RE: War or no war?

with all due respect jonesy, but i personall dont see how any of ur arguements for war on iraq can stand.

sure, saddam is probably the biggest a$$hole out there today, and the world would be better off without his ugle mug dominating the TV screen. but currently no one, especially not the US has any right to go to war with iraq(ie bomb the crap out of them).

so waht if iraq had WMD? almost everyone eles does; sure he’s used them, but that was ok with he was on our side and used them on someone we dont like; i can also think of a few others that use WMD on CIVILIAN targets because conventional warfare wasnt going too well for them.

taking that into consideration, can u really blame him for wanting to keep his WMD, if for no other purpose then to make sure he does wake up one day in a cage in cuba?

“Now due to this were in the situation where he’s yanking the chains of the UN inspectors again and what penalisation is 80% of the world levying against him?”

well still no excuse for war, saddam may have ‘yanked’ the UN’s chains, but GWB said openly that if the UN if not with ‘us’, then its against ‘us’ and irrelevent. based on ur logic, should we start bombing washington after we finished with bagdad?

“If he’d done this we wouldnt be mobilising today and he’d probably have his foreign minister standing in front of the UN requesting a lifting of economic sanctions. He’d lose what WMD capacity he had stashed, and perhaps a little face, but he’d gain the financial capability, once the “heat” was off to put himself right back in the game by the turn of the decade.”

please dont tell me u truely believe that. would u entrust ur life to someone who says he hate u and who has a seriouse grug on u cos u ‘tried to kill his daddy’?

not even saddam himself daires to dream of such a deal, cos he’s just evil and not stupid.

but of all ur remarks, what i find most disturbing is ur constaint ‘reminders’ that it would cost more lives to fight iraq tomorrow then today. did it ever occur to u that we may not HAVE to fight a war?

wars used to be a seriouse matter, a decision not taken lightly. but now, its treated like a holiday or buying a new TV.

-‘hey, ******* is not doing what i wanted his to, lets go bomb him.’

-‘no, sorry, busy with student marches and firemen strikes, maybe tommorrow.’

being a soilder, i can understand that u dont want to risk ur life to fight a stronger opponent tommorrow, when u could easily take him out today. but as a human being, u must also realise that going to war is not like play counter strick. the ppl u kill wont be going home to their families, and they wont be ‘the bad guys’ either. most of them are just ordernary soilders like u. and like it or not, most of the ones who fight to the death wont be fighting to save saddam’s a$$, but to defend their homeland against a foriegn invadeer, as you would do if the UK came under attack by another nation.

in short, saddam probably should go, but its not up to the US or Uk to decidde that. the UN and only the UN should have that right. also, what the UN says should be the final verdict, and not just used as a rubber stamp to ‘justify’ ur own agendas, and branded as irrelevent and brushed aside if the decision doesnt go ur way.

RE: What to do with North Korea

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 03-01-03 AT 11:09 PM (GMT)]Vortex:

>Interestingly that some people would bring in China. I
>personally believe that even though China may not want a
>Nuclear neighbor, but that sure beats a reunified
>pro-Western, democratic (don’t have to be pro-US!) Korea.

form this i have to draw the conclusion that u either didnt put alot of thought into politics or dont know much abt the political situation in the area.

ppl bring in china because without china’s help and support, it would be a hell of alot more difficult to smooth and sort things out over there. like it or not, the key to diffusing this situation lies in beijing’s hands.

and another thing, china probably has better relation with SK then NK. dont assume that countries with the same/similar political systems automatically become best friends, and countries with different systems automatically hate each others guts.

>Remind you that US stopped Korea and Taiwan producing nukes
>due to not wanting a proliferated region. China may want
>the same, but why isn’t the desire more intense and serious?
> Because they have their own interests too and
>understandably so…this wouldn’t be the case and objections
>would be shooting out like crazy from the PRC if it is the
>S.Koreans that are developing the nukes.

so far america has mainly talked to ppl, and demanded things from others. this has mostly worked so far because the US has ‘muscle’, but it has also left the US with a poor international image, and has often led to conflicts.

it must be uplifting for americans to hear all the saber rattling and retoric that is coming out of washington abt NK, im sure it would work the same charm on the chinese ppl if beijing did the same. but the point is, IT DOESNT HELP!

by talking to the N.koreans in private, and pressuring them under the table, beijing can get kim to back down without loosing too much face. it might not be as ‘fulfilling’ for us TV viewers, but the important thing is it gets the job done.

if america wants to continue to thrive, then they must also learn the art of purswation, while u still have some friends left in the world, or the feeling of isolation will only intensify in the future.

RE: NK is an irratation but not a threat.

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 28-12-02 AT 06:43 PM (GMT)]the US isnt going after NK because it is far less risky, and probably more effective to just let them be.

first of all, as ppl have already mentioned, 2 of the 4 strongest powers in the asia pasific region(SK and japan) are actively invalved in the containmanet of NK. china and russia, the other two major powers also has no interest in seeing a nuke race in their front yards.

china is NK’s most important ally, and beijing can control NK as washington could israel. beijing has just as much, if not more to loose then the US if NK does go fully nuclear, and so will use all of its influence to prevent it. but china likes to do things much more suttlely then washington, beijing does not like to be pressured into doing sth, and does not like it to look they are pressuring others into doing sth either. by leaving the situation as it is, the US hopes that china can quietly clean up this mess.

but if washington does too much sabre rattling, beijing may be pressured into not acting, as doing so would make china look weak both at home and abroard. also, it is a good idea for america to keep its focus on iraq, as too many questions over NK may waver the public’s willingness to go to war with iraq first.

although it is often a reciepy for desastor, the ‘sweep it under the carpet and forget abt it’ stratigy now being used by the US seems to be just what the doctor ordered for this special situation.

its not often that the bush administration gets an important peice of foreign policy right, so lets give them some credit for this one shall we.

RE: War on Iraq……Northern Iraq…..OIL RICH!!!

i kind of agree with u garry, but democratically elected leaders arent quite as bad as u say. occationally we get a few bad eggs, but so does everyone else.

as i see it, the biggest advange a democracy has over a dictatorship is that the country will never remain on the wrong path for long, and the again, the biggest disadvantge is that a democracy never remains on the right path for long either.

RE: What to do with North Korea

NK is different from iraq in a number of ways. the current administration would argue that the N korreans are willing to give up their weapons programs as they did in the past, and all this is a way of trying to get attention or ‘chocoletes’ from washington. whereas saddam views his nukes as vital to his servival and would not give them up without a fight.

critics may well list reasons such as: NK has nukes, so the costs of bringing down kim-zhong-il is far too high to bare; NK has no oil, so its not ‘economical’ to pick a fight with them as there is nothing to be gained; the koreans themselves dont want a war etc.

the simple fact is NK is a massive armed camp, with weapons that are obsalete but still capable enough to inflict unacceptably high losses on both us and SK forces before it is brought down. the us administration cant win in korea and also win the next election as well.

another important point is that the NKoreans and SKoreans are all the same ppl, and there has been great accomplishments in terms of political dialog and good will, and there is a good chance that the current situation will resolve itself in time, peacefully, so there is no need to ‘speed up’ this process at the cost of millions on lives.

lastly, kim may be crual and/or crasy, but he’s not stupid, and will not start a major conflict that will bring down his raigeme if he has another choice. as long as the us dont force him into a corner and gives kim a chance to back down, he will, so there is little chance of a major conflict in the region if the us does start it.

although the same can be said for saddam and his raigeme, the us has chosen to target iraq, which does lead ppl to feel that the us only picks a fight with countries that are weak. it may well be that the us has genuinly ‘acceptable’ reasons to choose iraq over NK, but they sure as hell arent letting the rest of the world know abt it.

from all this, i cant help but feel that the us either doesnt care abt its image aboard, or is terrible at self promotion.

RE: Should we interfere in other countries affairs?

exellient topic and brilliant start up post keltic.

everyone else that posted have also shown great understanding and self awareness, if ppl like u lot were running the world, we would be living in a much more free, open peacefull and friendly place.

but thats the problem, ppl like u dont run the world, and if things stay the way they are, chances are ppl like u will NEVER get to make big decisions.

with all dure respect to the democratic countries and their ppl, i do not think that the current form of democracy is the best possible way to run countries. imho, democracy is a little like communism, in that its great in thoery but hard to implament properly.

lets not forget that the ture father of democracy is not america as many think, but inccient greece. also, ture democracy is not what we have today. in inccient greece, everyone got to vote on every single decision that had to be made. today, ppl vote for representatives, who often dont get to vote for what they ture belive in, but has to toe the party line instand. so in fact, all the big decisions are made by the very few party leaders and their advisers.

now i know that having everyone vote on everything today is simply impossible. but having our ellected representatives vote for what they belive in and think is right is not only possible but esseintial in my view. after all, isnt, ‘two heads are better then one’ one of the founding ideas behind democracy?

in short, democracies are genreally better then most other forms of leadership. but ‘democracy’ as u know it isnt perfect either, so if western countires want to lead the world into a new age, then fine, i have no problems with that a long s they lead with action and not just hollow words.

as for interference in other countries affairs, well im also glad that u all show such great understanding to the predicament of other ‘weaker’ countries in fearing that ‘stronger’ western countries will use ‘humanterian intervention’ as an excuse for conflict and ‘invasion’.

i think that forigen intervention is neccessary. but what im against is countries only choosing to intervein in places when there is economical or stratigic benefits to be gaind, and then being shameless enough to act as if they’re only in it for the poor ppl of that country.

RE: Funny pics 2

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-10-02 AT 09:37 PM (GMT)]iraqi soilders deploy new missile system despite US sanctions.
Attachments:

RE: Funny pictures

people where i live really hate trespassers.
Attachments: