The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => General UQM Discussion => Topic started by: ErekLich on February 27, 2003, 06:22:55 am



Title: WAR
Post by: ErekLich on February 27, 2003, 06:22:55 am
I was playing Star Control just now, and I remembered the story behind it.  When the Chenjesu showed up the people of Earth unanimously (or very nearly so) supported the war against the Ur-Quan.

It struck me that, sadly, there is no way that would happen in real life.  There would be a huge outcry, vocal protests form people who refused to see the danger no matter how much evidence they were shown.

Why is it, I wonder, that the same person can accept that a fictional alien is evil "just because" and yet cannot see the obvious truth that some humans are just as evil, even when shown that a man doesn't even treat his subjects like human beings in many cases?

I wonder, if the Chenjesu showed up tomorrow, what would the war protestors say to them?  "No, we cannot do the right thing, because it means going to war?"  Or would they support war as long as we're killing aliens and not humans?

Why are people so blind?  I cannot fathom the mind of someone who truly, naively, and without reservation believes that all people are good at heart.  Let me tell you, it just isn't true.  So to all of you who don't see the danger, to those people out there who protest war with Iraq, I say to you two things:

1) remember your history.  Appeasment doesn't work with dictators.  If you give a mouse a cookie he'll want a glass of milk.

2) remember too the lesson of the Ur-Quan.  What matters is not wether Evil triumphs in the end.  What matters is that you stood up to Evil, said "I will not bow" and fought for your freedom and life.

I'll get off my soapbox now.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Sudo_Nym on February 27, 2003, 07:05:29 am
*cough*off-topic*cough*

I think that the possibility of the extinction of the entire human race would bring people together.  That and world-wide martial law would be declared.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: ErekLich on February 27, 2003, 07:22:14 am
Yeah, it is a bit off-topic but unless the moderators tell me to remove it I think it's star control related enough to be here...

Besides, I've seen the people on these forums and know that my hope in intelligent discussion is not totally unjustified.  :)


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Shiver on February 27, 2003, 08:22:48 am
I agree completely, but there's probably more support for the war you speak of than you think in the US. People never come together for a war rally or put bumper stickers supporting stuff like that. But since there are people from other countries on this board, an arguement to your views should present itself eventually.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: ErekLich on February 27, 2003, 08:28:08 am
Indeed, I'm hoping for German_Nightmare and Lukipela in particular... although anyone is of course welcome to respond.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: JonoPorter on February 27, 2003, 12:21:39 pm
i would like to see what happens to the human shields for the Kohr-Ah ;D ;)

they should sell a special shirt for human shields that has a bullseye on it and a specail transponder in so the military will know where all the iraqe forces because they are have already setup their forces behind those poor mislead poeple. :'(


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Nic. on February 27, 2003, 02:38:16 pm
Quote
1) remember your history.  Appeasment doesn't work with dictators.  If you give a mouse a cookie he'll want a glass of milk.

I do remember my history, and I believe you are triyng to draw parallels with a certain Austrian who tried to conquer Europe about 65 years ago?  Godwin's Law (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Godwin%27s%20Law) aside, here's another parallel for you:  He invaded Poland as a "pre-emptive strike" in order to "ensure their security".  Does that policy sound at all familiar?  It should.

My point is that noone is on the high ground in this conflict; the Bush administration obviously has a mixed agenda, they are not being clear about what their true motives and goals are, and until they are, I believe that my ability to make a truly informed decision about the matter is hampered.  That being the case, I prefer to err on the side of caution, and say "no" to the notion of actively participating in the toppling of foreign governments and all the sundry badness that goes along with it.

Also, I don't recall anyone saying that Saddam Hussein should be given anything in exchange for disarming.  The ultimatum from the U.N. is pretty one-sided, "disarm or else".

Quote
2) remember too the lesson of the Ur-Quan.  What matters is not wether Evil triumphs in the end.  What matters is that you stood up to Evil, said "I will not bow" and fought for your freedom and life.

Nice sentiment, but wouldn't it be better used when your life and freedom are actually at stake?  I don't recall hearing about any threat of invasion from Iraq.  Painting it as a struggle of "good vs. evil" is as naive as claiming that "it's all about oil".  The fact is, we don't know what's really at stake, nor what we stand to gain, because nobody in any position of power will actually tell us.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Lukipela on February 27, 2003, 06:44:00 pm
WARNING: Very long post ahead, do not read unless you are prepared to put down some time :)

Well, I'll take the easy bit first, the SC2 comparison. I do think people would join up behind an alliance if they were told that the alternative was enslavement. Most nations wouldn't want to give up theri independence ture, but they'd all be forced to back the UN on this issue, lest they get overthrown by scared and angry mobs in their own countries. And once a foundation like StarControl is founded, and given the right to appropriate resources "for the good of humanity", it would be very hard for any nation to withdraw their support for the project. Perhaps some would stay outside for a while, but not for long I think. at the very latest, after the first few battles involving "earthlings", everyone would join the ranks. Even though SC2 says the humans are united, it doesn't specify which way. I thibk it's very possible that the nations remain in cooperation with the UN, and that the only thing we are unanimous about is really the fact that we wsih to have the opportunity to expand into space, whcih we can't if we are enslaved. Also, xenophobic as most of us are, a threat from outer space would have a better uniting effect than any human adversary could produce.

Now then, to your real question. I assume you wanted mine and GM's opinions because we are european? Or is it just because you consider us intelligent? ;)  Before I go any further, I would like to state that this is the way I feel and think, is how I percieve reality, and that I can't speak for anyone else. Europe is a large place, with many different opinions, ranging all over the scale, just like america. We're not any more united here than you are over there (in fact, porbably much less).

Now then.....

I don't believe that everyone is good at heart. II don't trhink very many really do that. And I don't support the Iraq goverment in any way, it is a corrupt and tyrannical regime, and one the world could do without. I am however, not what you would call pro-war. I realise that as a last resort, a war may unfortunately become a necessity, but I do not believe that we are close to that point as of now. War is hell, someone once said. Now, why do I believe this? Let me elaborate:

1. The threat argument. There are no evidence to show that Saddam is a threat. Sure, he has weapons, just like  lot of other nations, and some of them are potentially dangerous. However, we cannot invade a sovereign state because we suspect something. If we do that, where do we draw the line? Can we invade Pakistan beacuase they have nuclear weapons? Can we invade Britain, because they are as of now a threat to EU unity? Of course not. Saddam is clearly unreliable, and weapons inspections need to continue to make sure he is kept in check, but unless he commits an agressive move, the rules don't allow us to interfere. This rules may seem silly, but hey are the ones civilized countries have agreed upon, and if we break these rules, we are no better than the enemy. We will have become what we opposed.

2. The morality argument. This one actually carries some weight that most bleeding hearts don't really think about. invading Iraq will mean a lot of casualties, including civilians, the number depending on the way the war turns. However, people are suffering every day in Iraq as it is now. Can we really claim to be moral if we have the ability to stop this suffering, and choose not to act? Great power brings great responsibilities. However, if we oust this one dictator by force to free his people, we need to take a good long look at ourselves. Because if we do this, we cannot stop there. The North Korean are starving, and they are researching nuclear weapons. Musharraf has nuclear weapons, and he is not in the least bit democratic. Mugabe starves the opposition in his country, and has created a famine in a country that was once one of Africas most fertile. The list of dictators who treat their people wrong, and who are either sponsored by the west, or ignored by them is quite long. We cannot simply oust one. By doing this, we commit ourselves to decades of war before we are done. And that battle we may not win.

3. The area argument. The area in which Iraq resides is, to put it mildly, unstable. It is filled with religious organizations of one kind or another who all dislike what they percieve as US agression against them. If Iraq is invaded, noone can predict what will happen to the rest of the region. At the very least, it is safe to say that the amount of hatred would increase. the moderate forces in Iran would probably be pushed back 20 years. Saudi-Arabia's rulers would lose more ground to the religios leaders. Hamas camps would fill up. Syria would probably go insane. Andin the middle of this, the Israelis would sooner or later find themselves with a new war on their hands, fueling the cycle of death and destruction over there even more.

4. The mistrust argument. A lot of countries who would normally stand a lot closer to the US in this issue have come to mistrust their ally after the new administration came along over there. the Kyoto agreememnt, the International Criminal Court, the agreement against missile"shields", all of these are issues, where most people over here feel that the US has let them down. There is an impression of that when the US wants the international community, it should stand ready to help, but that when the opposite happens, we'll americans are the only ones that count. Because of this, a lot of people don't really take what the US says at face value any more. They look for hidden agendas, like the Oil thing, or the Bush's dad thing or anything else that to them seems slightly suspicious, and they wonder, are we being told everything?

On a side issue of this, this is why we cannot invade without UN backing. UN could give this operation a legitimate reason, an OK from the world, that would calm a lot of hot feelings. attacking in without it will only further enhance the feeling that the US does whatever it damn well pleases whenever it damn well pleases.

Alright, this is pretty much it for now. there's more to come I think, but I want to hear any reactions to this, while I think of the phrasing for the rest. Hope it goes a way to explaining for you ErekLich. I at least understand your "SCUM!" comment now....


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Lukipela on February 27, 2003, 07:15:30 pm
Oh, and a LOTR ring quote to go with that, concerning Gollum.

Frodo: "But he deserves to die!"

Gandalf: "Many live in this world who deserve to die. Others, who clearly deserve to live, die. Can you give them their life back? If not, do not be so quick in dealing out death sentences"

This also applies to Death Row, but I think it is a very good point. In these matters, one cannot be hasty.

and full points to Nic for the notation about good and evil. In our world, beyond doubt there is evil. We see it every day. But is there good? We see that much more infrequently, true good I mean. This conflict is more of "us against them", whcih is a lot easier to relate to.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: ErekLich on February 27, 2003, 07:42:14 pm
MY SCUM comment?  I don't recall being the one who said that...

That said, I think your case is the best I've heard yet from the anti-war camp.  (Most of the ppl I've heard refuse to accept  ANY war or think its all about oil)

Let me perhaps clarify my rant a little bit then.

I do NOT think that it must come to war right now.  I mainly am ranting about the people who do not recognize humans can be evil.

And Nic:  There's one crucial difference between a proposed regime change and pre-emptive strikes a la Rome, and that is that the US doesn't usually take over the places it attacks, it just tries to bring about a different government that is not hostile to us.

I don't feel that saying that is naive as there is a historical precedent for it.

Saddam Hussein is a danger to freedom, albiet not a directly threatening one.  So is Kim Jong Il (sp?) and any other dictator who abuses his/her people.  While I do not necesarily support an agressive war, I just wish people would eralize that such threats are out there.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Lukipela on February 27, 2003, 08:13:41 pm
My bad, it was Azarule. I suppose the comments just bee nbugging me, and I kinda thought it had with this to do, so i subconciously added it to your name. again, my apologisies. i should have checked before I wrote.

As I said, war is always an option, it's just a very bad one, if not the worst. But if it Hussein invades again, or it can be proven that he is about to launch an attack on say Israel, then there aren't many altenatives, are there? But to invade, the proof has to be very good.

As for the Oil... Of course there might be something to it, but I seroiusly doubt that it is the whole issue. Plenty of oil in less troublesome spots

As for the pre-emptive strike... Well, the Us aren't planning to occupy for any longer period of time, no, but... Around here we still remember the puppet regimes of the east. There's not much difference between occupying territory, and having someone in the position to occupy it. Of course, we won't know anything about that unti lwe actually see what kind of ppl are installed.

What makes you think ppl don't realize? Give ppl some credit. A lot of them care, and think about this, even though the fanatics always hog most of the attention for themselves.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Death 999 on February 27, 2003, 09:24:40 pm
It's funny how, according to the median voter theorem the middle rules in a democracy, but due to the media, we only hear about the extremes. This polarizes the parties more, and makes the median have to make a distasteful choice - it's much like this.
On the one hand, we have "PEACE AT ALL COSTS" doves and those in denial about Saddam, and on the other we have the equally self-destructive Hawks and those in denial about the instability. The ability of the world to get both sides to realize that they really are extreme viewpoints and then take the moderate road --- well, if we can do that my hope for humankind is high.
Now, if we can just survive to January 2005, so our president won't be sticking his foot in his mouth - and, metonymically*, the collective mouth of the country.

* metonymy: using the reference of one thing to refer to one of its constituents; or the reverse. For example, "I'll be calling Washington." Well, you'll really be calling someone IN washington.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Lukipela on February 27, 2003, 09:39:50 pm
Not really. Media nowadays is mostly far away from the ideal of a news reporting, objective, sensible and responsible institution. Nowadays it's a commercialized as anything else, and those kinds of stories sell more numbers than a large article about how most ppl think we should all be sensible. And of course, some medias are simply voicehorns of either authority or counterauthority, and report blindly what they are told to. Very few independednt medias exist anymore.

Also, even though the sensible people outweigh the fanatics of both camps in numbers, we simply do not have the passion to compete with them, and thus they rule us. I think Israel is a good example of that. (I've been there once, and still keep in touch with a few people, both jews and arabs, not maybe much to base anything on, but I respect their opinions.) I mean, most people in Israel, be they jews or arabs don't really want to live in a country filled with hatred and death. The majority  just wants to get on with life, wants to be left alone. Look at how close they were to peace a few years back. That was the people speaking. However, the Extremists on one side blow the enemy up. The Extremists on the other side "settle" territories, and and the extrmists in the goverment run over houses with tanks. In response, the other extremists blow up more cafe's. Although the majority just wants to live, preferably in peace. Two minorities of extremists turn everday life into a hazard...


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on February 28, 2003, 08:11:05 am
Okay. You've done it. I actually printed out the whole thread to be able to state my opinion as a human, a mostly rational, historically well educated and aware, open-minded, well-informed & peace-loving German.
My answers, comments and such will be made according to the order in which the posts are arranged here.

Evidence? The U.S. should have all the evidence they need to show in the U.N.! Why? Because there should be freight papers signed by the CIA, the Secretary of State and the President for all the weaponry the U.S. gave very willingsly to Saddam's Iraq (the good guy) in the 80s when it was fighting Iran (the bad guy Ayatolla). Anthrax? Of course he has that - the U.S. gave it to him to use it on the Iranians. Chemical weapons? The western world build his factories! Biological weapons? Same story!
I remember a quote from some U.S. official: "Of course Saddam is a bastard - but he is our bastard!"

I have talked to people who have been to war. Do so as well. They will tell you what war is all about. It cannot be justified - war is hell on earth. Once the talking stops and the shooting begins, normal rules do not apply anymore, nor will ever apply again to those who participated.

I do not consider myself blind. I can see clearly, clearer than I'd like to nowadays. The human race is sinister, dark, evil, aggressive and successful because of it. We build clans, groups and so on. We know better today, we can voice our opinion - but yet do not act accordingly.

1) I do remember my history (or my people's history that is). Therefore I must oppose a war. Appeasement might not work with dictators always, true. But it can.
2) The Ur-Quan did not learn their lesson at all. Instead of treating their enslavement as a historic fact that they have overcome, they become evil oppressors and genocidal themselves. What they do makes them no less worse than their suppressors millenia ago.

As for the 2nd post (SN)
Might be off topic - but in other threads we have stated that SCII-UQM is a great portrayal and mirror-image of our world - and after all, it is important.

As for the 5th post (EL)
Here I am - open to discuss anything happening in the world: anywhere, anytime, anything. Let's just be fair and not insulting (and I won't use the terms "ignorant and arrogant" when talking about the U.S.-Americans). After all, we are here because we have a lot in common, at least our love for SCII-UQM.

As for the 7th post (N)
Historians agree that the German pre-emptive strike on Poland in 1939 was a make-up. They are still arguing about the 2nd pre-emptive strike against the USSR in 1941, though.
2nd/3rd paragraph - complete agreement.

Ah! 8th post (LP)
1st paragraph: Yes.
2nd paragraph: Yes, that is so true.
3rd paragraph: War is NOT a means of politics - it's the sign of it's failure - the U.S. seem to think differently.

1.Threat: Of course the inspections only work if Uncle Sam is ready for the "or else" - but war is not a logic follow-up.
2.The U.S. have NO right whatsoever to play the world's moral apostle. Look at history: From the start. Indians, slavery, war here, war there. All in favor of their OWN interest. Nobody else's.
Liked that Spiderman quote, LP, would like to interpret it a little differently, though. Or add to it: Why didn't the U.S. and the U.N. inforce anything except for the embargo after the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1997? Then would have been the time to act! The civilians suffer more each day/week/year- true. But a war will cause more bad blood, dead, crippled and wounded among them - I am not convinced they will appreciate that.
3.Area: The cradle of humanity between the Euphrat and Tigris rivers IS a powder keg - and there are way too many people playing with fire! Look at the map and you'll see that straight borders do not care for ethnicity. Who drew them? Ask Great Britain. Another question I almost do not dare to ask: Why don't the U.S. and the U.N. enforce their resolutions they gave another country in that region years ago? That would have solved a lot of tension in that region!
4-Mistrust: I am still waiting for an election to come along in a democratic so-called 3rd world country and the U.S. want U.N. election's supervisors there. They would have needed them themselves. Governor Bush of Florida helps brother President Bush into office under VERY strange circumstances? If that doesn't smell fishy...
I do not trust Dubbuyah. Can't, won't, mustn't.
Germany and it's people are very thankful indeed for what our friends and allies the U.S. did for us after WWII - but one must NOT forget why they did it. They needed us. As a buffer between East/West, NATO/Warsaw Pact, as a nuclear battleground for WWIII. They didn't give us a present here - we paid for it, too!
If the world's nations can help the U.S. they're welcome - if it doesn't support them or even dares to voice an own opinion, they're out!
Let's not forget that the U.S. only paid their U.N. fees AFTER they realized they needed them after 9/11. And now they're threatening the U.N. again to make it meaningless, same with NATO. That is just not the way how it works and how to treat other people(s).

I'll continue this in another post to keep it readable.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: JonoPorter on February 28, 2003, 08:59:16 am
Quote
The threat argument. There are no evidence to show that Saddam is a threat.

he has funded terrorists.
Quote
. The area argument. The area in which Iraq resides is, to put it mildly, unstable. It is filled with religious organizations of one kind or another who all dislike what they percieve as US agression against them. If Iraq is invaded, noone can predict what will happen to the rest of the region. At the very least, it is safe to say that the amount of hatred would increase. the moderate forces in Iran would probably be pushed back 20 years. Saudi-Arabia's rulers would lose more ground to the religios leaders. Hamas camps would fill up. Syria would probably go insane. Andin the middle of this, the Israelis would sooner or later find themselves with a new war on their hands, fueling the cycle of death and destruction over there even more.

I disagree. some of the news papers there are calling for saddams removal.
Quote
2.The U.S. have NO right whatsoever to play the world's moral apostle. Look at history: From the start. Indians, slavery, war here, war there. All in favor of their OWN interest. Nobody else's.

the same thing can be said about any other country.
Quote
Why didn't the U.S. and the U.N. inforce anything except for the embargo after the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1997?

clinton was in office

I am glad to see that poeple acualy realise that the hearts of men are wicked. some poeple out there beleive that there is no good or evil, that it is all realative.
I live in the US and know that there is more than one reason to remove saddam. but let me give you some counters.

the oil issue: yes it is true that saddam controls a large supply of oil, but if that was the only reason for the invasion then it would not happen. alaska has very large oil fields and if the laws were repealed then we could get all the oil we need and let iraq have theirs. bush with the new senate could repeal them.

the terrorist issue: REMEMBER IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN WERE THE ONLY CONTRIES THAT DID NOT SEND THEIR REGRETS AND WORDS OF SUPPORT AFTER 9/11. bush has proof he is linked with the terrorists.

he is also a embarresment to the US.

I dont see a better way then war to remove him, that would acualy work.

BTW the weapon inspectors dont even think the guy is coaperating.



Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on February 28, 2003, 09:52:01 am
As for the 10th post (EL)
The proposed regime change in Iraq à la Americaine is definitely NOT what the region needs.
Let me explain, but first this: If you haven't watched Michael Moore's documentary "Bowling for Columbine" yet - please do so. It will explain a lot of things and give you background knowledge you might not have been aware of.
The U.S. have enforced regime changes all over the world in the name of "freedom & democracy". Strangly enough, most regimes were not changed into a democracy but into dictatorship! Need examples? Let's start with the beginning of the 20th century:
1917: U.S. enter WWI as allies to the French & British to prevent defeat and therefore losing all the money and not-yet-payed weapons they gave to the British.
1918: Germany/Austria-Hungary loses eventually. German revolution, the German Empire becomes the German Weimar Republic.
1919: The U.S. were not involved in that process - their support of the Versaille treaty increased tensions in Europe rather than solving any.
1933: After being becoming democratically elected chancellor of the German Republic, Adolph Hitler seizes power.
1936-1938: Germany's Legion Condor helps Spain's fascists to power, Franco stays neutral later on - the U.S. do not really support the Republicans who want a democracy, or did they?
1938: Appeasement in Europe fails - but it was not backed up by any "or else". The "or else" was on the Germans side - they were willing to use force to incorporate parts of Poland (Danzig) & Tchechoslovakia.
1939: The results are well known and the 3rd Reich starts a "pre-emptive" war against Poland. The war against France is welcome to settle old resentments, the war against Great Britain happens because they were allied with Poland.
The U.S. stay neutral and their military is far from being prepared or superior.
1941: 2nd "pre-emptive" attack by the Germans on their allies, the USSR (another dictatorship).
1942: The attack on Pearl Harbor - historians argue whether the U.S. did know about it coming. Since the Empire of Japan is allied with the 3rd Reich, Germany declares war on the U.S. as well.
Before that, the neutral U.S. were supporting the British in their own interest, to keep Europe small (and not united under German rule).
1944: D-Day, invading the invaders. Justified? Yes.
1945: War against civilians at its peak. The Germans bombed Britain, the British and U.S. bomb German cities (best example is Dresden). Civilian casulties are not "collateral damage" but "primary target". To save U.S. lives (not at home but on the front) they bomb the world into the atomic age.
Shortly after the war, the alliance between the East and West falls apart.
1949: The Federal Republic of Germany (West) is founded as a true democracy, the German Democratic Rebublic (East) is not a real democracy.
1950: Korea. The "Red Flood" must be stopped, the U.S. are paranoid about communism. The western countries fight along the South against the North backed up by China.
1953: Korea is divided into the Communist North (East Germany?) and the Democratic South (West Germany?).
1954: Vietnam. French controlled Indochina falls apart into Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Dien Bien Phu and the French pull out.
1959: The U.S. take over with military advisors to counter the threat of more communist countries developing.
1961-1964: U.S. support grows stronger.
1963: Who killed J.F.K. and why are those documents sealed, huh? Shouldn't a citizen of the democratic U.S. be able to take a look? Smells fishy again, here...
1964: Look up U.S.S. Maddox - the Tonkin incident. The ship is supposedly attacked, resulting in massive retaliation. Later on, the captain admits that there was no such attack - oops!
In the 60s, the militaristic government in South Vietnam changes fairly often, one of their presidents is even assassinated, backed up by the U.S.
1965-1972: The Vietname "Conflict" takes place - a full scale war never officially declared, causing 2 million dead on Vietnamese side, 57 thousand on U.S.
1973: U.S. withdraws all combat personnal from Vietnam after cease fire.
1975: The U.S. abandon their embassy and thousands of their allied South Vietnamese.
1979: The Shah of Persia is overthrown by islamic fundamentalists, the Islamic Republic of Iran is founded by Ayatollah Khomeini. Saddam Hussein seizes power in Iraq. The USSR invades Afghanistan.
1980: Saddam attacks Iran, the U.S. & the west support him with weapons "to be used only" against the Iranians - yeah right! Tell the bullet whom to kill...
They also support the Mujahidin ("Warriors of God") in Afghanistan against the communists (Stingers etc.). The U.S. also trains Osama Bin Laden, who receives $ 3 billion in funding and a thorough CIA training.
1988: Cease fire Iran-Iraq conflict, Saddam is still an ally against the fundamentalists.
1989: The USSR pull out of Afghanistan; the U.S. invade Panama to get rid of the CIA trained President Noriega; the Iron Curtain comes down.
1990: Iraq invades the non-democratic Kuwait
1991: The U.N. backs up an allied liberation of Kuwait, mainly by U.S. forces to "free the Kuwaiti people and give them democracy" - their feudal leader is reinstated. In Somalia, the U.S. make their own policies which differ from the U.N. goals to stop the civil war there.
1990s: The U.S. step into the conflict in the Balcan states. Today, the most important U.N. peace-keeping forces are from Europe.
20/01/2001: Everything looked pretty reassuring till that day... But hey, maybe his Dad will help him out?
09/11/2001: -
post 9/11: U.S. and allied troops in Afghanistan, the Phillipines, and all other places those evil communists, oh wait, islamic fundamentalists are active.
2003: The only real communist country North Korea is sable-rattling and threatening to destablize Asia, and who really knows what will be happening in the Middle East in the next few weeks?

I know this is a very long list and most of you will know all of this already - but please consider one thing: how many of these conflicts were willingly supported by the U.S. to serve their own interest? If you asked me - way too many!


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on February 28, 2003, 10:28:02 am
As for the 11th post
LP, we don't know what the U.S. have in their war-games drawers in store for a post-Saddam Iraq...

As for the 12th post
D999, true, so true. Extremes, no matter in which direction, never really lead to much. The only thing I'm concerned about is how many doves can a hawk slay before he chokes?
Oh, and one more thought: Why isn't the U.S. glad that Germany has finally learned it's lesson that waging war is NOT an answer to anything, especially not solving problems and conflicts?
No "hey, great, you guys finally got it right!" - Nope, it's more like: "the world is black & white", "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" and "we have the power and means, so we can bully you around". Might makes right? Hello?
Makes me wonder whether the U.S. would really implement their new law concerning U.S. military personnal. If any American soldier was ever to be tried at the International Court of Justice in Den Haag, Netherlands, they are willing to free him by force! What the hell? Attacking allies, members of the NATO? More fishy smell around the corner!

As for the 13th (12a) post by LP
Where are the independant American newsletters and TV programs right now, investigating, watergating, revealing?
Oh, I forgot: Critizism is unpatriotic - well, too bad!

One more thing before I await your answers and comments. I am not anti-American, I am pro-peace & anti-war, and I just do not believe in the ability of the Bush administration to do the right thing - for the world, and not American interests that is. America first? This is Earth, for crying out loud!

To come back to SCII-UQM:
Right now, my perception of things goes like this:
The bully Ur-Quan are outfitting their battle thralls with weapons to fight wars for them against the Ur-Quan's enemies. Just like the U.S. gave weapons to their battle thrall Iraq. Now the battle thrall does what he wants, because their leader wants to or he just can 'cause their "masters" were never really in control...

Manufacure a gun, load it and sell it into irresponsible hands, and you will hear a bang sooner or later. If the shot hits you, whose fault is it?
Yours? The shooters? What about innocent by-standers?

This world sucks - honestly, and I'm just glad that in a game like SCII things are fairly easy! You cannot really compare things - even though it's tempting, but the game is - as complex as it is - way too simply knit to draw conclusions from it. Rather look at the world and ask yourself why the game is the way it is...

Love and Peace, y'all!


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on February 28, 2003, 10:55:02 am
First of all, the quoting didn't really work...

He has funded terrorists?
True, but the U.S. have funded HIM!

I disagree. some of the news papers there are calling for Saddams removal.
Well, I really doubt that a militaristic removal would make the region more stable, or U.S.-friendly or democratic...
I just don't see them sipping Coke while cleaning up their ruined cities - that didn't work in NAM, won't work there either. As for the news papers - which ones?

The same thing can be said about any other country.
Yeah, but we in Europe have had our fair share of conflicts and know exactly what war is all about. There is no justified war. Justified peace, yes. And we don't put it like we're doing everybody else a favor!

Clinton was in office.
Oh yea, the Oral Office... Doesn't really answer my question, does it?

I never mentioned the oil topic. It's not only about the oil... It's more about influence in the region.
Take a look at this link, maybe you can even laugh about it?
http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

Again, what proof?
Oh, we can't see it? Why? Because one or two or ten people sit in Iraq who mailed it to the U.S.?
We're talking 10s of thousands of casulties in the event of a war and all we get are a couple of phone calls and a cheesy slide show?
Sorry, doesn't convince me!

You sure about Saddam not sending a note to Bush after 9/11? What proof? Oh, and you really believe all those countries from the middle east really meant it? I doubt it, they were probably chuckling and saying "serves them right"...
the terrorist issue: REMEMBER IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN WERE THE ONLY CONTRIES THAT DID NOT SEND THEIR REGRETS AND WORDS OF SUPPORT AFTER 9/11. bush has proof he is linked with the terrorists.

he is also a embarresment to the US.
WHO is?

I dont see a better way then war to remove him, that would acualy work.
Remove Saddam? Or remove Bush by not re-electin him after the war back-fires and the first body-bags come home?

BTW the weapon inspectors dont even think the guy is coaperating.
The head-honcho Mr. Blix says he is not cooperating enough. They are cooperating, though.

Well, you hide let's say 20 tanks, a couple of trucks and a bunch of stuff in Nevada and send in 300 people to find those - I bet it'll take them longer than a couple of weeks to find anything! And isn't that what vast deserts (even in the States) are good for? Area54 and such...  ;)


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: JonoPorter on February 28, 2003, 01:09:02 pm
well it is quete obvious that arguing with you would be waste of time and only raise tempers so this will be my last post on this subject. but i still think saddam is too dangerous to leave in power.



Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Lukipela on February 28, 2003, 03:17:22 pm
Arguing always raises tempers, that's in the definition of the word. However, that doesn't mean that it is a waste of time in any way, new points will always apperar, new thoughts will be hatched, new inspirations found. But if you don't want to argue any more Bioslayer, no worries. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Well, after mine and GM's input on this I suppose that the antiwar side is very well represented here. Anyone else want to take up the pro flag?

GM, I seem to recall another quote "War is merely the extension of politics". Of course, this idea died with WWI, but it might go along way to explaining why ppl still think war is acceptable. Also, regarding your comment to having been in war, here's an interesting thought. War resistance is very large in europe. Could it be that it is because we rememebr it so vividly? It's only fifty years since death swept over us last time. On the other hand, while the US has fought in a great deal of different conflicts, they haven't fought on their own ground since the war of independence. I'm sure there are plenty of war veterans in the US who could tell ppl how horrible it is, but most of the population has no experience with that sort of thing, they've only seen it in the movies. And it is QUITE different from that. But, I still disagree with yuo on that I do think that there may be a point where it has to come to war. It's just very far off, hopefully at least. At the very least a stick like that is necessary for compliance.

Bioslayer: Regarding the terrosrist funding. Yes, but is he the only one who has done this? If that is the only threat assesment you need, then I oculd probably give you a couple more states that need to be taken out at the same time. And if we look at it from the adversarys side, then all those CIA agents that've been running around training guerillas to owerthrow regimes probably constitute terrorists as well (See GM's excellent list).

And a few newspapers calling for someones owerthrowal aren't exactly a perfect measurment of the peoples will. Especially since these would probably state controlled newspapers in countries of the region that are still allied to the US. You don't honestly think that if Iraq is ivaded, all the fundamentalists will just ignore it do you?

Oh and I truly hope I've misunderstood the point about emabrassment. You cannot seriously mean that that means you get to invade? You would invade a country because it's leader embrasses you??

And as GM already stated, the weapons inspections are going slowly. Not the same as not working.

IN GENERAL: About the morality issue once more, as I said, it's a tricky one. Technically, none of us have high ground in this conflict, so none of us can judge. But can any of us morally refrain from making some decsion on this matter? wouldn't that be even worse? I think that the US initiative in this is a least a bit of a step towards the right direction. Tehre are a lot fo tyrannies in the world, and people suffering. And I think it's immoral for us just to sit around doing noting about it. However, war, as GM said, is not the way to do it. It'll cause the poor bastaads a lot more trouble.

And while a lot of blaming fingers can be pointed at the US exporting weapons t some of these countries, lets not forget an imoportant fact. They did that to fight communism. Along with the rst of us, they were afraid of Soviet, of what would happen if they won ground. Living on their border, this is something I can sympathize with very easily. Sometimes mistakes are made when one isn't thinking straight. But as i like to think of it "The past is the best place for history". And while we shouldcertainly learn from it, we should not stare us blind at it, and get caught in the assign blame cycle. We should take care of the issue at hand.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Fsi-Dib on February 28, 2003, 03:39:43 pm
I might put my own seeing of things, since this argument seems to be a lot more ... civilized than elsewhere.

As a finn I hear more speech about Bush and his random ideas of invading some country, and the obvious reason I hear is the oil, and it does make some sense. Of course I'm no person to make these decisions, my age prevents me from affecting the happening of the world. Saddam is evil, which I directly link to being stupid (stupid = evil). I hope that clears things out.

But then again, as a member of a technological society, I hear all the time about different conflicts all over the world. This concern about Iraq really doesn't interest me. Finland is not a member of NATO, and seems like it never will be (15% of people want to join NATO). People suffer, people die, but you cannot make it al perfect.

I'm not sure if you already mentioned religion. Some might see the invasion of Iraq as an attack to their religion, which I still doubt, but stupid people still exist.

And back to the Star Control world. I remember reading about human history on the Pages of Now & Forever, where they tell humans to think, that they are advanced beings, but in fact are primitive with their numeral different cultures, religions, societies and governments. I think that'll figure it out.  ;)


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Mormont on February 28, 2003, 05:07:17 pm
Okay, I'm an American. I'm not sure about the war. I do think that there may be sufficient evidence to attack Iraq, but I still feel that Iraq is not enough of a threat to justify war. Just because we can rationalize something and get away with it, doesn't mean we should do it. Saddam is evil, but I believe that the results of attacking would be a lot more disastrous than not attacking.

I also think that government in general is bad. Power generally corrupts because no matter what bull you hear, about mankind bein people are NOT basically good. Unfortunately, anarchy is even worse for the same . I agree with what Churchill (I think it was Churchill) said: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others." I don't like Bush, but I liked Clinton and Gore even less.

Oh, and GermanNightmare, you act like America is the only country that has ever done anything wrong. Most European countries have gone through a stage where they were the main world power and were quite selfish and abusive of that. I am not saying that makes it right because it doesn't. But you're right that the world does suck. I can't even remember when I last saw something positive on the news!


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: ErekLich on February 28, 2003, 05:20:59 pm
German Nightmare:  I have one question for you.

Do you think that Saddam is, in the present, dangerous, to his people and/or to the outside world?

If the answer is yes, it baffles me how you can say war cannot be a resort, not even the last resort.  War may be hell, but so is life under a dictator like Saddam.

As I have said repeatedly, I am not strictly pro-war, but I would like to see Saddam out of power if at all possible.

Oh, and on the Clinton thing:  That actually does answer your question, albiet indirectly.  Clinton had crap foreign policy (typical of a democrat) and took credit for a good economy that wasn't his doing (also typical for a democrat), calling it good domestic policy.  Clinton was worse than most democrats about foreign policy.  Heck, he tried to win a war with just missiles, which can't work.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on February 28, 2003, 06:14:06 pm
Sorry to hear, Bioslayer, that you consider arguing a waste of time. Without stepping on your feet, way too many people feel that way - and resort to action. A parallel? Maybe. An insult or meant to cause harsh feelings? Not intended!

LP, good points there. One might argue that you have to start somewhere to better the world, why not start with Iraq? Okay, so who's next? Is it ever going to end? I seriously doubt it. Just heard that Bush said "If it (occupation) worked for *evil* countries like Japan or Germany, it might well work in Iraq". It won't. Arabic people are way less forgiving than Europeans (who just won't forget) and the religious conflict arising is way to unpredictable to just "take plan A or B" and we'll manage just fine.

As for EL, I don't consider Saddam a threat to other countries right now (today) since the U.N. inspections are underway and the U.S. built a threat scenario (the "or else").
As for all those people suffering under Saddams reign - I bet that they prefer LIVING under him than being KILLED by U.S. bombs while persuing POLITICAL, ECONOMIC & even RELIGIOUS goals. Life might be hell under dictatorship, but it is life afterall. What good is freedom if you're dead?
You can't honestly tell me that the U.S. want to invade Iraq mainly to free its people from Saddams reign and replace it with their own - then we're looking forward to a century of warfare since there are so many suppressed people all over the world.
And I am convinced that it is possible to remove Saddam from office without a war - maybe not without the threat of war, but what really bothers me is that the average John Q. Public will have to suffer even more when it comes to war. And most those young G.I.s think that war is an adventure and they're fighting for their freedom! Wrong, they are already free and not defending their country but invading a souvereign state.
I recently heard a quote "when the talking stops, the shooting will begin". Of course, you can't take everything said at face value, and yet I resent war.
As LP stated earlier - the average American does not know what war is all about since they haven't had a prolonged military conflict in their country on their own soil for more than 130 years. That makes it easy to raise the public's opinion pro-war.

As for you, JWJ, I know that a lot of people feel that way. That's why it is important not to rush into anything just because it might be patriotic or supposedly the right thing at the moment. Nobody knows what will happen after the first bombs are dropped - but I fear it won't make things better.
And I am definitely not trying to act as if the U.S. are the only one who have made mistakes. The point I'm trying to bring across: Learn from "the old Europe" - we've commited more mistakes than you can count. That is why we want to warn you before commiting a really big mistake that could easily lead to WWIII.
I'm watching a whole spectrum of news-shows from all over the world and all I see right now is warmongery and fear.

Personnal question: Have you seen "Bowling for Columbine"?


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: ErekLich on February 28, 2003, 07:06:02 pm
GN: No, I have not seen BFC.

Here's another question:  If people truly prefer living under tyrrany to fighting and dying for freedom then what the hell was my country founded for?  I cannot honestly tell you that the main goal of invasion would be to free the Iraqi people -- but it is A goal.

Also, I would contend that the GIs think they are fighting for the freedom of Iraq, not for their own freedom.

I do not think we should go to war with every petty dictator in the world.  But YES, it's high time the UN, America, The EU, and every country in the world stopped playing ball with dictators and worked to ensure freedom throughout the known world.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on February 28, 2003, 09:31:06 pm
Well, first of all: watch the movie - it is really good made by Michael Moore, an American documentary filmer. Might sound boring, but definitely is not.

As for the freedom issue: I myself would want to fight for my own freedom - if I knew what that is. If people grow up in a dictatorship the system works so much against them, they don't know any different. That's at least what happened to those born 1925 and later in Germany. Your whole perspective is totally screwed.

As for the GIs - a lot of those new recruits joined after 9/11 to defend their country, the U.S., and now they're playing in the biggest sandbox far away from home... guess they didn't see that one coming.

The U.S. were indeed founded as a place to be free - but their idea of freedom seems to differ from the concept of freedom someplaces else on this little planet.

Good talking to you, though, and hopefully we can make this world a little better each day, together.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Elbonius on March 01, 2003, 03:03:39 am
Just a couple of thoughts that havnt been expressed yet:

I have come to believe that it is not only a right, but a duty of opressed people to overthrow their tyrants.  If you dont want it bad enough to do it yourself, why should anyone else help you?  The US gov makes a habit of saying its against dictatorships and tyrants, but only takes them out when it suits our interests.

I was particularly disgusted with the US conservatives harping about national soverignty late last year.  We (refering to the US government, not necissarily it's people)  seem to think that said concept applies only to us, and not the smaller countries that we think nothing of invading on a whim.

Also, invading a soverign nation and destroying its government then leaving the populace to rot in the ruins simply because someone we consider a fugitive is hiding there is absolutely unconsionable and more "evil" than the murder of 2700 blue bloods in Manhattan.

I would like to say that I love my country for the ideals its founded upon.  It just dosnt live up to them very often.  Im proud to be an American.  Just not right now.



Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Lukipela on March 01, 2003, 05:57:54 pm
Well, this is certainly getting very intersting, and I must say I'm very impressed with everyone keeping civil so far, unfortunately these things tend to degenerate quite quickly into hippe-hawk arguments. Maybe there is some hope after all....

Well, to start

Fsi-Dib: Stupid is not necessarily evil. That is an oversimplification, and one that may well end us in a lot of trouble if we keep beleiving it. Bullys are stupid and a bit evil, but some people who are evil can be VERY smart. Never underestimate your enemy. Oh, and I am a finn as well. to say that "the present situation doesn't really interst me, because I hear about conflicts all the time anyway, and it's far away". Remember a little while back, when people turned their back at us because our country didn't interest them very much, while our granparents died in the snow? Wouldn't it have been nice if someone had cared, instead of just going about their business saying "yeah well". just because it doesn't affect you directly doesn't mean you can just ignore it.

JWJ: As to your presidents, you may have liked Clinton a lot less, but he was better at dealing with other countries. Your current leader sets everyone's teeth on edge. Also, I agree with GM about us having made more mistakes. Learn form the past, I believe EL said. DOn't make the same mistakes as us. the price is way too high.

EL: you can't really compare the founding of your country to this. The people who emigrated to the US in search of political and religious freedom did just that. Emigrated. They took some risks, sure, but they had no war to fight. Also, they made the choice themselves. They didn't wake up one day to find that half of them had benn bombed to kingdom come, and that the rest of them were no free.You'r country was a refuge, but the risks of moving there were not really comparable to those of living in a warzone. I agree with GM on this topic, it is better to live. Don't believe the lord of the rings too much, very seldom are people really willing to die for their cause. And even when they are, they usually get to make the chocie themselves. But I agree completely that it is time we started taking our responsibilities seriously. We have suffered the dictators long enough. But we need to oust them without war. It is a last resort, a sign that we have failed. Don't kid yourself, noone will thank you for bringing war to their country.

GM: How the heck did I come up with shortening your name GM anyway? Sorry bout that but it's stuck now... Look at it as a pet name.

In general, the conversation seems to be tripping a little mroe into the "What is America" doing rather than "Should there be a war", which I suppose is only natural. However, we should all remember that even though it is easy to blame the US foreign policy (which, admittedly is flawed), the full guilt cannot be placed on them solely. Europe is just as responsible for the situation, and it is our responsibility to help mend what we have broken.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: chrischoo on March 01, 2003, 11:02:07 pm
Though I'm nowhere near the Middle East or Europe (I'm from Singapore), I find that the American presumption that war is a good way to get rid of a tyrant somewhat misinformed.

While I agree that Saddam is completely unreliable and has a thousand and one nasty ideas up in his mind, I think that a war would probably result in serious side-effects that were not intended to begin with.

Personally, I'd like to believe that Bush is really out there for the oil, but I can't bring myself to cos it's oil and a myriad of other factors, making this war equation very complicated. The main problem I see in this case is that anti-American sentiment is rising throughout the world, and if we do really need to take out Saddam, the last country we would like to invite to take him out would be the US.

I think the US has a reasonable track record when it comes to peacekeeping and related military and political operations, yet invading Iraq at this time would stir up a great deal of extremist Muslim sentiment. It'll likely lead to a rise in terrorism, which would be targetted at the US. It's not exactly the wisest things to do IMO.

Since the Middle East is such an unstable region it's anybody's guess what'll come out of a war - Which is why I think it's not a good idea for the US to think it can go in guns blazing and assume that just because they can get rid of Saddam that their problems won't be compounded in future.

Moral principles do differ greatly from country to country, and I personally find American democracy a bit too righteous for my liking. It's too idealistic and doesn't seem to solve real world problems. Democracy may be good, but applying American democracy to any nation doesn't necessarily result in getting the desired outcome. Not everybody is American.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Azarule on March 01, 2003, 11:38:19 pm
I found it interesting earlier that someone mentioned how governments that are installed from outside powers always turn into dictatorships.  The sad reality is that any regime change initiated by an outside force will beceome a dictatorial society.  Unless the people within a nation are the ones who initiate and control the changes, they will not throw the power of their force behind it, and the new government will have to resort to force/propaganda/etc to remain in place.  And since no government in history has been replaced without military conflict (and this is likely to remain the case), revolutionary wars are the only way to genuinly re-form a ruling body.

As far as the Iraqi war goes, I do believe that the conflict is inevitable.  One of the harder things to accept in life is that television and movies are lying - you can NOT save everyone every time.  And if I have a choice, I would rather save me and mine.

Psychologically, is helps an oppressive government to have a 'Great Enemy' that it can rally it's people against.  While many people believe that this is what our own (U.S.) government is attempting to accomplish with the conflict.  However, many of the middle eastern countries have been using the U.S. for this purpose for years.  The upswell of anti-american sentiment we have seen from these countries is merely the manifestation of several years worth of indoctrination.  



Final sidenote : We should remain vigilant in our own country so that we are not deprived of our civil liberties in a time of war (as happens in most cases of historical record).  Just looking at the text of the 'Patriot Act' you can see it's beginning.  Law enforcement agencies are no longer required to show just cause to obtain a wiretap, and you can be held without legal counsel if they believe it is appropriate.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Death 999 on March 02, 2003, 12:47:47 am
What you just said is largely true but not universal - consider the government of Japan. It was largely set up by the US (we wrote the constitution!) but we were also careful to make sure that the political control shifted onto the Japanese themselves. I do not know the time frame over which this occurred, but it has most distinctly done so.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on March 02, 2003, 01:05:04 am
But then again, those were Japanese - not Iraqis... People are different, think different, behave differently...

As for Azarules "Final Sidenote":

That is the scariest part about it. Amnesty International should do something about that. How can you be thrown in prison without counsel, reason or what not?
That happened in Germany during the 3rd Reich too, and it is creepy to see it happen in the U.S. now - and nobody speeks up against it!!!


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Lukipela on March 02, 2003, 01:50:06 am
Agreed. If you start fighting the terrorists with their own weapons, then you have already lost the war. you just haven't realized it yet.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on March 02, 2003, 02:30:11 am
Just to show you that I haven't lost my sense of humor yet:

President George W. Bush is on a propaganda tour through the U.S. and visits schools to explain his politics and to rally support for his actions.
He visits a 5th grade and the students may ask him questions.

Bob gets up from his desk:
"Mr. President, I have 3 questions for you:
1) How did you win the elections although you haven't received the majority of votes when they were counted?
2) Why do you want to attack Iraq without a real reason?
3) Don't you think that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was the biggest terrorist attack in history?"

Before the president can answer the bell rings and all the kids run out of the classroom.

After the break, the president again let's the children ask him questions about his politics.

This time it's Joey's turn:
"Mr. President, I have 5 questions for you:
1) How did you win the elections although you haven't received the majority of votes when they were counted?
2) Why do you want to attack Iraq without a real reason?
3) Don't you think that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was the biggest terrorist attack in history?"
4) Why did the bell ring 20 minutes early today?
5) Where's Bob?"


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Lukipela on March 02, 2003, 03:10:10 am
Well GM, I have to say, that while that was undoubtedly a very good joke, this is perhaps not quite the time nor place for it, it's stuff like that that usually spark off the shouting and stuff. So to even it out, I'll tell one about the french even though I'm profrenchish, to even it out and make everyone happy:

What do you call a frenchman approaching Bagdad?
A sales rep.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on March 02, 2003, 03:50:15 am
Oh, LP, I guess you're right!

So, here it goes:

I never intended to insult anyone. I just felt that a good joke could make everyone a little less tense.

I really hope that I didn't provide the spark for everyone to go mad now - we've been peaceful around here and that's the way it should stay  :D


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Lukipela on March 03, 2003, 08:50:16 pm
Well, looks like you killed the debate at any stage :). oh well, it was very interesting while it lasted...


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on March 03, 2003, 09:25:15 pm
Yeah, LP, now it's back to blaming the German for everything again!  ;D


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Omni-Sama on March 03, 2003, 11:08:31 pm
You've just nailed down the ultimate American Paradox.

The majority of the people in western countries think that the greatest threat to world peace lies in George Bush, not in Saddam Hussein or even Osama Bin Laden.

In a democracy, the people are always right... unless lil' Baby Bush doesn't think so, then they're wrong.  As one man told me not long ago, this is a war of two super powers: George Bush and the Public.  Unfortunately, we all know who'll win in the end...


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: collage boy on March 04, 2003, 02:12:20 am
Quote
3) Don't you think that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was the biggest terrorist attack in history?"


IT SAVED LIVES.
think about it japanese live and died with a code of loyalty and honor. when the US captures one of their islands they fought to last man and would commit sucide instead of surrendering. if the US was forced to use ground troops the amount of death would have been worse than anyone would have imagine. there would be no civialions would pick up the arms of fallen solders and continue the fight. even after the second bomb the generals did not want to surrender. it was the emporer who order the surender. for some reason allot of poeple dont want to remeber those facts.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: umgahbob on March 04, 2003, 03:00:54 am
Furthermore a terrorist attack is an unwarranted attack. That was an openly declared war. What most people don't like to pay attention to is the fact that more people were killed in the fire bombings on Tokyo than by fat man and little boy.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: ErekLich on March 04, 2003, 03:22:18 am
Also, Omni-Sama, one crucial fact:

The United States of America is NOT a Democracy.

We are a Republic.

In a democracy every decision is made by popular vote.  In a Republic, we elect people to office and tell them to make the decisions.  So anyone who is not pleased with Bush, well, the American people DID elect him. (and please, don't complain about the Electoral College here, that's how the system works and wether it should work that way is a whole 'nother topic.)


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on March 04, 2003, 05:16:07 am
Quote


IT SAVED LIVES.
think about it japanese live and died with a code of loyalty and honor. when the US captures one of their islands they fought to last man and would commit sucide instead of surrendering. if the US was forced to use ground troops the amount of death would have been worse than anyone would have imagine. there would be no civialions would pick up the arms of fallen solders and continue the fight. even after the second bomb the generals did not want to surrender. it was the emporer who order the surender. for some reason allot of poeple dont want to remeber those facts.


Again, this is the typical U.S. approach on that particular problem. The atom-bombs did not save lifes. They killed civilians. Not as collateral damage - on purpose. Not once, twice.
The argument of saving lives is very one-sided. It may have saved the lives of a lot of G.I.s. The Japanese would have argued "well, if you wan't these islands, there's a price for it to pay: after all, we don't want you here in the first place".
Being a soldier, you run the risk of getting killed in combat on a battle field. That's the risk involved in becoming a soldier. Being blasted away into the void with you whole city is on a much larger scale...
I just think that even though Japan and Germany attacked first, the means of Luftkrieg and the bomb raids against the civilians were beyond the point of righteousness - because they were aimed at the wrong people.

Oh umgahbob, using conventional weapons against civilians makes things better, huh?
Even in an openly declared war, there are always conventions (although usually noboday cares for them once the shooting starts). That more people were killed in the "normal" attacks on the city makes it less bad that so many were wiped out in the nuclear fire?
By the way, I still consider the attacks on the WTC as a terrorist act - but those guys have said openly before they did it that they wanted every American dead. Could be seen as a decleration of war?
[Doesn't state my personal opinion - just a thought!]

As for EL, that's true. Germany is a Federal Republic, and you're stuck with the guys you elected till the next election. (and I won't even start on ranting on the electorial system in the U.S.)


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: collage boy on March 04, 2003, 06:02:32 am
FACTS::
 Dead/Missing Hiroshima: 70,000-80,000 Nagasaki: 35,000-40,000 Tokyo Fire Raid:
83,000
The likely number of casualties the armed forces of the United States would suffer invading Japan was given as 200,000 to a million men

MY OPINION:
thats just the US casualties, not the Japanesse.
let the facts speak if you want to know where i got this
http://www.danshistory.com/ww2/atombomb.shtml


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on March 04, 2003, 06:22:58 am
Again, killing civilians to save soldier's lives (and I don't trust estimates, especially those concerning U.S. wars, at all) is a very sick equasion.

If you're a soldier, too bad, you are a number and cannon fodder. As a civilian, you're supposed to be able to stay out of the atrocities of war.

Sadly enough, the American public seems to forget that since they have never been victim of a full scale air-raid and bombing campaign. Or why was Dresden bombed in the final stage of WWII/Europe?

P.S.: The line you quoted was from a JOKE. Besides, I don't think anyone told the guys in Hiroshima or Nagasaki what was coming - the war was far away and they were only out for "homeland security".


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Draco on March 04, 2003, 07:21:12 am
I dont remember who said this but it is a very true statement

"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."

Think about it


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: ErekLich on March 04, 2003, 07:37:28 am
Quote
Again, killing civilians to save soldier's lives


No, they killed civilians to end the war.  If the war had continued without the use of the bomb, more people would have died.  Period.  The U.S. Forces would have had to fight virtually every Japanese male who could carry a gun before it was over.  Come to think of it, in no war since has the U.S. been very good about ending the war properly.  In Vietnam and Korea we kept slogging in, sending in troops whose "duty" it was to die, only to make no gains.

When Roosevelt bombed Japan he made a choice.  The world is not always black and white, and the choice he made was grey.  But he got what he decided to get -- the war ended right then and there.  (the pacific part anyway.)

GN, the atomic bomb DID, in the long run, prevent more deaths than it caused.  I will not say it "saved lives" but it did prevent deaths.  Japanese AND American deaths.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Draco on March 04, 2003, 08:40:14 am
Ya but do the ends truly justify the means? I highly doubt it, the use of the bomb was a terrible waste of civilian life. It could have backfired just as easily, other nations could have used the united states bombing to justify their own, would the US surrender if the war was brought to them and they found themselves overwhelmed? probably not. they would fight every last one of them. so why not nuke them? they proved themselves that it is the best way to force a country into submission.

The use of the A-Bomb was a very questionable thing to do, you may or may not agree with it, personaly i do not agree they should ever be used.

The Bombing seemed like a good idea saving thousands of american soldiers but... really it destroyed cities and forever radiated the land. people in and around Hiroshima are dying of many diseases.
here is a exerpt from http://www.tao.ca/~peter/praxis/warmachine/nagasaki-hiroshima.html

Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb attacks
The 1945 US-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been marked among the worst nuclear disasters in history. These two Japanese cities were the targets of two atomic bombs during the Second World War, the first atomic bombs ever to be used in warfare. A total of 110,000 to 150,000 people were killed immediately after bombing,125,000 to 175,000 have died since, and many are still dying from the effects.

Hiroshima was bombed first, on August 6 at 8:15 a.m., by US Air Force B-29 bomber Enola Gay. A single atomic bomb was dropped in the center of the city, immediately killing 70,000 to 80,000 people, injuring an estimated 70,000, and destroying half of the cityÕs structures. Within five years, an estimated 75,000 to 125,000 more had died, of cancer, radiation sickness, and other bomb-related causes. In the decades that followed, tens of thousands more died from serious illness, including thousands of children unborn at the time of the bombing. Before the bombing Hiroshima was a city of 350,000 people.

The bombing of Nagasaki occurred only three days later, on August 9. The bomb immediately killed 40,000 to 70,000 people, injured a similar number, and also destroyed half of the cityÕs structures. Within five years, up to 100,000 people died from illness and other bomb-related causes. And like Hiroshima, tens of thousands died in the decades that followed. Prior to the bombing, Nagasaki was a city of 230,000 people.

In both cities, people are still feeling the nuclear effects of the bombings. Survivors and their children are still dying of deformities, cancer, and other radiation illnesses.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on March 04, 2003, 05:23:04 pm
Quote
Ya but do the ends truly justify the means? I highly doubt it, the use of the bomb was a terrible waste of civilian life. It could have backfired just as easily, other nations could have used the united states bombing to justify their own, would the US surrender if the war was brought to them and they found themselves overwhelmed? probably not. they would fight every last one of them. so why not nuke them? they proved themselves that it is the best way to force a country into submission.

The use of the A-Bomb was a very questionable thing to do, you may or may not agree with it, personaly i do not agree they should ever be used.


I completely agree on that. And I like your saying from the top of the page!
Earthquakes do appear naturally though and there's nothing you can do to prevent them. Wars can be prevented. Once either one of them starts though, you're stuck in'em, sadly enough.

One of the best examples about the use of nukes comes from the guys who made them: the scientists. When the first one exploded in the desert, they were glad and proud it worked. When FatMan and LittleBoy were used, the scientists' attitude towards nuclear weapons changed 180°.

Although I have to admit that the explosion and rising mushroom cloud shows some sort of natural beauty (since the chain reaction is a natural occuring) - I'd rather not see them go off because I know of the consequences.

I'd like to think that the 10.000s of nukes were only built to never ever be used. Hopefully noone proves my wrong.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: ErekLich on March 04, 2003, 05:39:36 pm
Would you seriously rather have fought a drawn out, extended conflict that would have lasted years longer?  I think not.  I don't think you two remember your Pacific WWII history; the Japanese armies fought to the last man.  As late as the 70s a few rouge Japanese soldiers from WWII on some islands were still fighting, because they hadn't had many communications so they didn't believe the war was over.  Roosevelt had a choice:  A) kill virtually every Japanese male on the face of the earth at a large and bloody cost to both Japanese and American lives, wrecking Japanese cities all the while, or B) drop the bomb.  Oh, and regarding your "what if it didn't work" comments, it's called a calculated risk.  People take those in war.  You can say Roosevelt didn't make the "right" choice, but there was no "right" choice to be made.

Using nuclear weapons today is a different issue because more people have them.  This is not hypocrisy, this is practicality!  The risks have increased, and the rewards have not.  Thus, using them is not a valid option with any other choice.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on March 04, 2003, 06:46:25 pm
Well, I think we could agree on one thing: Dropping the bomb was a bad decision to prevent worse decisions from having to be made.

As for the prolonged war - I don't know for sure whether the U.S. would have used nuclear weapons to end the war in Europe if the Germans hadn't surrendered on May 8. There might have been a difference (this is NOT PC and NOT my opinion!) between a European and an Asian when considering the means by which the U.S. fought.

If you haven't noticed by now - I'm a German and therefore I don't consider the U.S. allies when it comes to historical facts concerning WWII, but the Japanese. Besides from one or two German U-Boats we weren't even involved in the Pacific...
The scenario was different though, since the European theater was a continental war and the U.S. didn't have to do landing operations each and every time they wanted to make progress.

As for your last comment - I can agree on that. Although it troubles me that Mr. Rumsfeld calls for the option of using each and every mean (no holds barred, including nukes) if the troops are attacked by weapons of mass destruction.
Not that I wouldn't feel bad for them, but isn't going to the gulf a "calculated risk" each soldier takes?

(You could also call a hammer a weapon of mass destruction if someone uses it to kill a whole bunch of people?)


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: ErekLich on March 04, 2003, 07:42:05 pm
Quote
Well, I think we could agree on one thing: Dropping the bomb was a bad decision to prevent worse decisions from having to be made.


Yes, I agree with you there.

Quote
As for the prolonged war - I don't know for sure whether the U.S. would have used nuclear weapons to end the war in Europe if the Germans hadn't surrendered on May 8. There might have been a difference (this is NOT PC and NOT my opinion!) between a European and an Asian when considering the means by which the U.S. fought.


If you mean WWII Americans regarded Europeans differently from Asians, I think that sadly enough you are correct.  No, it isn't PC, but it was the truth back then.  I don't know if we'd've used the bomb or not, but I am glad we never found out.

Quote
(You could also call a hammer a weapon of mass destruction if someone uses it to kill a whole bunch of people?)


Actually just what does constitute a "weapon of mass destruction" is highly debateable.  The National Foresnics League (High School Speech and Debate) had a debate topic last year about weapons of mass destruction, or "wmd" as we called them for short.

the U.S. government considers 3 things to be wmd: nukes, biological weapons, and chemical weapons.  Most people agree that those are wmd, although a few don't agree that bio or chem weapons are wmd.  Some people tried to say that land mines or guns are wmd collectively, although I personally disagree with looking at such things collectively.  (That said, land mines are evil and should be outlawed!)  I doubt anyone would consider a hammer wmd; the capacity fo an individual hammer to cause human death is nowhere near high enough.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on March 04, 2003, 08:53:10 pm
First of all I'd like to state that talking with you is always a pleasure since we can have a civilized discussion here.

I simply made my overexaggerated comparison of a hammer and WMD to put more emphasis on the point. By the name itself one would say: WMD, a weapon causing mass destruction. Tricky part is the mass and weapon. Chemicals or biological agents used against ABC-protected persons are as ineffective as a 1000 pound bomb is effective against a building stacked with people (just as an example).
Before 9/11, I never considered a civil airplane as a weapon. Yet we know that they can become one.

As for the landmines, I totally agree. Sadly enough, the U.S. and Germany are still among the many who not only build them but still do research and export.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Death 999 on March 04, 2003, 09:59:43 pm
I am confused by your comparison - a 1000 pound bomb can be highly effective - so are you saying that ABC protection is worthless?


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: GermanNightmare on March 04, 2003, 10:46:39 pm
That's not what I said!
I stated that chem/bio weapons of mass destruction are as INEFFECTIVE against protected people as conventional bombs are EFFECTIVE against unprotected.
A mustard gas bomb might not kill anyone. A normal bomb can kill hundreds. An airplane thousands...
It's all a matter of relation, I guess. That's why the term weapon of mass destruction is a little bit tricky.

(By the way, taping your windows with plastic wrapper and duct tape is only really good if you turn the AC off... If you do it right and the room really is airtight - which is what really protects you - you will sooner or later suffocate. So much for the "good advice" the citizens get from their gov'ment...)


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: gammaray on March 04, 2003, 11:03:35 pm
Another Finn here. Now that I've finally read all this, I thought I'd say something on the case myself. Perhaps I'll even register a nickname after I'm done.  :) (appreciate that smiley - you won't get many of those)

Firstly, let's get one thing clear: I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-Bush  :P. Elect a new president and if he can tell why a war is needed, he can have it, for all I care. I'd like to comment on the Bush/Gore election, but... Well, it's another matter - a very fishy - Orzy, if you prefer - matter.

---

The weapon inspections are slow. Does that mean we need a war to speed things up?  :-X
I'm sure Iraq will cough up its nukes, bio-weapons and what not when it has to. I just don't think that the US will like the way Iraq presents them - and unless the US troops in the area (e.g. those who are currently - illegally - stationed in Turkey, bearing no markings at all) have some kind of portable nuke protection device, they're going to get fried. Of course, I'm sure that the US has lotsa satellites with fusion blasters ;) or something stationed in the orbit, but if that's the case, they're breaking yet another treaty, as space weapons are forbidden to all.

Oh, that brings us to another question: why hasn't the US ever allowed anyone - the UN, for example - to check its own WMD arsenal? The US just keeps crying about other countries developing WMDs when it's doing the same itself.

---

And somebody said something about most of Europe having a dark past... Hmm.
#define "Most of Europe":
- It's pretty safe to say that Germany's got a dark past with the world war thing and all.
- Finland's dark past might be helping Germany against the Soviets.
- Great Britain... Well, they were once slavers and such. Otherwise I think they're pretty decent folk ;D.
- Italy also helped Germany in the great war. ... ... ...

Well, right. Most do have something dark in their past (don't we all?). Something mearning singular.
If we treat both WW's as one war - which they practically were, with, as I believe, WW2 (in the mind of the common German) being Germany's la revanche on France (bear in mind that it was the nazis who exterminated jews. Not every German. Serving in the German Wehrmach (Army) and Volksturm (Militia) didn't mean you were a nazi. Just somebody who was tricked with propaganda) - even (I lack a better word. "Even" sounds bad, I know) Germany could learn from a single mistake.

Did the US learn from a single mistake? Hell no. It just keeps waging wars where there should be peace.

So couldn't Saddam learn from his mistake in Kuwait? Bush sure seems to think "Hell no!". But still he's afraid to speak with him. Remember Saddam's interview a while ago? He proposed an international, unmoderated and uncensored television argument with Bush. The interviewer asked him if he was serious, and he said yes. Yet the Bush ... administration, you called it? ... throws it back at his face, practically calling him a liar? Could this be because they're so damn scared of the truth?  :-/

---

Well, I'm pretty much done. Don't know if you got anything out of my babbling, but at least I told you what I think.


gammaray - That's what you get from nukes. Gamma rays.


P.S. I recently heard that only 47% of Americans support Bush. WAY TO GO! Just keep those ratings dropping. I'd *love* to see him out of the White House.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: ErekLich on March 04, 2003, 11:48:57 pm
So, what?  if some other person had given all the reasons Bush did, you'd support the war?  If the answer is yes, then you really are pro-war and you're just letting your disdain for Bush cloud the issue.  The question of war or no war is NOT about Bush.  Bush just happens to be the symbol of the "pro-war" camp and so people who really want to bash WAR bash BUSH... sigh...

As for U.S. wmd, according to the non-proliferation treaty the U.S. is one of the nations allowed to have nukes.  Others include, I believe (and I could be wrong, so don't get angry) China, Russia, and ??France?? and perhaps some others, I'm not sure.  Basically those who had nukes when the treaty was made.  So that's why the U.N. has no athourity of American nukes, because by U.N. law (ie the treaty) we're allowed to have them.  And if you're going to complain about that, my pre-emptive response is "whine to the UN, not me" because, right or wrong, that's the way it is.  I neither endorse nor condemn this state of affairs; I only state a fact.

As far as the U.S. not learning:

while I consider the Vietnam and Korean wars America's biggest mistakes ever, the fact that they were wars was not in and of itself the mistake.  America's mistakes in foreign policy have been not being able to properly end a war; not focusing on a goal.  Desert Storm, on the other hand, was a huge success.  Why?  The American army had one goal, and that was it, and they focused on achieving it.  When we went after Afghanistan, we had a goal: remove the Taliban.  We focused on that and achieved it.

Now, we have a simple goal which, it appears is shared by much of the free world to some extent:  To remove Hussein from power.  The contention seems to be on HOW to do this.  Hopefully we can achieve it.

On the debate:

While it is clear you dislike Bush, that's no reason to go making unfounded assumptions about his mental state.  What gives you this idea about Bush being afraid?  According to Bush he is refusing the debate in order to say that there is nothing to debate: Iraq must disarm, and that's that.  What would they debate anyway?  "I'm cooperating with inspectors!" "Are not!" "Am too!"  There would be no point.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: gammaray on March 05, 2003, 12:21:56 am
Quote
if some other person had given all the reasons Bush did, you'd support the war?


No. I just wouldn't care.

Quote
The question of war or no war is NOT about Bush.

Well, it's about the US, the leader of which is Bush... So what's the big difference? He's the chosen leader, so presumably his views reflect those of the majority. If they don't, there's something really wrong.

Quote
As for U.S. wmd, according to the non-proliferation treaty the U.S. is one of the nations allowed to have nukes.  Others include, I believe (and I could be wrong, so don't get angry) China, Russia, and ??France?? and perhaps some others, I'm not sure.


True. USA, Russia, China, France, Great Britain and two others I don't remember are allowed to have nukes. But that's nukes, not bio-weapons or chemical weapons which we all know the US is developing. Or are they? Just as much as Iraq is! Just why doesn't the US have to prove anything?

Quote
we had a goal: remove the Taliban.  We focused on that and achieved it.


Yeah, and I'm sure you had lotsa food packages duct-taped on those cruise missiles. And why aren't we hearing anything
from Afghanistan anymore? It suddenly became the fairy kingdom where everything is from a fairy tale?

Quote
Now, we have a simple goal which, it appears is shared by much of the free world to some extent:  To remove Hussein from power.


*Sigh*. Another oh-so-romantic term. "Free world". I wish you Americans would stop trying to be so damn bright all the time. Being like the US - and some people really seem to believe that every nation should be like the US - doesn't mean you're "free". Basically you're a slave to the US, forced to comply with it whenever it feels the need to wage yet another war. If you don't, you're an enemy and you must be destroyed.  

Oh... Somebody really should tell Bush that he looks absolutely ridiculous waving his finger around in all the interviews. No wonder most Europeans dislike him... "We WILL bring Freedom(tm) to Iraq! We WILL remove the Evil(tm) Saddam from power! We WILL yada yada yada..." The cowboy look is really out of fashion. Find a new drama teacher.

Quote
While it is clear you dislike Bush, that's no reason to go making unfounded assumptions about his mental state.  What gives you this idea about Bush being afraid?


Indeed, I hate Bush!

The fact that he doesn't have the... guts ...to speak with Hussein from half the world away. Saddam spoke of a argument where Bush would talk from the USA and he himself from Iraq. So where's the danger, why doesn't Bush agree?

Quote
According to Bush he is refusing the debate in order to say that there is nothing to debate: Iraq must disarm, and that's that.


Well, one explanation is as good as the other. I personally think that everybody should disarm.

Quote
What would they debate anyway?  "I'm cooperating with inspectors!" "Are not!" "Am too!"  There would be no point.


According to Saddam, he'd like to point out what he dislikes in "the American way" and Bush could point out what he doesn't like about "the Iraqi way".

gammaray - That's what you get from nukes. Gamma rays.


Title: Re: WAR
Post by: Mika on March 05, 2003, 12:48:29 am
Now this is getting way too offtopic. Remember that this board should be about discussing UQM only :P Thread locked.