what do you mean apply pressure? as in threaten military action or sanctions? because both of those forms of pressure have already been rejected by great society of pacifists here. so what exactly? write an angry letter to the UN?
they may have been rejected by pacifists but they sure as hell beat killing millions of people. I think that applied pressure and a withdrawl of our support as an ally would have been enough to get them to rethink their actions.
Also the Iraqi people could have overthrown Saddam as they did dictators before him had we, the US, not propped him up and aided him in his brutality when it suited our purposes against Iran. We weren't too worried about humanitarianism then....what a crock of shit you people eat up.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
oh, i read it. i enjoy varrying aopinions. but i dont value and say "good post" when wht someone is posting is absolute non sense and they cleary dont knwo what they are talking about
i just prefer not to read the 600 links you post. you could at least preface it by saying "this is that this is about and it is a good read" and maybe even paraphrase it?
but no, you just post a link that you did a google search for and expect people to just read it and take it as your stance. speak for yourself, then use it to back your shit up.
so you do read now?
but you want me to paraphrase it for you even though you're fully aware of what topic we're posting about? okay sweetie, next time I'll paraphrase it for you. Better?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I think that applied pressure and a withdrawl of our support as an ally would have been enough to get them to rethink their actions.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
thats a good one!
we were one of the leading countries pushing the UN to act, apply pressure, and apply sacntions. i thin our opinion on the matter was well known and that they had "lost the support of us as an ally"... and that didnt persuade them to leave. fucking bush was on TV everyday stating clearly that "this aggression will not stand"
by the way, when you say "apply pressure" wht do you mean? what kind of pressure?
1. military action was authorized by the United Nations
2. military action was carried out by a 34 nation coalition force. and not of the current iraq war variety. this coalition is listed below with the number of troops provided. i bolded a few that may suprise you folks, considering they are nearly every country in the middle east... arab states and iraq's neighbors... i guess they were in on the grand conspiracy as well... or maybe they just relaized the threat as REAL
United States 575,000 - 697,000 Saudi Arabia 52,000 - 100,000
United Kingdom 43,000 - 45,400 Egypt 33,600 - 35,000
France 14,600 Syria 14,500 (thats right, fucing syria) Morocco 13,000 Kuwait 9,900 Oman 6,300 Pakistan 4,900 United Arab Emirates 4,300 Qatar 2,600
Bangladesh 2,200
Canada 2,700
Italy 1,200
Australia 700
Netherlands 600
Niger 600
Senegal 500
Spain 500 Bahrain 400
Belgium 400
Afghanistan 300
Argentina 300
Czechoslovakia 200
Greece 200
Poland 200
South Korea 200
Philippines 200[
Denmark 100
Hungary 50
Norway 50
but what do they know, the actual countries of the middle east AND the United nations. you guys have it all figured out and never see any reason to rethink your almighty ideals on how the world SHOULD be. situations arise that must be dealt with, and they will be ugly. that is reality.
they may have been rejected by pacifists but they sure as hell beat killing millions of people. I think that applied pressure and a withdrawl of our support as an ally would have been enough to get them to rethink their actions.
Also the Iraqi people could have overthrown Saddam as they did dictators before him had we, the US, not propped him up and aided him in his brutality when it suited our purposes against Iran. We weren't too worried about humanitarianism then....what a crock of shit you people eat up.
you still havent answered what pressure is. you mean like physical pressure? should we somehow push against them with our overweight girth? Force push?
So because we backed them against Iran, we shouldn't have fought them after Kuwait was invaded? I'm not sure i follow the logic there. Even granting that we did everything wrong for helping Iraq fight Iran and our hopelessly corrupt leaders only care about whats best for them (how much more can i give you here), how does that suddenly make us in the wrong for pushing Iraq out of Kuwait?
Because we weren;t concerned with humanitarianism then we shouldnt be concerned with humanitarianism now?
you still havent answered what pressure is. you mean like physical pressure? should we somehow push against them with our overweight girth? Force push?
So because we backed them against Iran, we shouldn't have fought them after Kuwait was invaded? I'm not sure i follow the logic there. Even granting that we did everything wrong for helping Iraq fight Iran and our hopelessly corrupt leaders only care about whats best for them (how much more can i give you here), how does that suddenly make us in the wrong for pushing Iraq out of Kuwait?
Because we weren;t concerned with humanitarianism then we shouldnt be concerned with humanitarianism now?
okay, well i guess you see logic in propping up saddam and aiding him in killing countless people then getting upset about him doing it later on....good call.
there's really no point in going any further in this...
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
another thing you havent realized here (i assume because you were too young to remember) is that the US went through all the proper diplomatic channels AFTER Iraq invaded Kuwait. MONTHS of time went by before we attacked, and during that time we had repeatedly and publicly condemned and threatened (applied pressure!) the Iraqis to pull out.
It is INCONCIEVABLE that any informed person could say that we did not, in no uncertain terms, demand that the Iraqis leave Kuwait. Its simply not a point of debate. Everyone on the planet knew at that point that we were not friends with Iraq, and that, even if we were completely joined at the hip and actually desiring them to go into Kuwait, it is a fact that we werent on their side after the invasion. Iraq had MONTHS of time to leave. and they did not.
so knowing that, what should we have done once they had invaded adn refused to leave?
okay, well i guess you see logic in propping up saddam and aiding him in killing countless people then getting upset about him doing it later on....good call.
there's really no point in going any further in this...
becasue you dont have an answer
just saying "i am anti-war" is not an answer. it is a cute little way of getting out of any type of intelligent discussion of when and how military intervetion can be just and useful and needed
just saying "i am anti-war" is not an answer. it is a cute little way of getting out of any type of intelligent discussion of when and how military intervetion can be just and useful and needed
so an anti-war stance is unintelligent?
and the only intelligent way to think is to see that war is unavoidable?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
okay, well i guess you see logic in propping up saddam and aiding him in killing countless people then getting upset about him doing it later on....good call.
there's really no point in going any further in this...
and the only intelligent way to think is to see that war is unavoidable?
didnt say that... you continue to try and not answer the questions. you know, the tough questions a devout pacifist like you should be ready to answer easliy... but instead iof answering feel free to conintue to paint me as a republican ar monger
do you feel there have been any instances where military intervention was needed and just? if so what were they?
darfur for example?
you know abook, sometimes it is healthy to ask yourself the difficult questions...
didnt say that... you continue to try and not answer the questions. you know, the tough questions a devout pacifist like you should be ready to answer easliy... but instead iof answering feel free to conintue to paint me as a republican ar monger
do you feel there have been any instances where military intervention was needed and just? if so what were they?
darfur for example?
you know abook, sometimes it is healthy to ask yourself the difficult questions...
I've already answered it so many times in this thread. What the hell one more time won't hurt.
I'm anti-war which means I'm against the concept of war.
if you feel the urge to ask again...just refer back to this post.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
thats fine. i think thats wrong, but youre beliefs are no threat to me, so have a great life.
however, some people may suffer at the hands of others because of your failure to act against your own strictly rigid moral code.
Can you accept that a steady voice of strongly pacifist belief might be a good way of keeping in check those who would turn to war at the slightest opportunity?
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Can you accept that a steady voice of strongly pacifist belief might be a good way of keeping in check those who would turn to war at the slightest opportunity?
however, some people may suffer at the hands of others because of your failure to act against your own strictly rigid moral code.
with great power comes great reponsiblity
it is real easy to say "i am anti war" when there is a genocide going on... but how about the 1,000,000 million people murdered that you could have saved
m2h - you seem to think yourself the resident expert on this topic, yet you have twice claimed (posts 83 and 180, probably more) that you posted the entire 'green light memo'....when in fact you posted only a few lines more (from a mainstream US source, of course) than the one line that you claim is being misrepresented. It is an 8 page transcript of a meeting. How is that any different than what you are complaining others are doing?
Note that the Times piece ommitted the preceding sentences, which changes the context once again:
SHE WISHED TO USE HER LIMITED TIME WITH THE PRESIDENT TO STRESS FIRST PRESIDENT BUSH’S DESIRE FOR FRIENDSHIP AND, SECOND, HIS STRONG DESIRE, SHARED WE ASSUME BY IRAQ, FOR PEACE AND STABILITY IN IRAQ. IS IT NOT REASONABLE FOR US TO BE CONCERNED WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND FOREIGN MINISTER BOTH SAY PUBLICLY THAT KUWAITI ACTIONS ARE THE EQUIVALENT OF MILITARY AGGRESSION , AND THEN WE LEARN THAT MANY UNITS OF THE REPUBLICAN GUARD HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE BORDER?
They were playing both sides. She was sent there to further relations with Saddam. Bush was voting against Iraqi sanctions throughout the buildup to the war, and stating that this was an effort to continue diplomacy. But he was also buying underpriced oil from Kuwait, who were stealing it from Iraq...Glaspie misled congress and the decision to go to war, as always, was not an informed one. She gave the impression that she went to Iraq to talk tough, and if you read the transcript (which you obviously haven't), it shows that this was not the case at all.
As has been stated a thousand times in this thread, this was not a matter of Iraq simply waking up and deciding to take over Kuwait.
I've already answered it so many times in this thread. What the hell one more time won't hurt.
I'm anti-war which means I'm against the concept of war.
if you feel the urge to ask again...just refer back to this post.
cop out
a far too simplistic answer to a complicated world and complicated question...
you have the luxury of being against the conept of war sitting safelty in your suburban home typing on your keyboard. not everyone in the world has that luxury. burma comes to mind on that note... or Darfur... how is the anti war concept working out for the slaughtered innocents of darfur? while the world sits back and watches like pussies
sometimes non action is more heinous and depolorable then taking action
werent you like 4 years old at the time? the only people you knew were playing Sonic the Hedgehog and listening to NKOTB...
in 91? ...add 16 years...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
and some people suffer because you choose to justify war
You cannot justify what is unjustifiable. And when they do so, people set up recurring consequences that pour back on them. They cannot see outside the mindsets that keep them locked in the cycles. It's like speaking a different language to them. They continue violence and killing. They are violent.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
...however, some people may suffer at the hands of others because of your failure to act against your own strictly rigid moral code.
Are you saying that to act along with one's strict personal moral code is "wrong"? Are you suggesting that to go against one's moral code is the "right" thing to do in any situation?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Are you saying that to act along with one's strict personal moral code is "wrong"? Are you suggesting that to go against one's moral code is the "right" thing to do in any situation?
Maybe i used the wrong phrase there. not so much acting against one's moral code, but realising that code isn't the right one and changing it when faced with reality instead of foolishly latching on to it even harder. If you think there is one divine rule that is applicable to every situation even when faced with a mountain of evidence to the contrary, i would define that as fundamentalism and yeah, its wrong.
The person who creates suffering and acts out upon another is always the one responsible for the suffering meted out.
the one that fails to act to prevent one's suffering is also responsible, even if the only way to prevent that suffering is through the use of violence..
Maybe i used the wrong phrase there. not so much acting against one's moral code, but realising that code isn't the right one and changing it when faced with reality instead of foolishly latching on to it even harder. If you think there is one divine rule that is applicable to every situation even when faced with a mountain of evidence to the contrary, i would define that as fundamentalism and yeah, its wrong.
Are you saying that one "should" change their moral code because someone else is suggesting they do? Obviously Abook, for example doesn't feel your "mountain of evidence" is valid. Should she change her moral code based on your opinion or her own?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Kuwait has the world's fifth largest proven oil reserves[5] and is the fourth richest country in the world per capita. (104 billion barrels)
and make up your minds...first you say there was no way for us to have prevented him from invading Kuwait (which also opened them to allowing US bases there) then you say he was our puppet in our pocket...it seems if that were the case we could've easily have prevented it!
saddam was broke from the war w/ iran and owed us a lot of money as it was
i didn't see anyone answer this question, but if an ally were amassing troops on the border of israel do ya think we'd just sit be and do nothing or do something, like talk to them and tell them we'd have to react if they invaded?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
but i am not suprised. most anyone has around here anymore is a cute quote or a link
what the fuck would you have done? how do you proprose the world should have convinced Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait? but dont worry of you dont answer it, i dont expect you to, because you cant.
and by the way folks, kuwait really was invaded and about to be occupied by an aggresive foreign enemy. so maybe you can remeber that when you are posting quotes from gandhi or not answering the question
and lets not also forget Gandhi was killed by an extremist
do you guys want some other situations that i felt military action was justified or needed? how about Rwanda in 1994 when pussy ass bill clinton sat back and watched 1 million people get slaughtered in front of the world... i guess you guys think collective consience could have aved those people? well guess what, it didnt. the only thing that could have saved them was military intervention
i think we could've talked to, who you said was, our puppet in our pocket when we saw him amassing troops on the iraq/kuwait border. it was obvious what was about to happen...the congress even realized and held a hearing asking the state dept what was going on and would we be obligated to commit anything if iraq invaded. their reply was 'of course not' and the next day saddam went in....are you telling me there was nothing we could've possibly have done??
i hope i deciphered that reply of yours well enough to answer what you wanted
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Are you saying that one "should" change their moral code because someone else is suggesting they do? Obviously Abook, for example doesn't feel your "mountain of evidence" is valid. Should she change her moral code based on your opinion or her own?
she can do what she wants. its a free country and she isnt hurting me. she seems nice enough to me. But i would. i dont know how else one changes one's mind on anything except through taking in new information.
Comments
they may have been rejected by pacifists but they sure as hell beat killing millions of people. I think that applied pressure and a withdrawl of our support as an ally would have been enough to get them to rethink their actions.
Also the Iraqi people could have overthrown Saddam as they did dictators before him had we, the US, not propped him up and aided him in his brutality when it suited our purposes against Iran. We weren't too worried about humanitarianism then....what a crock of shit you people eat up.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
so you do read now?
but you want me to paraphrase it for you even though you're fully aware of what topic we're posting about? okay sweetie, next time I'll paraphrase it for you. Better?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
thats a good one!
we were one of the leading countries pushing the UN to act, apply pressure, and apply sacntions. i thin our opinion on the matter was well known and that they had "lost the support of us as an ally"... and that didnt persuade them to leave. fucking bush was on TV everyday stating clearly that "this aggression will not stand"
by the way, when you say "apply pressure" wht do you mean? what kind of pressure?
i am not going to let this one slide by
So because we backed them against Iran, we shouldn't have fought them after Kuwait was invaded? I'm not sure i follow the logic there. Even granting that we did everything wrong for helping Iraq fight Iran and our hopelessly corrupt leaders only care about whats best for them (how much more can i give you here), how does that suddenly make us in the wrong for pushing Iraq out of Kuwait?
Because we weren;t concerned with humanitarianism then we shouldnt be concerned with humanitarianism now?
okay, well i guess you see logic in propping up saddam and aiding him in killing countless people then getting upset about him doing it later on....good call.
there's really no point in going any further in this...
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It is INCONCIEVABLE that any informed person could say that we did not, in no uncertain terms, demand that the Iraqis leave Kuwait. Its simply not a point of debate. Everyone on the planet knew at that point that we were not friends with Iraq, and that, even if we were completely joined at the hip and actually desiring them to go into Kuwait, it is a fact that we werent on their side after the invasion. Iraq had MONTHS of time to leave. and they did not.
so knowing that, what should we have done once they had invaded adn refused to leave?
becasue you dont have an answer
just saying "i am anti-war" is not an answer. it is a cute little way of getting out of any type of intelligent discussion of when and how military intervetion can be just and useful and needed
so an anti-war stance is unintelligent?
and the only intelligent way to think is to see that war is unavoidable?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
and once again you have failed to define pressure
didnt say that... you continue to try and not answer the questions. you know, the tough questions a devout pacifist like you should be ready to answer easliy... but instead iof answering feel free to conintue to paint me as a republican ar monger
do you feel there have been any instances where military intervention was needed and just? if so what were they?
darfur for example?
you know abook, sometimes it is healthy to ask yourself the difficult questions...
I've already answered it so many times in this thread. What the hell one more time won't hurt.
I'm anti-war which means I'm against the concept of war.
if you feel the urge to ask again...just refer back to this post.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
however, some people may suffer at the hands of others because of your failure to act against your own strictly rigid moral code.
and some people suffer because you choose to justify war
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Can you accept that a steady voice of strongly pacifist belief might be a good way of keeping in check those who would turn to war at the slightest opportunity?
with great power comes great reponsiblity
it is real easy to say "i am anti war" when there is a genocide going on... but how about the 1,000,000 million people murdered that you could have saved
Here is a more complete version, in case you are actually willing to click a link:
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/0DFD0DDB2BA34EF59F2570CE7EEE03C8.pdf
Note that the Times piece ommitted the preceding sentences, which changes the context once again:
SHE WISHED TO USE HER LIMITED TIME WITH THE PRESIDENT TO STRESS FIRST PRESIDENT BUSH’S DESIRE FOR FRIENDSHIP AND, SECOND, HIS STRONG DESIRE, SHARED WE ASSUME BY IRAQ, FOR PEACE AND STABILITY IN IRAQ. IS IT NOT REASONABLE FOR US TO BE CONCERNED WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND FOREIGN MINISTER BOTH SAY PUBLICLY THAT KUWAITI ACTIONS ARE THE EQUIVALENT OF MILITARY AGGRESSION , AND THEN WE LEARN THAT MANY UNITS OF THE REPUBLICAN GUARD HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE BORDER?
They were playing both sides. She was sent there to further relations with Saddam. Bush was voting against Iraqi sanctions throughout the buildup to the war, and stating that this was an effort to continue diplomacy. But he was also buying underpriced oil from Kuwait, who were stealing it from Iraq...Glaspie misled congress and the decision to go to war, as always, was not an informed one. She gave the impression that she went to Iraq to talk tough, and if you read the transcript (which you obviously haven't), it shows that this was not the case at all.
As has been stated a thousand times in this thread, this was not a matter of Iraq simply waking up and deciding to take over Kuwait.
cop out
a far too simplistic answer to a complicated world and complicated question...
you have the luxury of being against the conept of war sitting safelty in your suburban home typing on your keyboard. not everyone in the world has that luxury. burma comes to mind on that note... or Darfur... how is the anti war concept working out for the slaughtered innocents of darfur? while the world sits back and watches like pussies
sometimes non action is more heinous and depolorable then taking action
Thank you.
in 91? ...add 16 years...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Maybe i used the wrong phrase there. not so much acting against one's moral code, but realising that code isn't the right one and changing it when faced with reality instead of foolishly latching on to it even harder. If you think there is one divine rule that is applicable to every situation even when faced with a mountain of evidence to the contrary, i would define that as fundamentalism and yeah, its wrong.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
they have slightly more than kuwait...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Iraq
raq claims to have the world's fourth largest reserves of oil at approximately 115 billion barrels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait
Kuwait has the world's fifth largest proven oil reserves[5] and is the fourth richest country in the world per capita. (104 billion barrels)
and make up your minds...first you say there was no way for us to have prevented him from invading Kuwait (which also opened them to allowing US bases there) then you say he was our puppet in our pocket...it seems if that were the case we could've easily have prevented it!
saddam was broke from the war w/ iran and owed us a lot of money as it was
i didn't see anyone answer this question, but if an ally were amassing troops on the border of israel do ya think we'd just sit be and do nothing or do something, like talk to them and tell them we'd have to react if they invaded?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i think we could've talked to, who you said was, our puppet in our pocket when we saw him amassing troops on the iraq/kuwait border. it was obvious what was about to happen...the congress even realized and held a hearing asking the state dept what was going on and would we be obligated to commit anything if iraq invaded. their reply was 'of course not' and the next day saddam went in....are you telling me there was nothing we could've possibly have done??
i hope i deciphered that reply of yours well enough to answer what you wanted
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way