RayInJapan 0 Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Then what is? Very serious question for those out there who think that war is never the answer. Without getting specific about this current Iraq war, what would you do to create world peace assuming that: A - A Palestinian State is created and, B - All US military is removed from the middle east and Turkey (which I hope happens soon). My take is that once that happens, there will still be turmoil in the middle east. Either the Kurds will fight with Turkey, or the Shiites will fight the Sunnis or a combination of both. The Taliban will regain some of their strength, and the Syrians will continue to harbor terrorists. Would you say "Big Whip! If they're not blowing me up, why should I care if they're blowing each other up?" If you did say that, would you have the same attitude if you were walking home from work one night and saw a guy trying to rape a gal? Would you say to yourself "He's not trying to rape me, so why should I care?" Or would you walk over to the guy and say "He man, I think we can talk about this and maybe try and bring some peace to your life." Or would you rush over there, grab whatever weapon you have handy, and bash him over the head? Someone may try to trivialize my example and say "its not the same thing", but in reality it is, just on a much smaller scale. I'm not trying to say I'm pro-war here, I'm far from it. But I don't think I'm the kind of guy who can simply walk by the rapist or try to "negotiate" with him either. Anyway, a lot of you come from vastly different backgrounds than me, so I honestly would like to know how you think we should do when criminals become dictators, or when 2 countries just can't see eye to eye (like India/Pakistan, or North/South Korea). see ya, Link to post Share on other sites
Stefan 0 Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Ray you do enjoy controversial threads don't you? My only problem is that the current US administration has the attitude that "might is right". Why oh why do Bush, Rumsfeld and co feel the need to steamroller world-wide opinion? Simple answer... because they can. Don't you think that that kind of attitude will increase hostility? Current US foreign policy is caught in a vicious circle, where war is an inevitability. I think that war is the outcome of a lack of understanding, so yes negotiation, not matter how slow and tedious is the way forward. While war creates quick and tangible results, it only leads to more war/terrorism!! Link to post Share on other sites
Fattwins 0 Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 i need time to think about the answer to this........... Do a crushed people really like the people that crushed them?????? This war has more to do with Oil the syrian pipeline goes through Iraq and has been shut off for quite some time. I would have liked Bush to not have profited from this war. If you make a profit from war is it really a war? 9/11 although tragic and horrific does not give the US the right to Kill or decide the fate of the world. If that is so then who is the dictator. Bush dictates and we debate but we can say nothing. Link to post Share on other sites
Fattwins 0 Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 On a less serious note ray are you recovered? Link to post Share on other sites
Stefan 0 Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 One question. Am I right is saying that one of the first 'military' objectives for the US/UK was securing the oil fields? And if so didn't the Coalition give the game away a bit? I mean what kind of military strategy is that for a war which is primarily about liberating a people and hunting for weapons of mass destruction. Link to post Share on other sites
scouser 4 Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Cue predictable answers..... Link to post Share on other sites
slow 0 Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 I don't like the people criticizing the war without resolution but I do believe "the war is not the answer". I'm trying understand the people who say the war can bring peace or change the world. But it's hard work for me. I think we have to learn from the wars in our history and improve. I know making decision to go to war isn't easy because you have to sacrifice the people in your country but sounds like very easy resolution if you say it's OK. I believe many people are working very hard for the peace, so we have to have the hope we can do without war. I just believe so. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Ray, I don't think it's trivializing your analogy to say that it's different - in the case of world history, the ones being raped now are often the ones who did the raping before. And the ones doing the raping before have been raped themselves. I'm not against force in principle, but I think diplomacy and peaceful means should be given a proper chance (and not just 'our' diplomacy - there are regional diplomacies that are completely ignored and unreported in the West that also have potential validity). Should that fail, joint military action should be considered, with a common plan and a clear goal. The last 20 years are full of examples where diplomacy has been subverted in favour of a quick military fix, and we're living with plenty of potential for terror as a result. Link to post Share on other sites
RayInJapan 0 Posted April 27, 2003 Author Share Posted April 27, 2003 Ok, some of you are not quite playing by the rules...no need to rehash the virtues (or lack) of the Iraq war. Thats been beat to death. What I'd like to know is, what are we supposed to do when there is a renegade dictator out there who is killing and suppressing his people? Or when one country invades another with the intent on keeping it? Or when 2 countries decide its in their best interests to go to war with each other, and they have nukes? And what about civil war? There are many going on in the world right now and thousands more are dying than have died in Iraq, yet hardly anyone seems to care about that. What is the rest of the world supposed to do? What do you think the US, as the lone super power is supposed to do? OC - What I meant by trivialize was I didn't want someone coming on to say "1 rape is not the same as thousands or millions dying in war" - Wanted them to see the example for what it is - "war" on a micro scale... I can't speak for the "many examples" you're thinking of, but I do know that Iraq was given 12 years of sanctions, embargos and "diplomacy" none of which resulted in a better way of life for the average Iraqi, and might have even contributed to partnerships between Saddam and terrorists like Bin Laden. Perhaps you're right - if diplomacy and the appropriate sanctions/embargos are followed by EVERY country, then it might work. We know that the French, Russians, and possibly Germans didn't quite follow the plan with Iraq, and maybe thats what gave the idiot the strength to try and buck the UN for all these years - he thought they had his back. So maybe, if EVERYONE followed the rules, then diplomacy/intervention by the UN could do a better job. p.s. - FT - seems to be coming along - still have pain in neck but don't know if its post surgical, or still have issues. We go back to Okinawa on 5 may to see the doc for a follow-up - hopefully he'll tell me the bone is fusing nicely and all is going well. Thanks for asking. Link to post Share on other sites
oblivion 5 Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Why was there a necessity for the war to begin, and not give another month or two, as most of the world was calling for? (Apart from the fact that there clearly was none, how do you explain that....?) Why does the US not give a shit about world opinion? Link to post Share on other sites
2pints-mate 0 Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 How about respecting international laws and allowing a bit more time for those inspections - another month and many more of the intl comm would have been behind any effort. I mean come on what the hell was the rush for?????? Link to post Share on other sites
jared 0 Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Sticking with the rape analogy, the US only saves the poor gal so that they can mount on up and have a go themselves. Ever notice that only those with something to offer the US get saved. The ppl of East Timor 20 odd years ago had nothing to tickle the USs fancy so were left to be not only raped but murdered - same story in Rwanda a few years back. Both were much bigger tragedies than anything happening in Iraq but as they had nothing to offer their "saviours" were left to it. Link to post Share on other sites
danz 0 Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Mr. Matt... securing oil fields as a military objective does NOT neccessarily mean it is for the economic benefit of the US/UK...the oil fields are essentially Iraq's ticket to economic independance and stability...interpret that how you will... and if we are talking about oil and Iraq, have any of you seen some of the fine print in the UN oil-for-food policy?? probably not, because most of it is unaccountable and confidential...one fact you can find is the UN makes more than a 2% commision off that deal, which amounts to billions of dollars annually...which is apparently supposed to be used for misc. administrative fees and other bs...there is no overseeing committee to check in detail where the money goes...it is personally overssen and headed by Kofi...no accountability whatesoever in this program...and guess which country audits this program...France...and guess which countries have secured a majority of the oil contracts (for shipping, etc) for this program, France, Russia and Syria (NOT the US)...curious group of countries, isnt it...for all you conspiracy theory lovers, why don't you dig deeper into this one... danz Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts