Alternatives to war?

[Kentonio]

I'll believe that as soon as I see the TRUE democratic elections held. Especially if the Iraqi people choose a leader that doesn't quite represent the interests of the US government.

But of course despite the fact there has not been remotely enough time for this to happen yet, despite the positive start the US and UK has already had with the preliminary meeting in Naseriya, you are perfectly happy to condemn them with no evidence because it fits in with your anti-US opinion. God this has got so tired. Im finally going to take the good advice of Gredius and the others who were wise enough to see a while ago that there is simply no point in arguing with people who are not willing to look at factual evidence and who's hatred for the western powers over-rides all, despite living in a nice comfortable western nation themselves.

Enjoy the rest of your rants, I imagine quite soon the last few people who bothered to argue will also simply give up in frustration.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Kentonio


But of course despite the fact there has not been remotely enough time for this to happen yet, despite the positive start the US and UK has already had with the preliminary meeting in Naseriya, you are perfectly happy to condemn them with no evidence because it fits in with your anti-US opinion. God this has got so tired. Im finally going to take the good advice of Gredius and the others who were wise enough to see a while ago that there is simply no point in arguing with people who are not willing to look at factual evidence and who's hatred for the western powers over-rides all, despite living in a nice comfortable western nation themselves.

Enjoy the rest of your rants, I imagine quite soon the last few people who bothered to argue will also simply give up in frustration.

I understand that there has not been "even remotely enough time for that". I simply said "when I see democratic elections happen I will believe what you were saying". That's ALL. I'm sorry for not trusting a government that originally supported "the butcher of Baghdad" but now claims he has to be toppled.

I like how my opinions are "rants" to you instead of valid discussion.

As for my anti-US opinion you mention - it was non-existent before I started posting on this forum. It's funny what arrogance, ignorance, intolerance, racism, and raving right wingers will do to you.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by RedWolf
It's funny - I don't see the U.S. slapping sanctions on (or invading) China... Although i guess that has to do with the vast amount of money to be made in the Chinese economy.

Isn't a large amount of money to be made in Syria and Cuba?

Originally posted by RedWolf
And please enlighten me as to the last time Saudi Arabia or Kuwait held democratoc free elections? (big friends of the US government)

They are 'strategic allies', not friends.

Just like Saddam Hussein, some day the Saudi royal family will be dumped by like garbage, and people like you will shudder in confusion.

Originally posted by RedWolf
They claim (and pro-war people agree) that there will be NO benefit to the US at all in this whole deal - no puppet regime, no control of oil etc

No, I think the claim was THOSE aren't the benefits.
And giant contracts could have been made with Saddam's government if not for the sanctions... yet some reason we kept them. Must be an oil conspiracy too.

Originally posted by RedWolf
Just like a good pro-war news station they try to keep this news away from the american people now that the war is more or less "over". People sure would get sick of this conflict if while being assured that they have "won", American boys were still being shipped home in body bags.

Who said the war is over?

Originally posted by RedWolf
But they WERE reporting them right away when the whole mess started remember? Everyone was glued to their TV then...

There wasn't much else to report then.

Originally posted by RedWolf
They aren't even reporting them days later - they're just incrementing the scrolling numbers as if they aren't happening.

They're covering them up by putting them on the bottom of the screen

Wouldn't, like, just NOT reporting them be a more effective way to keep the news from anyone that isn't,... well, literate?

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Greadius

They're covering them up by putting them on the bottom of the screen

Wouldn't, like, just NOT reporting them be a more effective way to keep the news from anyone that isn't,... well, literate? [/B]

By "covering them up" I meant - "down playing".

You can't even see the CNN pro-war bias and I find that pretty amusing.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Kentonio
God this has got so tired. Im finally going to take the good advice of Gredius and the others who were wise enough to see a while ago that there is simply no point in arguing with people who are not willing to look at factual evidence and who's hatred for the western powers over-rides all, despite living in a nice comfortable western nation themselves.

You had to post this after I'd written my long rant

And I never said there is no point in arguing with a specific type of people, since I don't believe there is a point to arguing with ANY type of people. I did say you have nothing to prove to them, and you don't. Trying to convince Red Wold America's intentions on Iraq are anything other than a colonial resource grab is a waste of time, but that doesn't mean you can't have a constructive dialogue until you get bored.

Originally posted by RedWolf
By "covering them up" I meant - "down playing".

You can't even see the CNN pro-war bias and I find that pretty amusing.

You mean pro-U.S.? The war/no war discussion is pretty much over...

And wouldn't CNN 'up-playing' (the opposite of your mentioned down playing) be a clear anti-war bias, or is that 'objective journalism'?

Or, is the happy in between the perfect amount of coverage to remain unbiased... but what is the right amount is an editorial decision taken by, you know, professionals, not teenage Canadians.

 

[Kentonio]

Trying to convince Red Wold America's intentions on Iraq are anything other than a colonial resource grab is a waste of time, but that doesn't mean you can't have a constructive dialogue until you get bored.

Very true but it stopped being a constructive argument really didnt it. Its become a roundabout of 'The US are evil warmongers who want to take over the world!' 'Have you got any proof of that?' 'Who needs proof?! Ive got a banner!!'

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Greadius

And wouldn't CNN 'up-playing' (the opposite of your mentioned down playing) be a clear anti-war bias, or is that 'objective journalism'?

Or, is the happy in between the perfect amount of coverage to remain unbiased... but what is the right amount is an editorial decision taken by, you know, professionals, not teenage Canadians.

No.. CNN made a big deal out of the deaths at the start because thats what Americans wanted to see - minute by minute coverage of exactly what was going on in the war. (Americans didn't want to badly see civilian deaths and CNN obliged). Plus the initial casualties allowed people to rally behind the president and "support the troops".

However Americans will get pretty sick of an Iraqi occupation if every day 3 Americans die and thus they make sure continued combat deaths don't make "front page news".

I'm 23 Gradieus - how old are you? Thats another favourite of the political right when they don't agree with leftists arguments - call them spoiled teenagers.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Kentonio


Very true but it stopped being a constructive argument really didnt it. Its become a roundabout of 'The US are evil warmongers who want to take over the world!' 'Have you got any proof of that?' 'Who needs proof?! Ive got a banner!!'

So do i need more or less proof then Rumsfield and cronies had regarding the Weapons of Mass Destruction (which conveniently have been moved to Syria or something just in the knick of time).

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by RedWolf


It's funny - I don't see the U.S. slapping sanctions on (or invading) China... Although i guess that has to do with the vast amount of money to be made in the Chinese economy.

And please enlighten me as to the last time Saudi Arabia or Kuwait held democratoc free elections? (big friends of the US government)

That is very easy!

For these countries there is a peacful alternative: time!

They are moving the right way now, so there is no need to 'help' them. Iraq didn't show any progress towards freedom nor democracy.

Saudi Arabia has lifted some press control rules lately. China is turning towards free economy. Kuwait has changed some laws after american pressure. Iraq simply continued to frustrate the international community.

Ofcourse they are no democracies yet! But there is no point in punishing / attacking the ones that are moving towards freedom!

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by RedWolf
I notice that nobody has responded to my earlier post regarding MY alternative to war:

Taking your 76 billion dollars (authorized for the war effort) and using it to build and feed/clothe/provide medical care to people throughout the world - in places where Children are dieing daily from malnutrition or preventable illness.

As stated before you could save more people than Saddam has EVER killed. Of course this wouldn't allow you to reap any of the benefits of taking over an oil rich middle easter country. (also the defense industry tends to make squat by handing out food)

It's funny how there's no money for THIS sort of initiative but there's ALWAYS money available for war. Always.

The problem of course is that our society is obsessed with the idea of "might makes right" and humanitarian aid doesn't really give a country a cause to rally behind.

Blowing crap up is "cool" and handing out food/antibitoics just really isn't. We feel that we're not really DOING anything worthwhile unless "the forces of good are engaged in a deadly struggle against evil".

I have two comments to make:

1. Your alternative does not help to get rid of dictators.
2. Feeding / clothing or providing mc is ok, but it doesn't solve a thing at the end. You know what really helps? Teaching the poor in this world how to feed, cloth or provide mc to themselves!
The first step to acheive this goal, is bringing freedom and democracy! Then teach them these values. Then teach them how to crow crops, make cloths and build pharmaceutical plants! (if needed).

 

[Kentonio]

So do i need more or less proof then Rumsfield and cronies had regarding the Weapons of Mass Destruction (which conveniently have been moved to Syria or something just in the knick of time).

So you also have the worlds biggest intelligence agencys reporting confidentially to you? Or do you just know sod all and try and theorize a lot?

Doh! *remembers has left this topic and leaves*

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Stapel


I have two comments to make:

1. Your alternative does not help to get rid of dictators.
2. Feeding / clothing or providing mc is ok, but it doesn't solve a thing at the end. You know what really helps? Teaching the poor in this world how to feed, cloth or provide mc to themselves!
The first step to acheive this goal, is bringing freedom and democracy! Then teach them these values. Then teach them how to crow crops, make cloths and build pharmaceutical plants! (if needed).

The whole point of removing dictators is to HELP people. Don't you see? Sure Saddam's regime committed unspeakable atrocities on his own people but is slowly dieing from malnutrition any less cruel?

Quite frankly feeding people saves a lot more lives then waging war. Nobody in the US (or elsewhere) gives a crap enough to spend 76 billion dollars on food or medical care for the world's starving but as soon as war is declared 76 billion dollars is NO POBLEM!

My point being that it isn't the HELPING that people are into - it's the war. War is like this magic bullet that rallys the people around a single cause regardless of whether it's right or wrong. I heard it mentioned a few times after the war started - "traditionally the time for criticism is BEFORE the war but after it starts critics generally have to support the commander in chief". This is wrapped in the guise of "supporting the troops". Anybody who spoke out against the war DURING the war was accussed of "not supporting the troops" which we all know is ALMOST as bad as being a terrorist sympathizer. Exactly when open debate is needed MOST - it's silenced in the U.S.