Well, if Saddam truly didnt have them, then every Western intelligence agency was wrong. I personally think they are in Syria.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. And since most of the pre-war intelligence has since been shown to be wrong, I have a different opinion.

I can see where you can disagree, but calling the leader of our country a baffoon and Hitler sure is crossing the line. That is an insult to any American who has this man leading them.

Well, it sure can seem that way when he waxes lyrical about the situation. He seems to come across as a zealot, calling anyone with legitimate concerns "undemocratic".

Even if you support the aim, but deplore the method, you are seen as a terrible, terrorist supporting, America-hater.

I wonder why they dont see the UN as their guarantor of peace......

Maybe they fear the US. Or the climate of fear that the US is fostering. Or the culture of hate that is sweeping te Middle East.

Seems like we really held a gun to all of those country's heads.

Not really a gun. But they sure are a mercenary bunch, if you catch my drift.

 

[clarky003]

Well, it sure can seem that way when he waxes lyrical about the situation. He seems to come across as a zealot, calling anyone with legitimate concerns "undemocratic".

Even if you support the aim, but deplore the method, you are seen as a terrible, terrorist supporting, America-hater

im not much at politcal talk, but that hit the nail on the head. :thumbs:

 

[Korgoth]

Well seinfeld, most peoples concerns stem from the fact the we all have to live together on this planet. If we don't make an effort, at least, to make our global neihbors except us, and feel safe with us at their table then we are no better than the terrorists we fight. If terrorism is a threat to world peace than surely you would agree that wreckless wars and vigilante actions are as well. Like I said we must all work together, we must all live together, and the best way to live together is to live together as equals, not live as though we are appointed by God to parent the world.

 

[seinfeldrules]

How Bush felt about the statements is irrelevant. He is still interfering in the domestic politics of another nation.

Well, how about we just completely but out and not give or sell them anything? That make you happy? I'm sure the Aussie businesses would love that!

So your answer is yes? Because the USA doesn't like how the world works, it can feel justified becoming a vigilante?

All I'm saying is that this is the USA, not the UNSA. When you look at it all down the barrel, it is American security that comes first, not the feelings of the French and Germans.

Maybe they fear the US. Or the climate of fear that the US is fostering. Or the culture of hate that is sweeping te Middle East.

Maybe its because the US is the only one left willing to step up and do something.

Well, it sure can seem that way when he waxes lyrical about the situation. He seems to come across as a zealot, calling anyone with legitimate concerns "undemocratic".

Well I, and about 45% of the American voting public feel differently at this point in time. I find it amusing that foreigners feel they should have some say in elections in America. Your interest is intriguing. You act perplexed when the US butts into other's business, then claim to know more about our leader then we do. If he comes across as a zealot it really doesnt matter. The key thing is that America is safe.

Even if you support the aim, but deplore the method, you are seen as a terrible, terrorist supporting, America-hater.

Untrue. That is an incredibly overblown exaggeration.

How Bush felt about the statements is irrelevant. He is still interfering in the domestic politics of another nation.

And Latham is trying to interfere with the foreign/domestic policy of this nation.

If terrorism is a threat to world peace than surely you would agree that wreckless wars and vigilante actions are as well

Yes, I agree, but the Iraq War was not wreckness nor vigilante.

PS I am not going to comment about Chile. Period. I do not have sufficent information and I dont have the time to research it now. Your paragraph will not suffice because I prefer to find my own sources on information like this.

 

[Pogrom]

Well, how about we just completely but out and not give or sell them anything? That make you happy? I'm sure the Aussie businesses would love that!

Why are you still linking trade with pre-emptive war? If the USA can make the distinction for Canada, why not Australia?

Why should Australia be at your mercy anyway?

All I'm saying is that this is the USA, not the UNSA. When you look at it all down the barrel, it is American security that comes first, not the feelings of the French and Germans.

So - rule through the use of force. International opinion be damned, and all that.

What happens when the use of force is justified in trade disputes? Baby step by baby step, the situation does begin to resemble ancient Rome. Military might = supreme authority and a mandate to rule. Maybe in 100 years there will be an American Empire.

The course you've chosen is a perilous one. It is contingent on the fact that the democracy in America can keep it in check. Because corruption can and will happen when such power is concerned.

Maybe its because the US is the only one left willing to step up and do something.

This seems out of context to what I said. Nevertheless...

Your statement is only true if you classify 'doing something' as military action. But there are so many more options in the real world. Many which haven't even been tried yet.

What about attacking the terrorist's motivation? Whatever you may have heard, they are not attacking just because they 'hate freedom and the American way of life'.

Well I, and about 45% of the American voting public feel differently at this point in time. I find it amusing that foreigners feel they should have some say in elections in America. Your interest is intriguing. You act perplexed when the US butts into other's business, then claim to know more about our leader then we do. If he comes across as a zealot it really doesnt matter. The key thing is that America is safe.

I'm not one of the most visible figures in the world, making statements to the international media, that publicly berate the opposition government of a different nation. In an Australian election year, no less!

Is America safe? Every single terrorism expert in the western world has said that the world is now more dangerous since Iraq was invaded.

Untrue. That is an incredibly overblown exaggeration.

No it isn't. When Spain voted in the former opposition party at the last election, Bush said the result was "a victory for terrorism."

So... a democratically elected government gets voted into office. They decide to pull the Spanish troops home, with overwhelming public support.

Then they are lumped in with the terrorists.

I wonder if Mark Latham wins, if that will be labelled a "victory for terrorism" too.

And Latham is trying to interfere with the foreign/domestic policy of this nation.

v

Yes, he is trying to interfere in the US foreign policy. By bringing the Australian troops back to Australia.

seinfeldrules - can you please define your version of "foreign policy"?

Yes, I agree, but the Iraq War was not wreckness nor vigilante.

PS I am not going to comment about Chile. Period. I do not have sufficent information and I dont have the time to research it now. Your paragraph will not suffice because I prefer to find my own sources on information like this.

How was it not?

1) Iraq was invaded with no Exit Strategy. The mood of the local populace was gravely misjudged. The pre-war intelligence was horribly inaccurate. To invade like that, I would say it is "wreckness"(sic). (reckless??)

2) The USA ignored international law to invade Iraq - it was technically illegal. They also refused to go through proper channels, and exhaust other means. They trusted to their own might to get their own perceived justice. Pretty much a standard definition of vigilante-ism.

 

[Korgoth]

well i'm glad we could end on a positive note seinfeld, i have nothing against you or your opinions man. sorry if i sounded harsh earlier i've just been in a bad mood lately.
As long as we all agree that we are human and we all have flaws maybe one day we can all come together under the idea that life is precious, we only get one chance at it. And if we spend the time we are giving here killing eachother, whether it be by suicide bombing or sanctioned war, it is only a waste. I pray for world peace, but as we spiral down, the light at the end of the tunnel gets dimmer and dimmer. Since i know I could never change the fanatics, I will at least try to voice my opinions and views to those who will listen. Peace

Ps. I think this debate has pretty much ran its course, I doubt i'll return to it, but feel free to continue guys.

 

[seinfeldrules]

So - rule through the use of force. International opinion be damned, and all that.

Not rule, secure. And yes, international opinion be damned. I really dont care what some French or German thinks of me sitting on the opposite side of the globe.

Your statement is only true if you classify 'doing something' as military action. But there are so many more options in the real world. Many which haven't even been tried yet.

What about attacking the terrorist's motivation? Whatever you may have heard, they are not attacking just because they 'hate freedom and the American way of life'.

Well I could also classify doing something as giving. In which case the US would (I dont have exact numbers) again be far in the lead. How much do we give to AIDs? 15 BILLION dollars! How much do our esteemed European colleagues provide? 1 billion combined according to the numbers. America you bastard of a country, stop giving so much away!

What about attacking the terrorist's motivation?

I could honestly care less. Someone shoots your mother, do you;

A: Consider how they feel and why they did it
or
B: Shoot the SOB who broke into your house.

I'm not one of the most visible figures in the world, making statements to the international media, that publicly berate the opposition government of a different nation. In an Australian election year, no less!

Nah, but your leaders make those kind of statements and guess what, for the most part nobody in America cares! Me and others being the exception. The amount of stories I see on Bush from other countries is amazing. It seems he is the head of their country as well judging by the literature printed on him.

No it isn't. When Spain voted in the former opposition party at the last election, Bush said the result was "a victory for terrorism."

You fail to note that 2 days earlier a bomb had gone off on a Madrid train that killed hundreds. Maybe thats where he had the grounds to make such a statement, nah, it would be too obvious....

Yes, he is trying to interfere in the US foreign policy

Also by deeming the war "Vietnam like" and a "dead" foreign strategy.

1) Iraq was invaded with no Exit Strategy. The mood of the local populace was gravely misjudged. The pre-war intelligence was horribly inaccurate. To invade like that, I would say it is "wreckness"(sic). (reckless??)

You dont know how most of the country feels. You cant judge the minds of the Iraqi nation based upon the actions of a few cities.

2) The USA ignored international law to invade Iraq - it was technically illegal. They also refused to go through proper channels, and exhaust other means. They trusted to their own might to get their own perceived justice. Pretty much a standard definition of vigilante-ism.

They spent 12 years hassling over this in the UN, I dont see how they could go through any other channels or exhaust any more time. Maybe 500 years from now something could get done in the UN, but even that timeframe is unlikely.

s long as we all agree that we are human and we all have flaws maybe one day we can all come together under the idea that life is precious, we only get one chance at it.

agreed.

 

[ramdomthought]

all i have to say is bush has been a complete dumbass with his descions, and he needs to be shot twice by every person in america. HE WILL NOT WIN THE ELECTION, DON'T VOTE FOR HIM!!!!

 

[seinfeldrules]

all i have to say is bush has been a complete dumbass with his descions, and he needs to be shot twice by every person in america. HE WILL NOT WIN THE ELECTION, DON'T VOTE FOR HIM!!!!

Speak of the devil Pogrom....

 

[Pogrom]

Not rule, secure. And yes, international opinion be damned. I really dont care what some French or German thinks of me sitting on the opposite side of the globe.

The line between ruling and securing is so fine they are almost one and the same. I think time will tell on that issue.

And if you don't care about international opinion, what happens when global tensions reach boiling point? Just invade whoever you don't like this time?

Well I could also classify doing something as giving. In which case the US would (I dont have exact numbers) again be far in the lead. How much do we give to AIDs? 15 BILLION dollars! How much do our esteemed European colleagues provide? 1 billion combined according to the numbers. America you bastard of a country, stop giving so much away!

So then your previous statement about America being the only one to do something would be false, no?

And as for international giving... Let's take the example of AIDs you so thoughtfully provided. The US does give 15 billion to fight AIDs. But the US also has some fine print - use the AIDs drugs that are made by American drug companies. You know, the ones that cost 3x the amount of European ones.

Some American studies have said that the European drugs are less effective and not safe. Some American studies say the opposite. But every single European and Asian study say they are safe and effective. Using these drugs, three times the amount of people can be treated.

But the US minister of health has the gall to go on international TV and threaten to withdraw funding, unless the UN gives the American drug companies their money.

Most forms of US monetary aid also come with strings.

Yes, please stop giving, America. If you are going to be so hypocritical about it.

I could honestly care less. Someone shoots your mother, do you;

A: Consider how they feel and why they did it
or
B: Shoot the SOB who broke into your house.

Wrong analogy. Here it is again, with minor corrections:
A gang of thugs shoot your mother, do you;

A: Try and find every single gang member and shoot them. Even if the gang has multiple versions in different cities, and new members are being recruited every day.
or
B: Find out why people are joining gangs. Usually it is due to a personal or socio-economic problem. Work to solve the problem, until there are fewer gangs on the street. Then there is less of a chance of other people's mothers getting shot.

Nah, but your leaders make those kind of statements and guess what, for the most part nobody in America cares! Me and others being the exception. The amount of stories I see on Bush from other countries is amazing. It seems he is the head of their country as well judging by the literature printed on him.

You fail to note that 2 days earlier a bomb had gone off on a Madrid train that killed hundreds. Maybe thats where he had the grounds to make such a statement, nah, it would be too obvious....

Polls had shown that the original Spanish troop involvement was overwhelmingly unpopular. Polls also indicated that the Spanish people were exceedingly unhappy with the Spanish government.

After the bombs, should they then keep the unpopular government, just because the terrorists don't want it? That is not a democracy.

Also by deeming the war "Vietnam like" and a "dead" foreign strategy.

Was he seeking to change the US foreign policy? Did he say Bush shouldn't be doing what he is doing?

No - he gave an opinion. Whereas Bush flat out told Australia that they shouldn't bring the troops home.

You dont know how most of the country feels. You cant judge the minds of the Iraqi nation based upon the actions of a few cities.

True, but local sentiment is not very US-friendly right now. Even in places where there is no fighting.

I'd bet my bottom dollar that if a poll was conducted this very minute, the US would not get even close to a 10% approval rating in Iraq.

They spent 12 years hassling over this in the UN, I dont see how they could go through any other channels or exhaust any more time. Maybe 500 years from now something could get done in the UN, but even that timeframe is unlikely.

They spent 12 years doing the same old stuff. Why not innovate and find ways to target terrorism, instead of the terrorists?

 

[ramdomthought]

when it comes out on the 25th of june, ALL you people should go see farhenight 9/11
the trailer looks really good, and it is pretty funny auctually, NO SENATORS READ THE US PATRIOT ACT!!! BS MAN!!! GET THEM THE **** OUT OF THERE