Will this, less than a month overthrowing an Iraqi regime scare other countries in messing with us?

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: Morph
I'm sure that some countries who are not considered our allies like Russia, China and NK are feeling more threatened by us now and will increase their defense spending because of this. Overall, this episode (and Bush's administration in general) has been terrible for our international relations.

And you know what our relations were prior to this war and now....exactly how? In other words, you are now an expert in international relations and how this war has affected both short and long term relations, wow I'm impressed with your database of knowledge? I think people will see how well our military performed and say, "wow, we'd better not mess with the US"......unless someone spinless like Gore or Clinton is in office.

Log off, grab a newspaper and stop watching too much TV. All those war cartoons are frying your brain kid. Just take a look at what the foreign press ANYWHERE says about the current administration. I live outside the USA, so my comment MATTERS.

I read this piece of information yesterday, and I was surprised that they accepted to publish it, specially from CNN

Interview with Carlos Fuentes

Well, I challenge you to ask "who is Carlos Fuentes?", so you will show exactly the size of your brain and understanding..... come on, ask the question.... Most of the countries liked Clinton because he protrayed the image that the USA want to give: Negotiating and convincing with REASON. Disregard his private life, he had the means to convince the rest of the world of what he wanted. He had negotiation skills and wanted to treat everyone with fairness. However, when a troglodite who barely masters his own language leads the most powerful country in the world, you could expect actions to his level.... that is, troglodite actions. Use the BRUTE FORCE, not the reason...... He was UNABLE to convince the world opinion.... He FAILED to provide CONVINCING PROOF od the allegued WMD. He invoked a UN resolution whose clause is vague ("severe consequences"), but nowhere in such clause it says "The UN authorizes the USA to take MILITARY ACTION"..... He didn't attempt to get a second vote because reason is not on his side..... Yes, France, Russia and China were going to vote against, but he failed to convince the ambassadors of peace, Mexico and Chile.... His resource?? Use the BRUTE FORCE

The polls show support to the war, but that is because people say "we support our troops".... the average people really believes the soldiers are "defending their freedom".... Well, if they don't believe it, just inject some patrotic contect to the mass media to convince them.

Yes, the relations with the USA are worse for almost any country.... This is a global world, so SHOW me a country that likes dealing with 'Bush-enthal" better that Clinton.....

Afraid?? Yes, everyone in the world is of the USA. While no country ALONE could engage in a military conflict with the USA, maybe several at the sime time could ..... don't forget it, because his stone age policy of "hit first" only will get enemies instead of allies.
Respect? No, that is being lost. The respect earned by some administrations is gone, brute force prevails.... How is that supposed to gather respect??? Tell me how.

I expect answers.


Alex

PS. By the way, the interview is in Spanish, but some online translation can atempt to get it. If someone posts the translation, I am willing to check it

 

[Marshallj]

I run into the same faulty logic when talking to people about cars. I say throw away your blind enthusiasm and let the performance numbers do the talking. Yet people are so biased... they are so pro one type of car, and so anti another type of car that they turn a blind eye to what really matters- the performance numbers.

I even get into arguments with people claiming that their beloved 14 second POS can outrun a 12 second car that they hate.

All this is due to them being overly subjective and leaving no room for objectivity or rational thinking. It doesn't really matter what the subject at hand is, if the people are not willing to place their bias aside for a moment and think rationally, their opinion will always be warped.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: drewshin
how can anyone argue about a war and be "objective". you need facts, and facts are always in short supply unless you are immersed in the situation. sure, you can get "facts" from news outlets, but trying to get "facts" from forums such as these, when we're all typing away at our computers? you'd have to assume that everything you read is the truth, and no matter what, every news outlet and every person has some type of agenda.

it seems obvious to me that anyone who says they can be "objective" about war is either a liar, or so conceited that they think they're some type of ethereal being that thinks they have no bias at all, and that the truth will simply just emerge by them putting a few tidbits together here and there.

welcome to his ignore list supertool, im just wondering why he hasnt added biased people like etech or charrison.

Because not everyone can be so lucky as to be ignored by a nef. But at least this one knows when to shut up and cut his losses.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: drewshin
it seems obvious to me that anyone who says they can be "objective" about war is either a liar, or so conceited that they think they're some type of ethereal being that thinks they have no bias at all, and that the truth will simply just emerge by them putting a few tidbits together here and there.

I usually make it a point not to reply to you, but I'll make an exception here.


I am not taking sides in this war from a moral standpoint. I support the country I live in, but I do not think we are any more "moral" than anyone else. I do not believe the administration's "marketing" for this war. I do not believe that the USA is somehow doing "justice" by invading Iraq and toppling their government. We are simply doing what is in OUR OWN best interest.

I will show you a couple of messages that I wrote regarding my view of what's going on:

"I support the war, but that is because I'm American and I'd like to see my country gain a favorable position. If I was Iraqi I would not feel the same way. I don't believe for a minute that this has anything to do with human rights. If the Iraqi's are liberated, it will simply be a side effect of our main goal, which is removing a regime that strives to be a thorn in our side in the region.

And here's another:

I'm sick of hearing about all this "Good vs. Evil" crap.

I think in reality every country is just looking out for its own best interests. No country sets out to be an "Evil Empire".

Often two countries will have conflicting interests. At this time each country will declare itself to be looking for all that is good, while the other country is pure evil looking to destroy the world.

It's basic propaganda.

We should just come out and say that we see what we want and we have the means to get it. There's only a limited amount of resources on this Earth, and a lot of people fighting to get them. The strongest will survive. No matter how you want to look at it the strongest countries will get what they want. There's no use trying to justify it in good/evil terms.

So what you have here with Iraq and the US is just another conflict of interest. You can't blame either side for looking out for themself. But the US is much stronger and obviously we're going to beat them down and run their pockets.

It's only a matter of time before the US and Iraq settle this whole dispute, and one of Iraq's concessions to us will be cheap oil. (You didn't think we'd waste our time with them if we had nothing to gain from it did you? I think that's one reason we don't bother with North Korea, there's nothing they can give us.)

And finally I'll leave you with one last point I made a while back about this:

I personally don't think the US government is in the business of liberating people all around the world oppressed by a regime. I think there are ulterior motives.

In my opinion this war is not about the humanitarian aspect of this regime or WMD, I think it's about having a strong presence in an unstable, natural resource rich region. I believe that the US is against Iraq because it is too strong of a power in the region we're interested in, and it aspires to be an even bigger power in the region. We are dependant on that region for a large percentage of our energy resources, and we're not about to let an enemy of USA have influence over our dependancies.

I just wanted to post this to make my standpoint clear. I don't want to fight with someone over a possible miscommunication. If you understand what I'm saying and still don't agree with it, fine. But don't think that I'm some Bush loving drone that blindly believes what he's saying.

 

[Marshallj]

no comments?

 

[JellyBaby]

Yes, you guys quote way too much.

 

[Marshallj]

Does quoting myself count?

 

[AndrewR]

Spineless? Maybe Clinton, but Gore was actually in Vietnam war, while mr. dumb-as-a- rock GW was snorting coke, driving drunk, and skipping the service.

I'd still rather have someone who actually has 8 years experience as a vice president, whos smart, hardworking, and capable rather than some daddy's boy who won't have gotten in Yale if his daddy wasn't an alumni.

Anyway, you really think Bush in office is going to deter our enemies? Keep dreaming.

Gore was a reporter who was assigned to an engineering unit building roads and such. To top it off, he lied about it. Remember that quote about him pulling guard duty "on the line" at Khe Sahn or something to that effect? Oh wait, that never happened -- how could he possibly confuse that? Don't forget that he was only there for five months instead of the typical one year.

BTW, when you critisize someone's intelligence, you might want to avoid a phrase like "who won't have gotten", especially since his resume is a little more impressive than yours.

Disregard [Clinton's] private life, he had the means to convince the rest of the world of what he wanted. He had negotiation skills and wanted to treat everyone with fairness.

Which is why two airliners collided with the World Trade Center on 11 Sep 01, right? Instead of dealing with the problem of the Taliban and al'Qaida, he blithely ignored what was happening and allowed them to flourish. Instead of dealing with North Korea, he bribed Kim Chong-il and allowed them to continue nuclear research all the while. Instead of funding the military, he dismantled a good portion of it and has endangered the future of our security. Instead of increasing intelligence resources, he cut them mercilessly and allowed terrorist organizations to operate unseen while he had his knob greased in the Oral Office. You're right -- terrific leader.

This is a global world, so SHOW me a country that likes dealing with 'Bush-enthal" better that Clinton...

Ask Tony Blair.

Because not everyone can be so lucky as to be ignored by a nef. But at least this one knows when to shut up and cut his losses.

Please tell me it's permanent. Or, is it too much too hope for that you'll shut up and cut your losses?

 

[Alistar7]

This is what scares the leaders of those other oppressive countries.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Corn

Yup, Iraq threatened nobody(by actions or words in the last decade), yet they got their butt kicked. If I was a leader of a country which had ideas of autonomy which didn't agree with American values/ways, I'd be doing everything in my power to acquire nukes. When you have nukes on your side, you have God on your side.

You and Tool are absolutely correct. The fact that we obliterated in short order a rogue nation who was constantly trying to obtain WMD will certainly encourage other rogue nations to follow Saddam's example.

The fly in your ointment is that countries are permitted to have WMDs. It is now the policy that every country may not have them or get them or we will "liberate" them? If I were leading a country of moderate wealth, I could make sure the US would suffer materially for a threat. I mean in a big way, not something "trivial" like 9/11

The US has two choices about these weapons. Live with the fact that other countries have them, or take over the world and hope we dont get nuked in the process. Saddam was never a threat, and this adventure proved it.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

The US has two choices about these weapons. Live with the fact that other countries have them, or take over the world and hope we dont get nuked in the process. Saddam was never a threat, and this adventure proved it.

I'm sure our government's intelligence agencies have just a little bit more information of what was going on than you do, don't you think?

They have all sorts of methods to gain information on an enemy including satellites, spy planes, informants. etc. They knew that the UN inspectors were getting fooled. Armed with that knowledge, they thought that it would be in our country's best interest to take care of the problem in Iraq now.

Are you questioning that?

 

[Alistar7]

Sorry, the evdience of terrorist tarining camps and WMD completely jusitfy this action, besides the reactions of the Iraqi people......

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

The US has two choices about these weapons. Live with the fact that other countries have them, or take over the world and hope we dont get nuked in the process. Saddam was never a threat, and this adventure proved it.

I'm sure our government's intelligence agencies have just a little bit more information of what was going on than you do, don't you think?

They have all sorts of methods to gain information on an enemy including satellites, spy planes, informants. etc. They knew that the UN inspectors were getting fooled. Armed with that knowledge, they thought that it would be in our country's best interest to take care of the problem in Iraq now.

Are you questioning that?

What they proved is that overestimated the threat to the US from Saddam, and that was the justification for this war if you recall. 1441 was a result of that. This will hardly make a difference to people who think war is a sport and act like the home team scored he winning touchdown. The US will eventually win, and the fact that no serious resistance in Baghdad comparted to what might have been was a blessing you ought to count. My GUESS is that Iraqi C&C got clobbered right from the start and that aided this immensly.

You ought to know that all the agents, gizmos and what not do not make the US all powerful, all knowing, and all present. I am not going to connect dots for you, but if Pakistan thought the US was a potential threat, for example, and decided to so something about it, then the lives of a hundred million americans are in great jeapordy. Again, I am not going to connect the dots, but you can believe every foreign power who considers the US a threat and has the cash has considered something along the lines of what I am thinking.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Again, I am not going to connect the dots, but you can believe every foreign power who considers the US a threat and has the cash has considered something along the lines of what I am thinking.

Well, they can certainly try, but they have to keep in mind that when you attack the US you're going to feel the retaliation of the world's strongest military.

The moment a foreign administration decides to strike at the US, from that moment on they're on borrowed time. Because it's only a matter of time before we find out who they are and bring them down.

We can hurt them a lot worse than they can hurt us.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Again, I am not going to connect the dots, but you can believe every foreign power who considers the US a threat and has the cash has considered something along the lines of what I am thinking.

Well, they can certainly try, but they have to keep in mind that when you attack the US you're going to feel the retaliation of the world's strongest military.

The moment a foreign administration decides to strike at the US, from that moment on they're on borrowed time. Because it's only a matter of time before we find out who they are and bring them down.

We can hurt them a lot worse than they can hurt us.

Quite true. Once we have formed a new government and bureaucracy, the hunt will be on. Of course it may not be as easy to figure out who did it, but someone will get bombed.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

They have all sorts of methods to gain information on an enemy including satellites, spy planes, informants. etc. They knew that the UN inspectors were getting fooled. Armed with that knowledge, they thought that it would be in our country's best interest to take care of the problem in Iraq now.

Are you questioning that?

If so, where are the f****** chemical weapons??? Where are they???

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Disregard [Clinton's] private life, he had the means to convince the rest of the world of what he wanted. He had negotiation skills and wanted to treat everyone with fairness.

Which is why two airliners collided with the World Trade Center on 11 Sep 01, right? Instead of dealing with the problem of the Taliban and al'Qaida, he blithely ignored what was happening and allowed them to flourish. Instead of dealing with North Korea, he bribed Kim Chong-il and allowed them to continue nuclear research all the while. Instead of funding the military, he dismantled a good portion of it and has endangered the future of our security. Instead of increasing intelligence resources, he cut them mercilessly and allowed terrorist organizations to operate unseen while he had his knob greased in the Oral Office. You're right -- terrific leader.

So you are going to blame the event on Clinton..... Stop attending your party rallies. While I am not going to label the USA as "the great satan", it has done many things that have given motives to some people for extreme hate. The world is not black and white, it is not good vs evil, it is not "we are the good guys, they are the bad guys". Life is a pendulum, it swings both ways and even the "good guy" will make mistakes..... and will have to pay for them. No matter the size of the expenses in defense, when terrorists get decided they will strike.... Stop fooling yourself.

Originally posted by: AndrewR

This is a global world, so SHOW me a country that likes dealing with 'Bush-enthal" better that Clinton...

Ask Tony Blair.

I don't think that even him likes the trogodlite of Bush better than Clinton, but point taken.... now, besides of him, tell me more..... Aznar??? He is just looking for free weapons to fight ETA...... Open the eyes, dare to read what is being written abroad..... you surely were one of those 7 years old kids who started getting his brain washed at school by being "encouraged" to write letter to the soldiers like this "dear brave friend, thanks for protecting us....." Come on, bring a FOREIGN editorial saying stating that Bush is liked better than Clinton.... and if you happen to find one, there will be dozens saying the oposite!

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: drewshin
it seems obvious to me that anyone who says they can be "objective" about war is either a liar, or so conceited that they think they're some type of ethereal being that thinks they have no bias at all, and that the truth will simply just emerge by them putting a few tidbits together here and there.

I usually make it a point not to reply to you, but I'll make an exception here.


I am not taking sides in this war from a moral standpoint. I support the country I live in, but I do not think we are any more "moral" than anyone else. I do not believe the administration's "marketing" for this war. I do not believe that the USA is somehow doing "justice" by invading Iraq and toppling their government. We are simply doing what is in OUR OWN best interest.

I will show you a couple of messages that I wrote regarding my view of what's going on:

"I support the war, but that is because I'm American and I'd like to see my country gain a favorable position. If I was Iraqi I would not feel the same way. I don't believe for a minute that this has anything to do with human rights. If the Iraqi's are liberated, it will simply be a side effect of our main goal, which is removing a regime that strives to be a thorn in our side in the region.

And here's another:

I'm sick of hearing about all this "Good vs. Evil" crap.

I think in reality every country is just looking out for its own best interests. No country sets out to be an "Evil Empire".

Often two countries will have conflicting interests. At this time each country will declare itself to be looking for all that is good, while the other country is pure evil looking to destroy the world.

It's basic propaganda.

We should just come out and say that we see what we want and we have the means to get it. There's only a limited amount of resources on this Earth, and a lot of people fighting to get them. The strongest will survive. No matter how you want to look at it the strongest countries will get what they want. There's no use trying to justify it in good/evil terms.

So what you have here with Iraq and the US is just another conflict of interest. You can't blame either side for looking out for themself. But the US is much stronger and obviously we're going to beat them down and run their pockets.

It's only a matter of time before the US and Iraq settle this whole dispute, and one of Iraq's concessions to us will be cheap oil. (You didn't think we'd waste our time with them if we had nothing to gain from it did you? I think that's one reason we don't bother with North Korea, there's nothing they can give us.)

And finally I'll leave you with one last point I made a while back about this:

I personally don't think the US government is in the business of liberating people all around the world oppressed by a regime. I think there are ulterior motives.

In my opinion this war is not about the humanitarian aspect of this regime or WMD, I think it's about having a strong presence in an unstable, natural resource rich region. I believe that the US is against Iraq because it is too strong of a power in the region we're interested in, and it aspires to be an even bigger power in the region. We are dependant on that region for a large percentage of our energy resources, and we're not about to let an enemy of USA have influence over our dependancies.

I just wanted to post this to make my standpoint clear. I don't want to fight with someone over a possible miscommunication. If you understand what I'm saying and still don't agree with it, fine. But don't think that I'm some Bush loving drone that blindly believes what he's saying.

I thought before you were "craphopper27" with a different name, but this thread is too smart written to be his.... However, when a person or society puts INTERESTS before the basic VALUES, that person or country doesn't even deserve the right to exist..... If you think the interests justify the actions, think it carefully the next time you will go to church, and ask the Lord for infinite mercy, because you need it..... Cheap oil, no matter all the people who are going to die??? Pretty hypocrit.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

alexruiz where've you been for the last 2 weeks?

Seems like someone is a little upset

CkG

 

[snooker]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
alexruiz where've you been for the last 2 weeks?

Seems like someone is a little upset

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
alexruiz where've you been for the last 2 weeks?

Seems like someone is a little upset

CkG

On vacation..... (far from a computer)

I just wanted to catch up