|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 06/12/2001 : 15:02:32 [Permalink]
|
Right.
quote:
Sounds like the U.S. and Britain are trying to ease up, but other countries are the ones who are holding it back.
Stop the murder of the Iraq people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 16:08:54 [Permalink]
|
If you agree that the US and Britain are trying to ease sanctions why are you not complaining about the countries that are holding it up and accuse them of genocide, babykilling and every bad thing that's happened since 1945?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 17:51:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My guess is that you are gonna stay whereever you are, nice and fat and sassy. I would wager that you may even be living right here in the US where you actually have the right to talk shit about the Govt.
Isn't the US great!!!
Mmmm maybe he is...but
He calls himself Gorgo which is the name of a Hammer film from the 50s. A rip off of Godzilla attacks England.
He says his name is Duane McCormick which is also the name of an "American" character on a Thames TV soap.
He talks about "the UK" which is something I have never heard an American do.
And he gets his Email, not from a standard supplier, but some place that claims to be a Toy & Novelty company...only they are not accesible.
Whole thing sounds pretty phoney to me.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 17:52:54 [Permalink]
|
Sieg Heil!
Are you trying to say your freedom of speech here in the US is on par with the despotism of Hitler? I don't get this.
Right.
Do you agree here, or are you being sarcastic.
It seems you must attack any time your position is weakened. Out of curiosity, you speak a lot out of authority, what exactly do you do that gives you such authoritative knowledge? You've talked to high placed people, from your posts, so you must do something that puts in contact with these people, what is it?
Oh, and as for the UN, they are the ones voting on the sanctions. Not the US. Have you ever heard of disgruntled employees. One of your sources was a former UN Assistant Secretary...how was he separated from the UN and under what conditions? Those would be the first two questions I ask. Then I would choose to judge the validity of his word based on that occassion. I'm not saying he was here, just that I would like to know. If he separated under a cloud, I don't think I'd blindly follow his opinion.
You are telling me what to believe, you are telling me why I am wrong for believing in and trusting the UN. What makes your point so much more *morally* right than mine? What makes Saddams invasion morally right?
And Manifest Destiny, is a document that arose out of the 100 days war, (if I remember correctly...I'll go look). That simply states that the US as the stable political power in the Western Hemisphere is responsible for maintaining stablility here. In other words it was telling Europe to keep out. My point was this document was the basis for keeping Soviet missile emplacements out of Cuba, giving us Guantanamo Bay aka the Bay of Pigs. And was in part the basis for the invasion of Panama that and the safety of US citizens.
The only arguments I have heard regarding Panama were that Congress did not approve the funding for sending the Army. The President of the US activated the military to enter the country. Under the articles defining the different branches of military service the only branch the pres can activate without congressional approval are the Marines, thus they are known as the 'Presidents Own'.
Your as bad as talking to a brick wall. You are so sure you have the morally superior point here. Much along the lines of fundamentalism I'm afraid.
The purpose of the moralist is to improve men's behavior. This is a laudable ambition, since their behavior is for the most part deplorable. But I cannot praise the moralist either for the particular improvements he desires or for the methods he adopts for achieving them. His ostensible method is moral exhortation; his real method (if he is orthodox) is a system of economic rewards and punishments. The former effects nothing permanent or important; the influence of revivalists...has always been very transitory. The latter - the rewards and punishments - have a very considerable effect. They cause a man, for example, to prefer casual prostitutes to a quasi-permanent mistress, because it is necessary to adopt the method which is most easily concealed...These are not the objects desired by the moralist, and he is too unscientific to notice that they are the objects which he actually achieves.
Bertrand Russell, What I Believe, 1925
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
Edited by - Trish on 06/12/2001 18:02:56 |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 18:04:21 [Permalink]
|
Soooo Slater, what are you saying? Is it possible this guy is merely a "Piper" or "Conspiracy Dave clone"? You know the type: post what is calculated to make forum regulars go up in flames. A cursory scan of this board will show a lot of ex-military, plus many with ties to the military. Now if calling the folks in the armed services a bunch of baby killers won't cause flames, then I don't know what will. Okay, you could go over the the Astronomy folder and claim that Hoagland is right, or that the pyramids were built by space aliens, but other than that...
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 18:58:15 [Permalink]
|
I was being a tad sarcastic. The U.S. is basically trying to make the sanctions look better. There is no real attempt at any kind of peaceful solution to this problem. Never has been. I'm not caught up on the other countries' positions here, though. I'll have to do that. My understanding was that the article said that they wanted more time. I think the point is that they realize that this is just a sham. I could very well have that wrong.
quote:
If you agree that the US and Britain are trying to ease sanctions why are you not complaining about the countries that are holding it up and accuse them of genocide, babykilling and every bad thing that's happened since 1945?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 19:08:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sieg Heil!
Are you trying to say your freedom of speech here in the US is on par with the despotism of Hitler? I don't get this.
I'm saying that this person doesn't think anyone should question the Fuhrer.
quote:
Right.
Do you agree here, or are you being sarcastic.
Sarcastic
quote:
It seems you must attack any time your position is weakened. Out of curiosity, you speak a lot out of authority, what exactly do you do that gives you such authoritative knowledge? You've talked to high placed people, from your posts, so you must do something that puts in contact with these people, what is it?
I've attacked no one. I never claimed to talk with any one on "high." I get my information from these people.
quote:
Oh, and as for the UN, they are the ones voting on the sanctions. Not the US. Have you ever heard of disgruntled employees. One of your sources was a former UN Assistant Secretary...how was he separated from the UN and under what conditions? Those would be the first two questions I ask. Then I would choose to judge the validity of his word based on that occassion. I'm not saying he was here, just that I would like to know. If he separated under a cloud, I don't think I'd blindly follow his opinion.
Yes, all the people that have quit the U.N. in protest of the brutality and stupidity of the sanctions are only bitching because they got in trouble for drinking on the job.
There is no Security Council without the U.S.
quote:
You are telling me what to believe, you are telling me why I am wrong for believing in and trusting the UN. What makes your point so much more *morally* right than mine? What makes Saddams invasion morally right?
You don't pay much attention for being a leatherneck. I didn't say anything about invasions being right. That's the U.S. government's position.
quote:
And Manifest Destiny, is a document that arose out of the 100 days war, (if I remember correctly...I'll go look). That simply states that the US as the stable political power in the Western Hemisphere is responsible for maintaining stablility here. In other words it was telling Europe to keep out. My point was this document was the basis for keeping Soviet missile emplacements out of Cuba, giving us Guantanamo Bay aka the Bay of Pigs. And was in part the basis for the invasion of Panama that and the safety of US citizens.
You really are serious. Don't you think Saddam and Hitler and every other despot in the world has had their version of Manifest Destiny?
quote:
The only arguments I have heard regarding Panama were that Congress did not approve the funding for sending the Army. The President of the US activated the military to enter the country. Under the articles defining the different branches of military service the only branch the pres can activate without congressional approval are the Marines, thus they are known as the 'Presidents Own'.
[/quote
Lost the point there.
quote:
Your as bad as talking to a brick wall. You are so sure you have the morally superior point here. Much along the lines of fundamentalism I'm afraid.
Right. You're the one writing sermons for Guideposts.
quote:
The purpose of the moralist is to improve men's behavior. This is a laudable ambition, since their behavior is for the most part deplorable. But I cannot praise the moralist either for the particular improvements he desires or for the methods he adopts for achieving them. His ostensible method is moral exhortation; his real method (if he is orthodox) is a system of economic rewards and punishments. The former effects nothing permanent or important; the influence of revivalists...has always been very transitory. The latter - the rewards and punishments - have a very considerable effect. They cause a man, for example, to prefer casual prostitutes to a quasi-permanent mistress, because it is necessary to adopt the method which is most easily concealed...These are not the objects desired by the moralist, and he is too unscientific to notice that they are the objects which he actually achieves.
Bertrand Russell, What I Believe, 1925
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
Again, I'm sure you have a good point somewhere.
[quote]
Edited by - Trish on 06/12/2001 18:02:56
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 19:49:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I never claimed to talk with any one on "high." I get my information from these people.
Don't even go to accusing me of religious fundamentalism, I'm atheist. As for your sarcastic quip 'on "high"'. I said people in 'high places' regarding the upper echelons of the UN. Get your semantics straight here, please.
quote:
Yes, all the people that have quit the U.N. in protest of the brutality and stupidity of the sanctions are only bitching because they got in trouble for drinking on the job.
I never implied this... This is your twist. I said it was something I would want to know regarding the individual. End of Story!
As for the Security Council and the US, seems the US isn't twisting arms on the votes, re: Lisa's post in Media Issues...
quote:
You don't pay much attention for being a leatherneck. I didn't say anything about invasions being right. That's the U.S. government's position.
Um, earlier you made a post stating that they could have sorted out the invasion of Kuwait without the intervention of the UN or US in your case. Unfortunately, I can't find it right now...seems this doesn't go back far enough. I'll point it out after I find it.
As for the US entering foreign countries, that is under the auspices of the UN with the exception of Cuba and Panama. And this is from a previous communication with someone regarding the responsibilities of the US in the world theater.
quote:
Bob,
I have no desire to see any of this comes to war either. One of the points I was trying to make, now that I‘ve had time to organize my thoughts, was that the great majority of our service men and women don‘t want war either. It just upsets me when accusations are made against the men and women in the service based on bad decisions by their superiors.
As I said earlier, Bush is trying to prove something to the world leaders. I agree. He has made a joke of American foreign policy since taking office. We can only hope that Bush learns to back off and not be so reactionary or rather, learns to act less self-important.
As for peacekeeping forces, the United States does have a responsibility to its neighbors in the world. As technology advances our world becomes much smaller. By no means should the US or any of the NATO/UN countries place armed forces into a country that does not ask for assistance. However, if assistance is asked for, and US troops enter as part of a peacekeeping force. That is part of our global responsibility.
For too long we have taken an active role in many foreign countries. Any diminishing of troops from these countries would take foresight and planning. (Two traits Dubya doesn‘t demonstrate.)
Should we pull troops from everywhere except the Sinai peninsula, we would leave Japan defenseless. Under treaties with Japan, they are only allowed to spend 3% of their GNP on defense. Withdrawing from Japan would take years, because the Japanese would require the time necessary to rebuild its military forces.
As for slapping the Russians and the break down in talks between North and South Korea, the boy plain screwed up. Now, he needs to step up, take responsibility and try to repair the damage he has done. If he or those he selected for his cabinet can‘t see that, we are in trouble.
Regards and apologies,
Trish
cont...
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 19:50:11 [Permalink]
|
Reply continued...
As for being really serious, yeah, it's called politics. This is a defense of the right of the US to deal in this hemisphere in the best interests of maintaining stability.
My point with Bertrand Russell, was this, your trying to moralize the issue without examination of the implications such morality would have.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 20:45:07 [Permalink]
|
You want to talk implications? Although some in the middle east complain about us being there, the "powers that be" are making sure we maintain a presence. What exactly do you think Saddam would do if we were to pack up and leave? Trish, you've the head for numbers, help me out here. I just know it would be very expensive. In a year to 18 months, Iraq would be back to invading neighbors. Would the American public stand for the re-mobilization? Remember, we have protection treaties with many of the little countries out there. So what do we do, watch our allies get slaughtered because it costs too much? Or do we keep forced in place to keep Saddam from getting too cocky?
I was over there and got to witness Saudi defence forces first hand. I'm going to be very kind and PC here, okay? I do not feel, given their current state of readiness or training, they could defend against a sustained attack from Iraq.
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 21:01:58 [Permalink]
|
Well, here's my take on this for whatever little it's worth. Again, just my speculation based on nothing. We're talking post-Cold-war strategy. If Arab nationalism takes off with the Arabs allying with Russia, that cuts into number one Superpower status. Maybe not a big threat, but big enough to tip the balance of power when it might count.
Keeping Israel armed to the teeth and oppressing the Palestinians, attacking its neighbors, keeping the Arab client states armed to the teeth, and keeping an impressive presence in the Middle East is important. The U.S. wouldn't really want to commit genocide on the Iraqi people, but it's a hard world - they got in the way. Too bad for them. The U.S. would prefer a more friendly dictator, but Saddam was too big on Arab nationalism. Too big for his britches.
Did the U.S. set Saddam up? Enough of the signs point to it for an international investigation. Of course, there is no international organization that could investigate such a thing. The U.S. is exempt from international law.
What would Saddam do if left alone? What he's doing now. Try to be the big man in some kind of Arab nationalist movement. Try to get rid of the U.S./U.K. client governments in the area. Not that he's much of a hero to Arabs, but the U.S. is making him more of a hero as time goes by.
quote:
You want to talk implications? Although some in the middle east complain about us being there, the "powers that be" are making sure we maintain a presence. What exactly do you think Saddam would do if we were to pack up and leave?
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 21:04:55 [Permalink]
|
He's quite a Sherlock, ain't he? Seriously, I did not take a look around first. I naively assumed this to be a discussion forum of skeptics. I had no idea what I'd find. Now that I know, I'm pleased to meet you all.
quote:
Soooo Slater, what are you saying? Is it possible this guy is merely a "Piper" or "Conspiracy Dave clone"? You know the type: post what is calculated to make forum regulars go up in flames. A cursory scan of this board will show a lot of ex-military, plus many with ties to the military. Now if calling the folks in the armed services a bunch of baby killers won't cause flames, then I don't know what will. Okay, you could go over the the Astronomy folder and claim that Hoagland is right, or that the pyramids were built by space aliens, but other than that...
Lisa
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 21:24:12 [Permalink]
|
Okay, your comment has been noted. Now please address Slater's comments.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 01:33:40 [Permalink]
|
Yes, I have a sick facination to see your response to Slaters research...
quote:
Well, here's my take on this for whatever little it's worth. Again, just my speculation based on nothing. We're talking post-Cold-war strategy. If Arab nationalism takes off with the Arabs allying with Russia, that cuts into number one Superpower status. Maybe not a big threat, but big enough to tip the balance of power when it might count.
Um, did it never occur to you that the US and the former Soviet Union played many political games in that particular theater?
quote:
Keeping Israel armed to the teeth and oppressing the Palestinians, attacking its neighbors, keeping the Arab client states armed to the teeth, and keeping an impressive presence in the Middle East is important. The U.S. wouldn't really want to commit genocide on the Iraqi people, but it's a hard world - they got in the way. Too bad for them. The U.S. would prefer a more friendly dictator, but Saddam was too big on Arab nationalism. Too big for his britches.
Um, the war and fighting between the Palestinians and the Israelis has been going on long before the US even existed. Now, the US along with other NATO/UN aligned nations voted to set up Israel as a country following WWII. The Palestinians weren't happy, no. This fighting between the Israelis and the Palestinians is based on religion. That area, particullary the Ghaza Strip, is considered the 'Holy Land' by both sides. That is what that war is about. Yes, the US has close ties with Israel, I'm sure if I go looking I can find information about treaties and agreements between the US and Israel. Unfortunately, my connection here is rather slow, so I will look tomorrow when I have access to a faster computer....
quote:
Did the U.S. set Saddam up? Enough of the signs point to it for an international investigation. Of course, there is no international organization that could investigate such a thing. The U.S. is exempt from international law.
Um, your making a rather bold statement here. I think you need to understand that the UN is currently slapping the USs hands because of some of the shrubs policies on foreign politics. Specifically over the decision to send an additional amount of money to the Taliban based on their decision to stop the production of poppy, a prime ingredient in opiates.
Whether the US set Saddam up or not is not trully relevent here. Saddam is the one who ordered his troops across Iraqi borders into a foreign country. The responsibility for that decision rests firmly on the shoulders of Saddam. Your looking to place blame for something you don't like. Well, there's an answer, Saddam. He has the power to end this stalemate, yet he chooses not to.
quote:
What would Saddam do if left alone? What he's doing now. Try to be the big man in some kind of Arab nationalist movement. Try to get rid of the U.S./U.K. client governments in the area. Not that he's much of a hero to Arabs, but the U.S. is making him more of a hero as time goes by.
His invasion of Kuwait was for economic reasons. He'd try it again, only maybe this time with Yemen or another smaller country in his area. These are all countries with which the US has agreements and/or treaties. As long as he is economically motivated to invade another country, he must be kept contained.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 01:35:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You want to talk implications? Although some in the middle east complain about us being there, the "powers that be" are making sure we maintain a presence. What exactly do you think Saddam would do if we were to pack up and leave? Trish, you've the head for numbers, help me out here. I just know it would be very expensive. In a year to 18 months, Iraq would be back to invading neighbors. Would the American public stand for the re-mobilization? Remember, we have protection treaties with many of the little countries out there. So what do we do, watch our allies get slaughtered because it costs too much? Or do we keep forced in place to keep Saddam from getting too cocky?
I was over there and got to witness Saudi defence forces first hand. I'm going to be very kind and PC here, okay? I do not feel, given their current state of readiness or training, they could defend against a sustained attack from Iraq.
I'm not sure of the exact cost, ten years ago, the Marines actually didn't spend nearly as much as it would have cost. We were already mobilizing for Display Determination 90. We rerouted our ships to Bahrain instead of Turkey, a lot of our equipment was already half way there. I know it's hard on the guys on ship. My ex was on the Ranger when it had to spend 7 mo in the IO. He was out about 4 1/2 mo longer than he should have been. The total numbers I ran across are really irrelevent today. I'm sure I can dig up info on the cost then. Or we could look at Bosnian costs. But we almost ran out of some of our pricier missiles during that conflict.
As for letting Allies get slaughtered. I think the American public wouldn't like their flow of oil and gas for the big 'ol SUVs getting stopped. Yeah, they'd support going back for the same reason they supported DS in the first place, their pocketbooks.
LOL! Lisa you shoulda heard some of the guys from 1st MarDiv on that subject. I'll be PC to and not repeat what I heard. K. Though the Republican Army did give up in a lot of instances rather easily...heard they were real hungry 'cause Saddam couldn't keep up the supply lines. Oh, and if you think the fighting started in Jan of 90, think again.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
