Obama: Bush Senior “did an excellent job when it came to the Gulf War"

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

also Zinn said going to war with Iraq for the first gulf war was unjust

because he belives all war to be unjust, and he makes a strong argument for that line of thought. however even he admits in his writings that times and events may arise that war will be inevitable and will have to be used for a just cause.

the issue comes up again, what should have ben done then? no one has even attempted to answer that, and neither did Zinn. he says the cause is just. which i agree with. so how could it have been done? i have been waiting for some to give me their own answer for 3 days now. i suspect i will not get one


i mean, even Zinn says it was a just cause. he questions resorting to war to achive that agenda, which is fine. but you do not get off the hook that easy, how the hell do you accomplish it then? i strongly believe in non-violent direct action, but i dont see how that was working or going to work on Saddam's Iraq.

like Burma, how do you stop the ruling military junta from oppressing the people?

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Hoon wrote:

Actually non-violent techniques (satyagraha) were working against the Nazis in the east/southeast of Germany.

If you are really interested please read up on it. :::satyagraha:::

There is also info on what Gandhi had to say about WW2 you can find.

The only fault in action or nonaction was when people did not take a stand, thats was what made it ALL possible.

Even the worst of us are Human and most of us has a CONSCIENCE. If those in control will not feel then the followers soon will, and not continue to follow.

Its in the movie and in his writing, if you want to win, thats all we need to know. Lets go.

you mean when he said the jews "should offer themselves up to the knife?" cattle do that. doesnt stop us from gutting them. actually the jews did that pretty well too, and look how well that worked out. no thanks, Ghandi can keep his advice to himself.

The nazis apparently didnt have enough CONSCIENCE to stop sticking people in ovens. The japanese apparently didnt have enough conscience to stop torturing, raping, and murdering any chinese they could find. You all are really trying to convince me that if we had just laid down our arms and protested peacefully, the axis would have just realised what swell people we all are (and not an inferior species) and stopped taking shit over? WWII was not a war that should have been fought? nevermind, dont answer that. I really dont want to know what you think.

Sure WWII could have been avoided...if everyone acted peacefully, there would be no war! If everyone knew the future, they could just stand up peacefully and stop things before they get crazy! isnt that SWELL! but guess what, folks, people arent perfect. some people make mistakes. sometimes society doesnt realise what is happening until its too late. AND HEY GUESS WHAT, MOST GERMANS AT THE TIME DIDNT GIVE A SHIT WHAT THE NAZIS WERE DOING. Until all 6 billion of us just follow your infinitely wise and benevalent ways (and cut through you pampered, intellectual self-righteousness), war can be necessary, and its not an immoral act to choose it.

my2hands

angelica wrote:

This is a fallacy... we needn't have a world of peace loving individuals in order to resolve problems.

tell that to the people creating problems...


Burma for example. you think sending them flowers is going to convince them that what they are doing is wrong?

my2hands

Being a "liberal" or a "progressive" does not mean you abandon reality for a utopian idealism

angelica

Kann wrote:

How is that a fallacy? If some people do not want/like peace they will create problems?

I hesitate to answer this question because people are looking to justify lack-of-peace, and will go to any length to do so. Such individuals also cannot hear peaceful solutions - they can only hear the conflict in their own minds that they project outward and consider "real".

The bottom line is that all conflict is an illusion born of our hearts and minds, and that we then take outside of us and make real. When we really learn this, the conflict in the outside world disappears...we REAL-ize it's an illusion. Anyone justifying making conflict real in the outside world in any way shows that they do not understand this and that they choose to make the illusions real, by being violent and conflict-driven. Most people do this because it's all they know. They do not understand problem solving.

We either create peace and solve problems or we perpetuate conflict. Most of the ways of dealing with conflict at this time 100% creates the conflict we think we are "fighting". When we are willing to create solutions we speak loudly for ourselves. When we learn to create solutions, we learn what that entails. And by standing for peace and solutions on all levels, we communicate that in our thoughts, words and deeds. It is impossible to get into conflict with someone or a group coming from this place. Not only that, the most hardened hearts have no reason to try. It only takes one person or one "side" committed in this sense, to stop the cycles from playing out.

my2hands

angelica wrote:

The bottom line is that all conflict is an illusion born of our hearts and minds, and that we then take outside of us and make real. When we really learn this, the conflict in the outside world disappears...we REAL-ize it's an illusion.

so the invasion of Kuwait was an illusion?

angelica

my2hands wrote:

so the invasion of Kuwait was an illusion?

Did you read what I said and that you have quoted?

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

angelica wrote:

I hesitate to answer this question because people are looking to justify lack-of-peace, and will go to any length to do so. Such individuals also cannot hear peaceful solutions - they can only hear the conflict in their own minds that they project outward and consider "real".

The bottom line is that all conflict is an illusion born of our hearts and minds, and that we then take outside of us and make real. When we really learn this, the conflict in the outside world disappears...we REAL-ize it's an illusion. Anyone justifying making conflict real in the outside world in any way shows that they do not understand this and that they choose to make the illusions real, by being violent and conflict-driven. Most people do this because it's all they know. They do not understand problem solving.

We either create peace and solve problems or we perpetuate conflict. Most of the ways of dealing with conflict at this time 100% creates the conflict we think we are "fighting". When we are willing to create solutions we speak loudly for ourselves. When we learn to create solutions, we learn what that entails. And by standing for peace and solutions on all levels, we communicate that in our thoughts, words and deeds. It is impossible to get into conflict with someone or a group coming from this place. Not only that, the most hardened hearts have no reason to try. It only takes one person or one "side" committed in this sense, to stop the cycles from playing out.

thanks Buddha. i'll call ya if i need any gibberish

angelica

MrSmith wrote:

thanks Buddha. i'll call ya if i need any gibberish

My guess is that you won't need any help with that!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

People wait to oppose gov't until it's too late....

Their rights get stripped away then it's too late to protest about something that should have been stopped earlier. It just keeps cascading.

Kinda like where we are right now...

getting f-ed in the ...

El_Kabong

my2hands wrote:

why would the US government set up and "play" their own puppet? he was neatly tucked in our back pocket, why would we disrupt or risk that?

purely for an increase in defense spending?


i see that as a HUGE stretch, to say the least.

why do you think we are in iraq now? do you think it has anything to do w/ profits on any level?

yes, he was their puppet, but he was a usesless puppet. what was he doing for us?? the war w/ iran was over, he was broke, needed more money on top of not being able to pay us back for what we loaned them to fight iran....if we cared we would've talked to our allies, kuwait, about iraq's legitimate complaints of stealing iraq's oil

and you guys really think they did a good job??? you're really gonna defend gulf war syndrome/DU poisoning and how we never cleaned up the spent DU rounds from the first gulf war (or this one or in afghanistan or in kosovo...)

El_Kabong

MrSmith wrote:

Ghandi was a man (in a certain situation in a certain time), not a god some of you make him out to be.

you think his tactics would have worked in Nazi Germany ? How did it work out in Bhurma, or Tianenmen Square? you are delirious.
Ghandi's 'weapon' is functional only against CONSCIENCE. If your oppressor has no conscience, nonviolent protest is virtually useless. There was no strong desire to hold on to India by the time Ghandi came around (due in no small part to various VIOLENT revolts, sabotage and terrorist attacks). The Indian colony simply wasnt "economically feasible".


so fuck Ghandi

wow, i had no idea that posting a quote from someone implied you saw them as some deity....i will try to keep this in mind next time, orrrrr i may just forget it a few seconds after i hit 'submit reply'

fuck gandhi, eh? he achieved far more than you or obama will ever even think about doing then blow off

and sorry, standing by and doing nothing until a violent situation occurs just so you could benefit is certainly not being a pacifist, it's opportunistic among other things (none of which can be labeled pacifism

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

You really think people would get behind that?

I can't think of one person at the time that would think that would have been necessary, and would have supported it.

The battle was already won. The conflict was over. People would have freaked out just like they are doing now.

werent you like 4 years old at the time? the only people you knew were playing Sonic the Hedgehog and listening to NKOTB...

my2hands

El_Kabong wrote:

why do you think we are in iraq now? do you think it has anything to do w/ profits on any level?

2 completely different conflicts. the current iraq war is immoral and illegal in my opinion. the fiorst was not.

yes, he was their puppet, but he was a usesless puppet. what was he doing for us??

besides sitting on top of the world 2nd largest oil reserves?

my2hands

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

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

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 addressed it to you just a few seconds ago in a pm and also addressed why it would be pointless to debate it with you.

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I addressed it to you just a few seconds ago in a pm and also addressed why it would be pointless to debate it with you.

all you said was "diplomacy" and you said that didnt happen at all


which just shows me that you really dont know much of that situation. the WORLD tried diplomatic measures via the UN and then when that didnt work they used sanctions again via the UN, which did not work. so the UN security council authorized military action if Iraq did not withdraw. and guess what, iraq did not withdraw. diplomacy and sanctions did not work. guess what folks, that wont always work. just like it did not work in 1939.

you guys will not make america out to be the bad guy on this. Iraq fucking invaded Kuwait. someone had to step in, so the world stepped in via the UN


so what would you propose should have been done after UN attemots contineud to fail?


idealism is best coupled with a strong dose of reality

fuck

my2hands: you call everyone ignorant and say no one seems to understand this situation except you (and whoever agrees with you), but you have looked over many arguments made in this thread.

for example, this did NOT happen OVER NIGHT. many things led to the invasion, including the United States saying they would NOT interfere.

I suggest you look back on this thread and reread many of the arguments made because you seem to have overlooked them and yet you criticize the people who debate with you.....

my2hands

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

my2hands: you call everyone ignorant and say no one seems to understand this situation except you (and whoever agrees with you), but you have looked over many arguments made in this thread.

for example, this did NOT happen OVER NIGHT. many things led to the invasion, including the United States saying they would NOT interfere.

I suggest you look back on this thread and reread many of the arguments made because you seem to have overlooked them and yet you criticize the people who debate with you.....

i criticize people that continue to talk about and debate things they apparenty know nothing about

the "green light" thing is bullshit, i posted the entire memo of that discussion for everyone to read instaed of the typical out of context 1 sentence that is typically quoted wrongly

and again, i see you have no answer as well. i guess you guys would have sent saddam a nice flower arrangement. diplomacy was tried via the UN. snactions were tried by the UN. there was overwhelming world pressure for Iraq to withdraw. the UN security council passed a reslolution authorizing force if iraq did not withdraw by a certain date. what else do you want? to hold saddams hand? he knew that if he did not withdraw the UN military action was going to happen. so he satyed. but you can continue to blame america if that makes you happy.

and yes, i will continue to politiely point out when someone is talking out of their ass.


so, what do you think shoukld have been done after UN attempts at diplomacy and sanctions did not work?

my2hands

this thread has almost 2090 posts and no one has answered the question that ties in directly with the OP


what should have been done differently by the UN and the world to persuade Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait?