|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: WAR (Read 20960 times)
|
ErekLich
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 247
One Ring to rule them all, eh you know the rest.
|
 |
WAR
« 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Oh God, please don't let me die today! Tomorrow would be SO much better!
|
|
|
Sudo_Nym
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 51
I have powers... Political Powers!
|
 |
Re: WAR
« Reply #1 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #3 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2003, 12:21:39 pm » |
|
i would like to see what happens to the human shields for the Kohr-Ah  
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. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nic.
Guest
|
 |
Re: WAR
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2003, 02:38:16 pm » |
|
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 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".
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #7 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....
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 27, 2003, 08:19:47 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #8 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #10 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3873
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #11 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #12 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...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
GermanNightmare
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 311
Eddie wants Ur-Quan Trophies!
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #13 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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 02, 2003, 12:50:26 am by German_Nightmare »
|
Logged
|
Greetings from the German Nightmare - Up the Irons!
|
|
|
JonoPorter
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 656
Don't mess with the US.
|
|
Re: WAR
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2003, 08:59:16 am » |
|
The threat argument. There are no evidence to show that Saddam is a threat.
he has funded terrorists.
. 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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
|
|
|
|
|
