[Kolorabi]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I'm sorry, but it goes deeper than that. How does this explain the interests of the other countries, such as France who is a major arms supplier in the Middle East, and Germany is also involved in arms supplies and technology? You can't deny it, but they do have their own stake.

I've heard this before, but it does not make any sense at all. Sure, every country has it's interests, economic or otherwise, but it was not France or Germany that lied to the UN or decided not to let the weapons inspectors finish their work (so they could establish that there were no reason to go to war against Iraq). It was not France or Germany that didn't have time for diplomatic solutions, and it was certainly not France or Germany who went to a bloody war that's caused thousands of lives (directly and indirectly - you know how many kids who are dying in Iraq every week as a consequence of the war?) and made the world a far less place to be.

If the war was an effort to help the Iraqi people, it was a failure. If it was an effort to fight terrorism, it was a failure (as it's caused more hate towards the west than any other event in recent history). But if it was an effort to make some money on Iraq's oil, it was a success.

Other countries are in essense making the U.S. do all the dirty work,

Dirty is indeed the right word here.

[Swordmaster]

(Off-topic)

Originally Posted by Jazhara7

I know this was kind of a joke, but some spiffy things were invented somewhere else. The Internet for example! It was invented in Austria. At the CERN Institute.
Sorry, just had to mention that.

Actually, Internet's predecessor ARPANET was invented in the U.S. by Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) within the Department of Defense. You must be thinking of WWW, which was indeed developed by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN.

[Jazhara7]

Originally Posted by Swordmaster

(Off-topic)


Actually, Internet's predecessor ARPANET was invented in the U.S. by Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) within the Department of Defense. You must be thinking of WWW, which was indeed developed by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN.

Yes, that's what I mean. I had heard about the ARPANET thing before too. I just seem to not have got this entirely right. Thanks for correcting me.


-

[Jake]

Its frustrating to me to see the potential "free country"ness of America reduced to "you can say mean things about the president, and you can speak out against the government in the newspaper, and you can chose your own religion." There's so much more to it than that, but people just don't pay enough attention or know at all what their rights are as a citizen. We need a good natured Libertarian (as in, one who can talk about personal rights and freedoms without soapboxing about gun rights) to come in here and lay it all out for us, because I sure as hell don't know what I'm talking about.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Kolorabi

I've heard this before, but it does not make any sense at all.

blah blah blah blah

But if it was an effort to make some money on Iraq's oil, it was a success.
Dirty is indeed the right word here.

Yes the US has more than ****ed up, and globally there are very very few who are pleased with it, but I think what Trep is trying to say is that we're not the only country around who is ****ing things up, we're not the only country around with some serious global dealings that need to be addressed. We just happen to be bigger, and ****ing up worse.

[Erkki]

Originally Posted by jjacob

... al Quayda is a myth ...

Interesting, but where did you get this information? Links?

[remixor]

Originally Posted by Jake

We need a good natured Libertarian (as in, one who can talk about personal rights and freedoms without soapboxing about gun rights) to come in here and lay it all out for us, because I sure as hell don't know what I'm talking about.

To be fair, as far as I'm aware, pretty much all Libertarians believe in the right for citizens to own firearms to protect themselves (and that's certainly the official position of the party).

[LauraMac]

Yep Libertarians are not to be confused with liberals, they are in many ways classic Republicans from the old like Goldwater days. Big on personal liberties, individual rights - likewise big on personal self help (meaning low govt assistance) low govt size etc. Freedom from taxation etc.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

That is all perfect in theory, but when it comes to implementation, things can become hazy. I might not get the best medical treatment available because I'm not actually paying for it, and if I do get it, I might get it late. My cousins lived in Canada for a while, and they would be on a waiting list sometimes to get treatment. With private insurance on the other hand, you get what you pay for. If you can provide "GOOD QUALITY" health care "IN A TIMELY MANNER" to every citizen, then I am a 100% for making it public.

Well, I think that what we've got here, at least that's what I like to think. I haven't heard anyone complain about France health care, anyway.

[Kolorabi]

Originally Posted by Jake

****

If that's what he was trying to say, then I misunderstood. I've heard a lot of people saying that they thought France and Germany had some sort of hidden agenda which made them go against the war in Iraq, and that was how I interpreted his comment.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Jazhara7

Yes, that's what I mean. I had heard about the ARPANET thing before too. I just seem to not have got this entirely right. Thanks for correcting me.


-

There you go. Americans are smart people after all

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Jake

Yes the US has more than ****ed up, and globally there are very very few who are pleased with it, but I think what Trep is trying to say is that we're not the only country around who is ****ing things up, we're not the only country around with some serious global dealings that need to be addressed. We just happen to be bigger, and ****ing up worse.

Ever watched spiderman? With great power comes great responsibility. Wise words indeed.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Well, I think that what we've got here, at least that's what I like to think. I haven't heard anyone complain about France health care, anyway.

You guys also got Sophie Marcau and fine cuisine and the weirdest looking and most entertaining video games out there. France rocks

[Mattsius]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

There you go. Americans are smart people after all

Heh, some of them yes. Exactly like in every other country.

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Ever watched spiderman? With great power comes great responsibility. Wise words indeed.

I'm quite sure those words didn't originate from Spiderman.

But you're right, wise words.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Erkki

Interesting, but where did you get this information? Links?

(BBC) The Power of Nightmares
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
IMDB
Transcripts

It's an extremely interesting and also pretty hard-hitting series of 3 documentaries, it deals with how the idea of of the hidden and organised terrorist threat which has been created by Western governments is an illusion, to serve politicians and give them new power and authority.

Here's a brief quote from their website:

In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.


The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.

In a new series, the Power of Nightmares explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion.



It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media.

At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists.

And it's a real history lesson too, the series starts in the 50s Seriously though, as a documentary, it can't even be compared to something like Fahrenheit 9/11, it's far better, less 'entertaining' perhaps, but way more shocking. If you ever wanted to know where those neoconservatives came from, or those radical Islamists, this documentary will explain everything in fine detail, it follows them throughout the last century. And about Al Qaeda being a myth - in fact it was in a U.S. courtroom where Bin Laden's 'group' was given the name "Al Qaeda", as Bin Laden didn't start using that name since after 9/11, when he found out that was the name given to him by the American govnt./people/media, and oh boy, did he get a kick out that, all of a sudden he had an powerful international organisation! He must've been laughing his ass off

[Mattsius]

Originally Posted by jjacob

(BBC) The Power of Nightmares

I had a feeling that it was The Power of Nightmares you got your info from. Don't know how I knew since I haven't seen them yet. I'm going to, because they seem very interesting.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Kolorabi

It was not France or Germany who went to a bloody war that's caused thousands of lives (directly and indirectly - you know how many kids who are dying in Iraq every week as a consequence of the war?) and made the world a far less place to be.

It wouldn't have been so if terrorists weren't in existence. Also, it was not the U.S. who bombed Pearl Harbor that sparked a world war, either.

And how many kids and their parents were massacred when Saddam Hussein was still in power? How many?

If the war was an effort to help the Iraqi people, it was a failure. If it was an effort to fight terrorism, it was a failure (as it's caused more hate towards the west than any other event in recent history). But if it was an effort to make some money on Iraq's oil, it was a success.

And you give up too easily. Who says the war is over? Certainly not those cowardly terrorists hidden among the civilians who keep ambushing the troops and killing innocents as well in the process. If they had any balls they'd stop using the innocents as human shields. Do you see U.S. troops using innocents as human shields?

As well, even if the U.S. DOES have its prime interest in the oil, it is also IN ADDITION to its humanitarian efforts to protect Iraqi citizens and help them rebuild the country. Isn't that how we helped much of Europe during WWII? Why are you so damn obsessed with nothing but oil, Oil, OIL? That's really shallow of you to think that. ALL parties involved have their interests.

Originally Posted by SoccerDude

What could have been done? If you suspected Iraq, you let the UN finish its investigation, you impose stronger economical sanctions on them, and you spend the 87 billion on special forces and ops, to go after the real culprits, the Al Quaeda network, not a sovereign country who was not to impose any threat.

That makes sense, yes. But the problem is that we fear another attack. Iraq attacked Kuwait, who in turn asked for help, and yes, it supplies the U.S. with oil, so we do have our interest. Hussein was given an ultimatum.

As far as France and Germany having interests in Iraqi oil contracts, I have no doubt about that too. I am skeptical that they are doing it for Iraqi's goodwill. But that still doesn't give us the right to go as a country and wage war on another country just coz we wanna control their oil and get beefier oil contracts. Try to explain that to the 5 and 10 year olds over there who are deprived of a father or a mother.

Sorry, but we didn't protect Kuwait, for example, to control their oil. We BUY their oil, they can sell it to whomever they want. They are rich because of our business with them. THEY ASKED FOR OUR HELP. They needed our help to save their ass. Again you're glossing over the possibility that the U.S. may, just may, be interested in actually protecting Iraqi innocents and helping them rebuild their country, on top of the stupid oil which, I may add, would probably be their main source of wealth if.......IF they ever get back on their own feet with the help of the U.S. (no thanks to the U.N. ). Kuwait's oil is their form of protection, as it would also be Iraq's, but Iraq's government is too fooked up to realize that. So, you're talking about the U.S. interest here? What about Kuwait's? And Iraq's? Especially Iraq's long term interests?

If you've played Knights Of The Old Republic there is a brilliant reference to this in the later part of the story that takes place on the planet of Manaan. The Selkaths' (a fish-like people) home planet supplies the only source of kolto (the key ingredient of healing medicines to supply both the Imperial armies and the Republic) in the universe, thus they remain neutral businessmen (like Kuwait), selling the kolto to whomever they want. Hence both the Imperial forces and the Republic have their interests, both plot left and right to gain favours from the Selkath. Note that NONE of these parties involved play fair. If you play fair you lose one way or another. So it goes.

Originally Posted by Ninth

...This belief is supported by the fact that Chirac is, and has always been a gaulist, meaning that he's belieiving and trying to stick to the General De Gaulle's politics. And De Gaulle had both admiration for and resentment toward the US, and always had this idea of Europe being an alternative to the US dominion.
Also, I don't like Chirac at all, I just happens to think that his Iraq politic was was wise, while the US one was dangerous and ill-advised.

Somebody should tell de Gaulle the world has changed, it has become far more dangerous than he would ever have thought. Reality check: these new breed of terrorists do not give a flying sh!t about idealistic and philosophical dead politicians. They have no solid philosophy of their own, or any morals for that matter. They will and have played the western world's powers against each other, and they're winning. We, globally, are not gonna rightly kick their asses if we just keep bickering amongst ourselves. It's not just the U.S., either. Remember the bombing at that nightclub in Bali awhile back (which killed mostly Aussies), and the attack in Spain?

There is an unbridled hatred of the western world and its influences. The U.S. happens to be its biggest, most powerful representative. So naturally most of the resentment and envy - YES, ENVY - will be directed towards it, what it stands for, what it represents, the possibilities it allows. Another reality check: we have become a GLOBAL COMMUNITY. These fundamentalist groups cannot accept that fact, they are, in some ways, as dangerously outdated in their thinking as de Gaulle would be today if he were still alive and in office.

[ConcreteRancor]

Originally Posted by deadworm222

Where to take the money for quality healthcare? Higher taxes?

I'd be more in favour of making it partially private.

Entirely agreed. The debate here is basically whether a nation wants to help some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time.

I've experienced Canadian health care first hand as well, and I have to insist that some form of private health care is essential in addition to public health care. Otherwise you have those who can afford better health care just lengthening the lines in the public hospital, and eventually you get the months-long waiting lists for surgery that you find in Canada. You'll get the care eventually, sure, but perhaps not after several weeks of persistent suffering.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

It wouldn't have been so if terrorists weren't in existence.

Are you suggesting there's any link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden? Are you suggesting terrorism is a new phenomenon?

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

And how many kids and their parents were massacred when Saddam Hussein was still in power? How many?

A lot less than you'd think, sure, he was a ruthless dictator, but that didn't matter to the U.S., which didn't even condemn the killing of 5,000 kurds at the time, or the use of gas against Iran's population (in fact they supplied the gas), or any genocide Saddam has committed at any point (prior to a few years ago). When Saddam had already made tens of thousands of people "disappear", Rumsfeld shook his hand, smiled and supplied him with all the chemical weapons he would ever use to kill off his own and Iran's population. In fact, Rumsfeld probably shook Osama's hand back then as well, as they were both fighting the Soviets as dear pals. So why all of the sudden all the "compassion" with the Iraqi population? Oh shit I forgot, the U.S. went there convinced they could find WMDs! That was the reason.. yeah.

No wait, there weren't any weapons, but Saddam was systematically violating UN resolutions.. Ok, that makes sense.. wait, but Israel violates tens of UN resolutions every year (around 85 by now), and the U.S. doesn't mind? Why, in fact they reward Israel $5 billion a year for violating UN resolutions! Oh right, the U.S. themselves violate dozens of UN resolutions! Wake up, the U.S. didn't go to Iraq to free the population from a cruel dictator.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

And you give up too easily. Who says the war is over? Certainly not those cowardly terrorists hidden among the civilians who keep ambushing the troops and killing innocents as well in the process. If they had any balls they'd stop using the innocents as human shields. Do you see U.S. troops using innocents as human shields?

No, but I see U.S. troops having a very hard time distinguishing friend from foe, one of the reason there shouldn't have been a U.S. troop presence in the first place. And besides, if the U.S. cares for innocent life, why aren't they restoring the countries health system, water supply, electricity etc. (after bombing the living shit out of it)? All they're doing is rebuilding the oil infrastructure. 19 months after the war supposedly ended, no hospital in the whole of Iraq has received any form of aid from the U.S. The situation is far, far worse than before the war, there's not a hospital in Iraq that's not short of every single midicine, making the population a sitting duck for every disease (that could otherwise be easily cured or treated). After bombing the country's water supply, why hasn't the U.S. rebuilt any water purification facility? Oh right, I forgot, it's too dangerous to rebuild Iraq right now. So then why doesn't the U.S. hand the reconstruction contracts out to Iraqi companies? Because the U.S. only hands out these reconstruction contracts to American companies! At this rate, I don't think we can expect Iraq being rebuilt anytime soon, or for years to come.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

As well, even if the U.S. DOES have its prime interest in the oil, it is also IN ADDITION to its humanitarian efforts to protect Iraqi citizens and help them rebuild the country. Isn't that how we helped much of Europe during WWII? Why are you so damn obsessed with nothing but oil, Oil, OIL? That's really shallow of you to think that. ALL parties involved have their interests.

What's shallow here is your simplistic vision of your country's foreign policy. Do you even remember why this administration wanted to attack Iraq?

And how could you possibly compare this situation with WWII? Well I guess you share exactly the kind of black/white good vs. evil type of vision that Richard Perle has of the world.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

That makes sense, yes. But the problem is that we fear another attack.

From whom? "Al Qaeda" had been obliterated (and they were no more than 30 people) in Afghanistan, and while their "Planes operation" was on the fringes of the Islamist movement (meaning all those training camps had nothing to do with Bin Laden or international terrorism), this entire movement was wiped out as well (doing a favour to many dictatorships around the world), while it was the U.S. who'd helped build these camps and trained these fighters in their war against the former Soviet Union, irony, indeed.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Iraq attacked Kuwait, who in turn asked for help, and yes, it supplies the U.S. with oil, so we do have our interest. Hussein was given an ultimatum.

An ultimatum? ROFLMAO!!! To leave the country in 48 hours?! LOL that is so ****ing funny, even if he would've done it, what the hell would that have accomplished? And do you honesty believe the U.S. would've held their part of the ultimatum if he would've left? Oh right, AND ALL OF HIS SONS, LOL, like there's any possibility one can even contact all of his sons within 48 hours.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Sorry, but we didn't protect Kuwait, for example, to control their oil. We BUY their oil, they can sell it to whomever they want. They are rich because of our business with them. THEY ASKED FOR OUR HELP. They needed our help to save their ass. Again you're glossing over the possibility that the U.S. may, just may, be interested in actually protecting Iraqi innocents and helping them rebuild their country, on top of the stupid oil which, I may add, would probably be their main source of wealth if.......IF they ever get back on their own feet with the help of the U.S. (no thanks to the U.N. ). Kuwait's oil is their form of protection, as it would also be Iraq's, but Iraq's government is too fooked up to realize that. So, you're talking about the U.S. interest here? What about Kuwait's? And Iraq's? Especially Iraq's long term interests?

Oh I see, so the best way to rebuild Iraq is to only invest in the reconstruction of oil facilities? Who needs short-term solutions like water supply, hospitals & medicine and electricity when hundreds of thousands of people are dying anyway?

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

If you've played Knights Of The Old Republic there is a brilliant reference to this in the later part of the story that takes place on the planet of Manaan. The Selkaths' (a fish-like people) home planet supplies the only source of kolto (the key ingredient of healing medicines to supply both the Imperial armies and the Republic) in the universe, thus they remain neutral businessmen (like Kuwait), selling the kolto to whomever they want. Hence both the Imperial forces and the Republic have their interests, both plot left and right to gain favours from the Selkath. Note that NONE of these parties involved play fair. If you play fair you lose one way or another. So it goes.

Yeah, and some star wars fans will tell you the Death star is a symbol for the U.S. Star Wars analogies, that's what we need

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Somebody should tell de Gaulle the world has changed, it has become far more dangerous than he would ever have thought.

De Gaulle fled to England in WWII to oppose the capitulation at Vichy, he knows how dangerous the world can be. Oh and then he was nearly killed (wounded badly) by a terrorist organisation called Organisation de l'Armee Secrète, who also committed several other attacks in France during his years. But he also knew how dangerous the U.S. was becoming in those years, he even made France leave NATO to prove his concern for U.S. policy (told to me firsthand by my grandpa who was CG with de Gaulle)

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Reality check: these new breed of terrorists do not give a flying sh!t about idealistic and philosophical dead politicians. They have no solid philosophy of their own, or any morals for that matter. They will and have played the western world's powers against each other, and they're winning. We, globally, are not gonna rightly kick their asses if we just keep bickering amongst ourselves. It's not just the U.S., either. Remember the bombing at that nightclub in Bali awhile back (which killed mostly Aussies), and the attack in Spain?

What new breed of terrorists? Islamists? They're about as old as your great-grandmother. They've been trying to 'free' several (Middle-)Eastern countries for decades (where in most cases, their cause is met with sympathy by the local population as it's often opressed, Kashmir, Uzbezkistan and dozens of those countries), and they hope to lay the foundation of an Islamist society. It has absolutely nothing to do with the U.S., although in some cases the U.S. support Islamists in their actions against certain governments. These are the guys that are now attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq, because they have now seen an opportunity to make Iraq into such an Islamist state, along with a disillusioned bunch of teenagers who think they're fighting for their own country's freedom. But it was not these guys that attacked the U.S. on 9/11, that was the work of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Bin Laden, Zawahiri and a small group of volunteers and mercenaries whom they recruited in Afghanistan. But their plan to strike at the "far enemy" met with enormous resistance within the Islamist movement there, in fact it took Bin Laden nearly a million dollars in funding to persuade them to let him look around the training camps for recruits.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

There is an unbridled hatred of the western world and its influences. The U.S. happens to be its biggest, most powerful representative. So naturally most of the resentment and envy - YES, ENVY - will be directed towards it, what it stands for, what it represents, the possibilities it allows. Another reality check: we have become a GLOBAL COMMUNITY. These fundamentalist groups cannot accept that fact, they are, in some ways, as dangerously outdated in their thinking as de Gaulle would be today if he were still alive and in office.

Do you really think those Iraqi's committing attacks have an unbridled hatred of the western world, and that that is their motive? Or have you even considered the possibility that they atleast think they are fighting for their own freedom? Osama had that hatred for Western influences, but he was very isolated within the Islamist movement, as they didn't really care about the U.S. and were too busy fighting other regimes. But with the invasion of Afghanistan, Sheik Mohammed's group was destroyed, killed or scattered (along with most of the Islamist movement). But in chasing the phantom enemy's organisation, they missed the real threat that has emerged: the idea. This idea has become prevalent amongst young, angry muslims throughout the arabic world, precisely because of what the U.S. has done in response to 9/11. It was this idea that inspired the Spain train attacks.