America in the Middle-East

[Dark0ne]

Or you could reverse the situation and hypothetically play out a scenario in which the middle-east is the super power with superior weaponary, and see how you like it? Although it's unlikely Peregrine would have to experience such a scenario, people DO at the hands of BOTH sides of this conflict. All this talk of American moral high ground is sickening to be honest .. and to believe that your side is the right side simply because your tactics don't involve strapping bombs to yourself and running at military targets is humorous to say the least.

 

I'd say it takes a lot more courage to do THAT than press a button that launches a cruise missile at a residential area which COULD be harbouring terrorists, with a high possibility of civilian casualties..but who gives a f*ck..they're only ragheads with inferior moral and intellectial thinking. I doubt they even experience more emotion than cats and dogs! <sarcastic rolleye>

 

I honestly don't see the difference between a terrorist strapping a bomb to himself, running at a US Army humvee and killing the soldiers and nearby civilians, and the US and allies launching cruise missiles at suspected terrorist targets with a 99% chance of civilian casualties. There's no moral high ground in either of them. Just one is suposedly done in religion and one is done for "freedom" (of the west).

[Zmid]

This could, in turn, cause those countries to completely ostracise the USA, which would have a MASSIVE negative impact on the US economy, and could quite possibly cause a new Cold War, except this time it will be the US v the rest of the 'West', or perhaps the rest of the entire world.

 

Not going to happen. Any negative impact on the US economy would be matched (at minimum) by negative impacts on the rest of the world. You might get a minority of nations to reject all ties, but most of them are going to be rational enough to see the idea as the economic suicide that it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think you have a massively over-inflated idea of what American exports are worth to the rest of the world. Completely severing all trade with America would be detrimental to the economies of most countries that actually have trade with the US, but it would be far from 'economic suicide'. The economic impact on America of such actions would be far worse.

 

And, actually, to go back to your original idea:

 

3) Begin issuing US security forces with bullets dipped in pigs blood and/or fat (I forget which is most effective at staying on the bullet with minimal interference). Therefore any terrorists shot attacking US soldiers will go straight to hell, instead of the heaven they seek. Watch as the supply of volunteers instantly disappears. Additionally, any captured and convicted terrorists will be executed by the same bullets, then burried with dead pigs.

 

Upon doing a little research, I've discovered that there is a major flaw in it. It's only some Muslims that believe all contact with pigs or pig meat is forbidden. The rest believe it is only the consumption of any part of a pig as food that is forbidden. Indeed, it has been known for devout Muslims to willingly receive heart valve transplants with the donor being a pig.

 

I'm sure Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia & other predominantly Muslim nations would just stand by and watch.... and Saudi Arabia would probably just love to have US nukes dropped on to their territory.

No, I expect they would send a strongly worded letter of protest. Anything else would be suicide.

 

Wrong. In their eyes, they would have nothing to lose. They would already be under attack by the US, so the idea of standing by and doing nothing, effectively, in the hope of not provoking America would be irrelevant.

 

And of course there would be absolutely no retaliatory attacks, because people would be so in awe of the mighty US of A. In fact, the whole world would love America.

The whole world would send strongly worded letters of protest, and whine a bit. Any retaliatory attacks would be suicide. The military situation is just that one-sided.

 

America has a very large army, yes, but if it was a case of USA v everyone else, or almost everyone else, it would be a draw at best (of course, 'best' in this context being the whole world getting pretty thoroughly f**ked up, but you know what I mean).

 

You're right, we owe the world an apology for letting our idiot of a president start a war with no plan to finish it.

 

...and for a reason that was completely and utterly wrong. All the attempts justify and legitimise the planned war before it actually took place was based on 'WMDs are very dangerous and Saddam poses a threat because he has them'. It is now abundantly clear that this is and was totally incorrect.

 

I honestly don't see the difference between a terrorist strapping a bomb to himself, running at a US Army humvee and killing the soldiers and nearby civilians, and the US and allies launching cruise missiles at suspected terrorist targets with a 99% chance of civilian casualties. There's no moral high ground in either of them. Just one is suposedly done in religion and one is done for "freedom" (of the west).

 

I agree with this, as, when you think about it, the only real difference is the level of technology involved. What I think Peregrine is referring to, though, is the terrorists who, for example, strap explosives to themselves, get on a bus, then set them off. That kind of terrorist action appears to be more common in the Israel/Palestine region than Iraq, though.

 

 

 

As for the 'moral high ground', in Iraq, we don't have it. Period. We basically went into that country where a brutal dictator ruled, and the general populace could expect to be arrested without reason at any time, then tortured and abused in prison. It's changed now in that the country has been bombed to hell and back, thousands of people have been killed, terrorists now infest everywhere, and Saddam is gone. And that's it.

 

EDIT: And is it just me, or are the quote tags not working?

 

EDIT by Dark0ne: You missed out a

which screwed up the rest of them ;)

 

EDIT2: Oops. :embarassed:

[Mojlnir]

I think you have a massively over-inflated idea of what American exports are worth to the rest of the world. Completely severing all trade with America would be detrimental to the economies of most countries that actually have trade with the US, but it would be far from 'economic suicide'. The economic impact on America of such actions would be far worse.

 

This is correct. America ran a trade deficit of $489.4 billion in 2003, up 17% from 2002. We are currently on track to record a trade deficit for 2004 somewhere in the area of $600 billion dollars. The US government is expected to run a deficit of about $427 billion for fiscal 2004 (highest ever), far exceeding even Reagan's red-scare fueled binging. Added to that a national debt in the area of $7.6 trillion (growing by almost $2 billion a day) and you don't have a string economy. You a pretty gosh darn rotten one. Include stagnant job growth and rising fuel costs and it doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to tell help read the writing on the wall.

 

QUOTE

QUOTE

And of course there would be absolutely no retaliatory attacks, because people would be so in awe of the mighty US of A. In fact, the whole world would love America.

The whole world would send strongly worded letters of protest, and whine a bit. Any retaliatory attacks would be suicide. The military situation is just that one-sided.

 

 

America has a very large army, yes, but if it was a case of USA v everyone else, or almost everyone else, it would be a draw at best (of course, 'best' in this context being the whole world getting pretty thoroughly f**ked up, but you know what I mean).

 

The idea that America has a very large army is not quite true. We have a very heavily armed Army, with lots of flashy do-dads and such but we don't have a particluarly large army. And certainly in an us v. them scenario, we're gonna catch hell. Why do you think that America has fought so long and hard against the rest of the world to maintain our nuclear arsenal. For just such an occasion. Should the world completely turn on us, I think that the average America and most of those who really have control of our arsenal would not hesitate to glass our opponents. AMERICA RULZ!!! :rolleyes:

 

As for the 'moral high ground', in Iraq, we don't have it. Period. We basically went into that country where a brutal dictator ruled, and the general populace could expect to be arrested without reason at any time, then tortured and abused in prison. It's changed now in that the country has been bombed to hell and back, thousands of people have been killed, terrorists now infest everywhere, and Saddam is gone. And that's it.

 

Word. Oh, and they really hate us now. Not that warm, fuzzy "Gosh America really sucks...I hate them and their bullying, imperialist ways" kind of hate. It's now the "Some American is sitting in front of his computer drinking coffee while my wife and son are dead. My daughter lost her legs and her spleen. My life is over and my country is invaded by Ami's..." kind of hate. Tha'ts a whole different ball game, and one for which I think we shouldn't have signed up for in the first place.

 

-M

[ThetaOrionis01]

Only if you want to give up any chance of successful rebuilding. Like it or not, US companies are needed if you want a productive rebuilding effort. And those companies aren't going to act out of idealism and forget about profits.

 

 

When hell freezes over. The UN is a hopelessly inefficent organization, and putting our troops under their command would be incredibly irresponsible. Any US commander/president who authorized that does not deserve their position.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

In view of the US government Iraq audit findings those statements lose a lot of credibility.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/4216853.stm

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles..._find_billions/

 

 

I get the impression that the Bush administration is going to great efforts to discredit the UN, portraying them as inefficient and ineffective, yet the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq situation has neither been efficient, nor competent. I don't even want to get into 'honesty' and 'integrity'.

 

What's even more worrying is that people actually seem to buy those claims... claims made by the same administration that failed to send enough troops into Iraq due to extremely poor planning, failed to protect world heritage sites, failed to prevent human rights abuses at prisons run by them, and now is found to be highly incompetent in the handling of reconstruction funds.

 

'Hypocrisy' is the word which springs to mind.

 

As for the statement that US companies are needed in the rebuilding... sometimes I wonder whether it wasn't the US economy that needed a war.

 

I think I trust the UN a great deal more than I trust the US.

[draighox]

Erm.. Has anybody considered that Saddam HAD to be removed? Yeah, many people have died, and yeah, war is evil. But there haven't been greater evil than Saddam (well, maybe Stalin). My Christianity teacher said once: 'We must always take the least evil choices.' The least evil choice was to remove Saddam.

Yes, explosions are frequent in some areas. But many areas (most of them are controlled by Kurds) are quite peaceful. I haven't heard of someone being tortured to death or entire cities being sprayed with chemicals these days. How would you like to be tortured? Do you know what's it like when gas eats your lungs? I'd rather be exploded.

[ThetaOrionis01]

Well... there are two troubling aspects about this.

 

1: Who appointed the US & allies as global policemen with the right to invade another country and topple the government?

It sets an extremely dangerous precedent, especially given the US' previous involvement in destabilising democratically elected governments. Chile, anyone?

 

 

2: Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. No question about it, the world is better off without him. But - he has been an evil dictator for decades. Why then did he receive a substantial amount of funding from, prominently among others, the US during the Iran-Iraq war, including weapons technology and knowledge, which arguably helped him create his chemical weapons arsenal? Why was this evil dictator supported by those countries foremost in the alliance against him? Why did his human rights abuses not matter then?

Why was he not removed from power during the end of the first Gulf War, given that he was just such an evil dictator then?

 

The US using the fact that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator as an excuse to invade a sovereign nation which so happens to have huge oil reserves is pure hypocrisy viewed in the light of previous support for his regime, given that they knew full well what kind of regime they were supporting.

Perhaps those government officials and CEOs of companies supporting his regime and supplying him with the means to carry out chemical attacks should be put on trial for being accessories to murder?

[draighox]

1: Who appointed the US & allies as global policemen with the right to invade another country and topple the government?

It sets an extremely dangerous precedent, especially given the US' previous involvement in destabilising democratically elected governments. Chile, anyone?

 

And what would be global policemen if not US? Russa? No, thank you. Nobody? World War 2 started because there were no global policemen. If US & allies had invaded Germany when Hitler took it over, or Russa when Lenin caused the communism revolution, many millions of people would have been saved.

US had to establish their own government in Chile to prevent communism revolution there. There's no worse regime than communism.

 

Why then did he receive a substantial amount of funding from, prominently among others, the US during the Iran-Iraq war, including weapons technology and knowledge, which arguably helped him create his chemical weapons arsenal?

 

When two enemies are fighting each other, you cannot defeat them both. You have to support one of them and finish him off after he defeats the other one. Very simple. Though I don't think US would give knowledge on how to create chemical weapons to someone who might use it against them later.

 

The US using the fact that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator as an excuse to invade a sovereign nation which so happens to have huge oil reserves is pure hypocrisy

 

Maybe, but the fact is as follows - Saddam was removed.

[Malchik]

Draighox, by your own examples you make it clear that communism is not the worst form of government in the world. In theory it is certainly the most Christian in ethic. In practice of course no one has yet got it to work properly because that nasty human nature never seems to stick to idealogical rules, whatever the ideology.

 

Your argument might apply more accurately if you used the term Totalitarian regimes rather than communist ones. But the US supports Totalitarian regimes all over the world and installed several (the ruthless dictators of Central America were imposed upon the hapless populations by CIA money).

 

I assume from this that you consider democracy a better approach to government. In a democracy anyone can stand for election and everyone has a vote. This ensures a regular rotation of ideas and interests represented at the highest level of governement and policies that are acceptable to the majority.

 

The US is not the best example of democracy for several reasons. The way voting occurs means only those with considerable financial resources can afford to campaign. This eliminates the vast majority of the US and thereby removes one plank upon which democracy stands. The system of lobbying also requires massive funding so the average voter in the US is pretty disenfranchised in spite of being able to put a cross on a ballot paper every now and again. Also there is relatively little difference between the so called opposition parties. The choice is 'right' or 'further right'. This takes away the chance of real innovation and freshness of approach in any government and again is profoundly undemocratic.

 

In a genuine democracy you would expect to see the make up of the elected government to correlate, statistically, with the make up of the US's population mix as a whole. It would not be an exact match because the ethnic and religious mix in the US has huge regional variations, but there should be a measurable relationship. I do not believe this is the case; although I am willing to change my view on this if anyone produces some accurate figures. My opinion at the moment is that some ethnic groups are woefully underrepresented and certain religious groups have disproportionate influence.

 

And yet, even if you uphold democracy and accept the US as democratic, how can you then accept the US as having a role as world police? They have not been elected to perform that role, they have taken it upon themselves. They cannot be voted out and are accountable to no one. In other words they are acting as a Totalitarian state, the most evil regime you can get in your terms.

 

They have chosen to ignore even the codified international laws. Whatever your personal view of Saddam Hussein, you cannot be blind to the fact that the US is behaving illegally and dictatorially. It puts them on the same level as Saddam Hussein himself.

[draighox]

Socialism is kind of ethical, not communism. Socialists seek socialism peacefully, communists by killing people.

 

But the US supports Totalitarian regimes all over the world and installed several (the ruthless dictators of Central America were imposed upon the hapless populations by CIA money).

There were two kinds of regimes in Central America: communism and other (I don't know how to call them). Both were totalitarian. But regimes, supported by US killed much less people than communism. For example, Pinotchet is accused of tens of thousands of deaths, not tens of millions like in China or USSR. Furthermore, no dictatorship in Central America could equal communist Cambodia, where 75% people were killed. Regimes of Central America were merciful when compared to the tirony of the Red Khmers.

As I said before, US supported these regimes in order to prevent communism.

 

And yet, even if you uphold democracy and accept the US as democratic, how can you then accept the US as having a role as world police? They have not been elected to perform that role, they have taken it upon themselves. They cannot be voted out and are accountable to no one. In other words they are acting as a Totalitarian state, the most evil regime you can get in your terms.

Do I have a choice? Who will remove saddams like that if not world police? Of course, it should have been elected, but better this than nothing.

 

They have chosen to ignore even the codified international laws. Whatever your personal view of Saddam Hussein, you cannot be blind to the fact that the US is behaving illegally and dictatorially. It puts them on the same level as Saddam Hussein himself.

Nobody can be put on the same level as Saddam, as long as they don't kill and torture mass of people.

[Abramul]

Though I don't think US would give knowledge on how to create chemical weapons to someone who might use it against them later.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Substitute "petroleum refineries" for "chemincal weapons". Same thing.

 

Socialism is kind of ethical, not communism. Socialists seek socialism peacefully, communists by killing people.

 

There were two kinds of regimes in Central America: communism and other (I don't know how to call them). Both were totalitarian. But regimes, supported by US killed much less people than communism. For example, Pinotchet is accused of tens of thousands of deaths, not tens of millions like in China or USSR. Furthermore, no dictatorship in Central America could equal communist Cambodia, where 75% people were killed. Regimes of Central America were merciful when compared to the tirony of the Red Khmers.

As I said before, US supported these regimes in order to prevent communism.

 

Do I have a choice? Who will remove saddams like that if not world police? Of course, it should have been elected, but better this than nothing.

 

Nobody can be put on the same level as Saddam, as long as they don't kill and torture mass of people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lies, damned lies---and statistics.