I am doing a persuasive speach for my sophmore english class, and I decided to do it on America as a police nation, and I also decided that I dont think America should be a police nation like we are now. It seems like it makes people look down on us, it wastes our resources that we could be useing to fix our own problems, and other contries afairs are realy none of our business unless they directly affect us or our allies. Plus our soldiers die in conflicts that we get involved in such as the Vietnam war. And as for the whole war with Iraq thing, I don't think it is our business to mess with them untill they actualy do something to hurt us or our allies, but on the other hand, Vietnam has broken treaties with us, and they are trying to produce nuclear weapons, so I think we should get involved, or at least prioritisze them above Iraq. So I was wondering what you all think about the way the United States acts like the police of the world. Both sides of the arguement would be helpful for me when I write the speach.

[ January 10, 2003, 00:43: Message edited by: Thauglor ]

What do you mean by police nation? Do you mean a *police* nation as orwellían termes where the police is everywhere and dissent swiftly punished? Or as I understood your post, the US acting as world police?

I mean how we "act" like a police nation. I didn't mean it literaly. Kind of like we are the police of the world. We go and try to stop this nation from making these weapons, and patrol those borders to stop these people from fighting, and enforce all kinds of no fly zones to stop people from getting aircraft where they want them. Stuff like that.

America has become pretty interventionistic recently, if that's what you mean. America is much more willing to use it's military to enforce what they see as their national interest than other nations.

I don't want to live in a weak (strong countries such as china can employ an element of deterrence at least) country whose interests too strongly conflict with the US. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time then can be reason enough to catch a bomb.

As for a police country internally I'm unsure: On the one hand there is strict gvt obediance that makes people accept very harsh measures such as curfew for youths - on the other hand there is a distinct distrust against the government in general, on the extreme right especially. A people that obeys to its gvt but distrusts it at the same time ...

Compared to old europe america is to some point much less free (take the curfew for example), in some other points freeer (even open celebration or even strict denial of the holocaust are under *freedom of speech* there, both would be criminal acts in germany).

[ January 10, 2003, 11:29: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Yeah.

I wish the States would stay out of other people's business too.

I hate nosey people. And nosey governments are even worse.

I think a government's job should essentially be to police its own criminals, protect its borders and secure its national interests in a manner that avoids spending a large quantity of its peoples' resources. That makes what we're proposing to do in Iraq outside the box I have for government. (Then again, I think most social services shouldn't be handled by the government either, as I believe that the government's involvement in just about anything makes it infinitely more expensive and much more likely to be screwed up.) North Korea is more interesting, given that we have at least ostensibly been asked to help by South Korea and someone in government thought it was in our national interests to do so. More iffy than just bargin into Iraq like we seem bent on doing.

I think that there is a real misunderstanding as to America's role in the Middle East. The borders of those counties are for the most part simply lines on a map. Historically there have been a number of attempts by various regimes to unify the region, as manny Arabs do not see any social reason for these lines to exist. These attempts are usually by regimes that care less about human rights, and they are usually enemies of the west. Western nations, (primarily America) have struggled to maintain a balance between these counties. When Iran attacked Iraq, America provided weapons to Saddam in an attempt to stop Iran. America did not give Iraq enough weapons to turn the battle and defeat Iran, they were simply enough to hold Iran back. As Iran was attacking with vastly superior forces, some of these weapons were biological and chemical in nature (weapons that Iraq did not use in entirety, and has never accounted for). At that time Iran was hostile to the west, and if Iraq had tumbled, it would have only been a matter of time before other countries were being attacked by Iran. If this were to have occurred, the largest supply of oil in the world could have been controlled by a hostile entity. This would have left the world hostage to a regime that would gladly cut of this supply of oil, even though it would have hurt its own peoples welfare by cutting off it's only source of cash to pay for food and medicine, just to damage America and it's allies.

As far as attacking Iraq, it is a known fact that Iraq has prohibited weapons. These weapons were documented in 1994 by UN inspectors. Iraq will has not provided any documentation of the disposal of these weapons (which is a material violation of the UN resolution). Eventually Saddam will use these weapons, either against America, it's allies, or one of Iraq's neighbors. Iraq is also providing weapons to terrorists and homicide bombers. How does anyone know that Iraq will not provide biological or chemical weapons to these same people?

As far as taking care of N. Korea. Unfortunately America has to take the full blame for this issue. Our former, and last impeached President (Clinton) appeased the dictator and even gave Kim Il the technology that he is using to blackmail everyone now. Unfortunately, that same President cut so much of our military, and put us in such a dire economic situation, that we cannot address N. Korea and Iraq at the same time. The fact is, our current President will not negotiate with anyone while under threat (and rightfully so). There is some justification for a debate as to which threat should be addressed first. However it would be nice if the rest of the world would step up to the plate, stop demanding handouts from America, and show some initiative by going over and taking care of N. Korea while the Brits and Americans take care of Iraq. Most of the rest of the world doesn't share our views on Iraq anyway, so it would be nice if they would either show some backbone and declare themselves Iraq's allies, or step out of the way and SHUT THE H#LL UP! Unfortunately this won’t happen because it doesn’t cost them anything to bad mouth America, and they get to feel stronger about themselves by making America look weaker. America will still continue to funnel part of its GNP in cash payouts to any country in the world who will promise to play nice, even when they are stabbing America in the back diplomatically. Oh well, we Americans are the stupid ones who think we can buy our allies.

Darkwolf, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Oil. That's the threat. There exist, really, 3 major, tappable sources in the world: the Middle East, the Caspian Sea Basin, and the South China Sea. China has already claimed the South China Sea's oil and has ousted even legitimate claims by other nations to drill oil there. European nations, Russia included, have jumped on the prospect of tapping the Caspain Sea, and have the proximity and resources to do so. This leaves the U.S. still dependent on the greatest source in the world: the Middle East. Now, President Bush wanted to begin drilling off the coast of the state of Alaska so as to diminish our reliance on such an unstable area, but for ecological reasons, the people of the U.S. opposed this idea. As a result we have no choice but to get our oil and natural gas we need to run our country from, primarilly, the Middle East. The existence of a rogue nation in this area that is known to be hiding weapons and breaking U.N. mandates while holding a significant grudge against the West, I see, as does our current leader, as a threat to our national interest.

Imagine if you will, that suddenly Russia had a toppling of its government and the emerging regime was based on the concept that the rest of Europe was religiously or morally atrocious and "infidels". Now imagine this new Russia begins to muscle in and develop weapons in factories very close to the Caspian Sea basin, amassing forces in the area as if to flex its muscles. How would Europe react? Would the U.N. take measures to force Russia to withdraw some of its forces, would Europe still posture all high-and-mighty and talking of peace talks when it was their throat held to the knife? No. They would deploy forces, form coalitions, call upon their allies. They would mobilize to ensure the welfare of their economy, and thus, their people.

The United States is made to look like war-mongers because the rest of the world isn't feeling threatened nearly as much by Iraq's presence. So far, all the U.S. is doing in Iraq is establishing itself, sending forces overseas in case something DOES break out. To do otherwise, to wait as someone above mentioned "until Iraq hurts someone" is rather irresponsible. That's like being a cop and watching a man with a gun follow someone and shoot them before you arrest them. Until then, they hadn't commited any crime. Except maybe, brandishing a firearm [possessing weapons of mass destruction] and having the intent of killing someone [ignoring U.N. resolutions]. Do we really have to wait until he pulls the trigger?

Amon-Ra

This leaves the U.S. still dependent on the greatest source in the world: the Middle East. The U.S. gets roughly 10% of its oil from the middle east (changes a bit every month) and about 18-20% of its imports from the middle east. Canada, Venezuala, and Mexico are more important as foreign suppliers for the U.S. Also, Nigeria, Algeria, Russia (and this'll increase), Norway, and the U.K. (yes, that's right at 5%) together are more significant than the Middle East.

You can get the numbers from the American Petroleum Institute :
http://api-ec.api.org/newsplashpage/index.cfm

The rest of the world is more dependent than the U.S. on middle eastern oil at this time.

Adding that the rest of the oilproducers in the world together are more significant that the largest regional conentration does not take away the importance of that very concentration.

And Darkwolf,
Iraq has attacked Iran with the encouragment of the western world, including the US who had a bill open with Khomeini after the siege of the US embassy and the tragic failure of the dillettantic Operation Eagle Claw (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/eagle_claw.htm) (ask Donnie Rumsfeld, he was one of the US military-political leaders in that time). Saddam as a *standard issue* dictator seemed much less threatening than the mullahs at that time - Saddam was the right dictator at the right spot.

It is an amazing achievement that the iranians, troubled by the US arms embargo - most of their equipment (bought by the shah) was of US origin, were eventually able to drive Saddam back into his country and achieve a peace. When you say that the US supported Irak to keep agressive Iran at pace you're wrong. Iran seemed threatening and the ratio was that Iran with an enemy in his country would be to busy to cause more trouble in Lebanon for example. Iraq vs Iran was a western-arab proxy war. More about that conflict here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm) .

You'll probably call me a liar so I'll give you this (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-book.htm). Since it is meant as an info publication for US soldiers it might convince even you. Read the pages about *history*. "Hussein ... revisited an old dispute over the Shatt al Arab waterway and invaded Iran in September 1980". Operation Eagle Claw was executed 24 April 1980 btw. Coincidence? Now, the US have always been very relucant to adopt the strategy: My enemies enemy is my friend :rolleyes:

[ January 11, 2003, 04:10: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Actually Ragusa, I either typed that poorly or you misread it.

Canada give more oil to the U.S. than all of the middle east combined. Venezuala and Mexico each provide more oil as well depending on the month.

I think people commonly assume the U.S. gets most of its oil from the middle east when in reality some months the U.S. gets as little as 5% from that region.

The effect on the U.S. if the mid-east was threatened would be roundabout.

But the US have intense business relations with asia and europe. Another oil crisis would lead to a sharp increase in prices, and ruin US export to asia and europe - as well as US imports from there - that and an oil crisis would have a very negative impact on world economy and since a lot of US companies are global players there is a serious US interest in a stable middle east.

Which is why Laches said the effects would be roundabout rather that direct.

The situations with Iraq and North Korea are very different, which is why they are being handled differently.

I'm not sure why people think Iraq is of higher priority to the US than North Korea. Perhaps they feel that threat of military action means that situation has higher priority, which of course is not the case.

Maybe I should have been a little more clear, yes we only get 10% annually imported oil from the Middle East, but that doesn't change our future holds in that region. First of all, if 10% of our oil imports were severed, do you know how drastic of a change that would cause? We would have to either overstep our share in other regions or tap our oil reserves [which despite our HUGE consumption [[or in fact, directly because of it]] is only the 12th largest in the world.]

The United States consumes around a third of all of the oil produced daily in the world and produces far far less. Known world oil reserves, barring the introduction of new wells or findings [you'd think we've drilled just about everywhere worth drilling], will be all sucked dry by the end of this century at our current rate of drilling and consumption [which barring technological advances and alternative forms of energy, will only accelerate]. Who then, will we turn to for oil?

Can anyone tell me what countries are the top 5 in terms of proven oil RESERVES? Who is going to have oil once its all been sucked up from under the ground?

I'll list them for your edification:
1) Saudi Arabia
2) Iraq
3) United Arab Emirates
4) Kuwait
5) Iran

Combined they have around 700 billion barrels of oil in reserves [and those numbers never cease to increase due to their low consumption], compared the U.S.'s 25-30 billion [which remains relatively stagnant thanks to our high consumption]. What's going to happen when a nation that consumes 1/3 of the oil only has about 2 percent of what is left in the globe?

What do they all of these countries have in common? They're in the Middle East. Together they make up around 65% of the world's current oil reserves, and when the proverbial sh*t hits the fan, they're gonna be the ones with the power. Now can you see why the U.S. has a vested interest in keeping its foot in the door in the Middle East? In keeping stability in the region and making sure that people who are hostile toward the U.S. aren't allowed to produce weapons of mass destruction?

As oil wells come closer and closer to drying up, Middle Eastern countries are going to become more and more tight with their oil reserves, and military aggressions [which can already be seen with Russia in the Caspian and China in the South China Sea] are going to begin. The U.S. is making its presence known, in part, to ensure that in the future it has a say in what goes on with those oil reserves. I'm not saying this is going to happen tomorrow, but the administration and businesses of the U.S. are looking ahead at the future of the oil industry and realizing it is bleak unless they stick there nose where other people might think it doesn't belong.

Amon-Ra

[ January 11, 2003, 00:15: Message edited by: Amon-Ra ]

See, I just disagree with the doom and gloom predictions.

First, according to the most recent Brookings studies world oil production won't even begin to PEAK until 2040 at least so the idea that the tap will run dry within a century doesn't jibe with this.

Second, I hear all the time (not necessarily here) that the U.S. uses half of the worlds oil. Not true. North America uses about 26% so even with Mexico and Canada thrown in it isn't even 1/3. These numbers come from the geology department at Penn State University. What confuses people (or more likely is twisted by people) is the fact that the U.S. uses a disproportionately high amount of gasoline.

Third, there is this idea that once production abroad begins to decline that the U.S. will not be able to function and will go hostile rather than reduce consumption or find other energy sources. This is historically inaccurate. In 1972 the U.S. imported about 28% of its oil and in 1977 that number skyrocketed to about 48%. Then of course oil supplies drastically decreased and there was a huge oil shortage in the U.S. Imports declined to less than 28% and conservation and alternative energy production skyrocketed. As foreign oil started to become available the U.S.' use of it once again began to rise. All of this information is available from EIA.

You see, the U.S. is a flexible capatalist society. It uses oil because it is currently cheaply available in abundance. When it's not, the U.S. will find something else to use. I actually think this will be a good thing with short term heartache outweighed by long term environmental and efficiency benefits.

Here is a good paper debunking the myth that the U.S. oil consumption isn't responsive to price changes (read supply changes.)
http://netec.wustl.edu/BibEc/data/Articles/oupcoecpov:9:y:1991:i:1:p:67-72.html

There are a lot of great papers on the subject out there on the econ-papers site and most of the authors are happy to send them to you.

In short, the U.S. will handle a shortage in oil like it will handle a shortage in sprockets -- it's supply and demand baby. I look forward to the day when the U.S. and the world is forced to use alternative fuels -- the technology is already there in some cases and damned close in others but there isn't much of a reason to change from an efficiency stand point at the moment, one day there will be and I applaud that.

Ragusa,

You are quite correct, Iraq did start the war with Iran. However it was (from the article you linked) in fear of an agressive Iran, they call that a pre-emptive strike (something similar to what America will probably be doing to Iraq in the next 45 to 90 days), so you can either apologize for the ignorant fool comment or be one yourself.
Unfortunately for Iraq, they picked a fight with someone they could not beat, and in fact were looking at being completely conquered themselves. Believe me, if America would have wanted Iraq to win that badly, they would have.
Iraq and Iran's roles were switched after the first 2 years of the war. In the article that you linked, we can see that instead of being satisfied with taking back their own borders, Iran began an invasion of a totally defensive Iraq, who was wanting nothing more than to negotiate peace while the Iranians massed troups for an invasion. The Iranians just would not be satisfied with defeating Iraq and taking back its land. Iraq was in such a desperate situation that even 4 to 1 kill ratios were not acceptable. They resorted to chemical and bio weapons, many of which America provided. Iran even went so far as to gather 500,000 men (some reports are closer to 1 million) for a final push into Iraq. You no doubt have read the rest yourself, but for others reading this, Iraq finished out the war playing defense, just trying to cost the Iranians enough lives that they would have to give up. And the fact that Iran was able to push back, and almost conquer Iraq without any weapons except the ones left by the Shah is not true, the Soviets were still "unofficially" selling weapons to both sides, sorry that I can't provide proof, right now I do not have the time to search the internet, but it is common knowledge thta the Soviets were already having economic difficulties of their own, and they didn't care where the cash came from.

Now if you think for even 1 second that Iran would have been satisfied to just take Iraq, you are the fool! History, as you well know from your own, is full of examples of countries doing nothing about a conquerer, hoping that the conquerer would be satisfied, or unable to continue making war after taking one more country over, the overused policy of appeasement.
It is not in America's interests to have a unified Arabia. Even if it was unified under a government that we were allied with, we know that alliances with Arab countries shift like the sands that region is so famous for.

As far as keeping Iran from causing problems by encouraging a war with Iraq, so F'ING what if we did. What were we supposed to do, allow Iran to keep punching us in the mouth and do nothing? And before anyone says "fight your own fights", we would have, except that if we had, the yearly high temperature worldwide would probably have been about 5 degrees centigrade due to the nuclear winter that would have occured after the war escaleted into a full nuclear exchange beween America and the Soviets. (Ragusa, you and I wouldn't have had to worry about the temperature though, as with the number of warheads aimed at the US and Europe, we would have been DEAD, or never born depending on your age).

And as far as that comment about never learning that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Let me give you a list of our experience with that.

France. They were the hero's of the American Revolution (Rebellion, depending!). Have had to bail them out of 4 wars, and now they stab us in the back every chance they get.

Soviets. WWII would have been a lot tougher (impossible?) without the Soviets, but hey we almost destroyed humanity in a nuclear arms race, and did set back the societies of the world in many areas (like space exploration) by about 30 years.

South Korea. Stabbing us in the back today for the N. Korea issue.

Afghanistan. Let's see, we backed the Taliban against the Soviets long enough to for the Soviets to quit and go home, and to put the Soviet Economy in its final death spin. Then they harbor the man who is responsible for 9/11.

Iran. Our oil allie against the evil empire! Gave them a modern society, a TON of money, and brought them out of the stone age. Then they kick us out, take our embassy hostage, and return themselves back to the stone age.

Iraq. Give them the means by which to make sure their little piece of the dessert stays their own. What do they do? They give money, aid and comfort to terrorists, and there is that whole Kuwait thing!

And the last one I will go into today, the country that my Grandmother left to come to America, (smart lady!) Germany! (Sorry Ragusa, this might sting a bit, but you will be better for it) Let's see, we bomb the h#ll out of her, lose about 1 million (I am sure that if I am wrong on that number, but someone will correct me, right Ragusa?) of our soldiers. So then what do we do? We save 1/2 of the country from communism in a stand of with the Soviets, loan them enormous amounts of money, rebuild their economy, rebuild their infrastructure, forgive enourmous amounts of the loans (I don't have time to research it, but did Germany repay any of that?), and how do we get repaid? HMMM, we thought that since the German's hated the Soviets, and that we gave them so much to help them rebuild that we would have another staunch friend like England. Instead they stab us in the back by selling nuclear, biological and chemical technology and equipement to anybody with the cash to pay for it. And there is the whole NATO thing.

The real lesson to that colloquialism is that if you only ally with the enemy of your enemy, you will never have any real allies!

I will not pretend that America is innocent in all of this. We prop them up, and yes, we demand that they become our puppets, and then we get all pissy because at some point we have to knock them down. That is why I am a Republican. The Democrats always note that the Republicans are almost always the ones that get us in wars. That is so short sighted. The Democrats (Clinton and Carter being the perfect examples) are usually the ones who appease all these little dictators, and the Republicans are the ones who finally have the guts to stand up to them.

[ January 11, 2003, 02:05: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

As a student of statistics, I've learned not to take studies at a glance. By the statistics I found at the E.I.A. the U.S. consumes around 26 percent of the worlds "Oil energy supply". But look a little closer -- sure enough, if you look at the bottom of this page: [to use the EIA's data at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t21.xls as you claim as proof] you will see a footnote that refers you to their definition of what constitutes "oil" in their study of supply and demand. They've thrown in: natural gas plant liquids, other hydrogen and hydrocarbons for refinery feedstocks, refinery processing gain, alcohol, and liquids produced from coal.

The claims that talk about 1/3 to 1/2 of oil consumption are talking about crude oil, vital kind for consumption. Whenever you hear someone talk about oil reserves, oil production, or projected oil production peaks, they are concerned about crude oil. Millions/Billions of barrels means barrels of crude oil.

Amon-Ra

Darkwolf,
poor old Saddam, after invading Iran Iraqs initial successes stopped and they went to the defensive - and Iran started to attack even though Saddam begged for peace. Indeed. You seriously blame Iran for doing so?

Imagine you were Iranian: After attacking your seemingly defenceless country for the sake of land and oil, occupying large territories, devastating your country and killing approx 100.000 to 200.000 of your soldiers and citizens the agressor decides he had enough and asks for peace: Still within your borders, after using chemical weapons (weapons of mass destruction) against you and so on.

Project your point of view on historical examples: Imagine Hitler asking Stalin for peace after stalling in Stalingrad. Or how about Japan suggesting peace after the battle of Midway? Would that mean that, after Stalingrad and Kursk - russia became the agressor in the east and america the agressor in the pacific after the battle of Midway? :shake: You can't seriously accuse a country that has been attacked for fighting on to eventually get rid of the enemy at their gates. That would be quite a peculiar point of view.

The iranians knew very well who their enemy was and what to expect from him. Saddam fell upon Iran as he fell upon Kuwait - only that Iran was a nut too hard to crack. You're aware you seriously suggest Iran should have accepted a loss of territory for a peace with Saddam (or put it that way: that Saddam should have been rewarded for his attack)? And go further, that the iranian resistance forced :mommy: poor Saddam to use chemical weapons against Iran? How about that: Iran could have surrendered, that would have ended hostilities much faster :)
Consider the impact of the few thousand victims of 9-11 on american mentality and policy and you might understand how Iran could refuse Saddam's peace offers so easily and fight on.

For Iran the foreign policy option not to do anything might have been better indeed - after the Iranian revolution that country was anti-american, yes. And? Except for the support of Shiites in Lebanon they were remarkably peaceful for a rogue state. You're aware you justify the slaughter of a several hundred thousand iranians to distract Iran from worse? *cough*
Given american foreign policy has that mentality I can easily understand how countries like Iran became antiamerican.

[ January 11, 2003, 14:19: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Suuure DarkWolf, you CAN say that the Sovjets, the Iraq and the other countries are the only evil ones but USA is far worse. Here comes a few reminders.

1. USA is the only state in the whole world who have been convicted for state terrorism.

2. They shouldn't be allowed to attack Iraq becouse last time they lost 148 soilders, add three zeros and you are coming close to what Iraq lost, many civilians.

3. Should they be allowed to destroy whole nations just to find one, two or twenty terrorists? No. But this is what they did to Afghanistan and what they will do to Iraq.

4. I have never said that Mulla Omar, Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein are good. I just defends them.

5. If they finds out that any western country have a terrorist group, let say Germany, but they can't prove it to the goverment should they bomb Germany? NO! And they wont becouse Germany is a western country. Idiotical. They are fascists, fascists I tell you.

6. USA was as guilty to the Cuba-crise as Sovjet and Cuba. Remember their little nuclear-launchers in Turkey?

Conclusion:
USA is as bad as any "terror" country, if not even worse. USA...

...I HATE IT!!

/ma two cents

[ January 11, 2003, 13:51: Message edited by: Ivanji, son of Loki ]

I'm going to be bad here.

Ivanji :

Idiotical. About sums it up.

"Conclusion:
USA is as bad as any "terror" country, if not even worse. USA...

...I HATE IT!!"

Sweeeet. I totally feel the same way.

That is great, everybody jump on the USA. Let's see, how we can respond to all of this.

Ragusa, you still don't address the fact that your own presented evidence states that Iraq made a pre-emptive strike against Iran, and you keep running that dogma about Iran being poor and defenseless, when again, your own presented evidence tells a different story. The current Iraqi regime is a threat to the US, as was Iran (for a bunch of peace loving people they sure didn't have any problems killing our Marines when they took over our embassy), if we use allies to fight proxy wars for us, though $hit, we don't force them to fight, they choose to, and there is an enormous difference between Iran in the late 1970's and Kuwait in the early 90's. Kuwait was no threat to Iraq, and again, per your own evidence, Iran was a threat to Iraq. Also, per your own evidence, the Iranians had pushed Iraq back into Iraq, and were holding Iraqi territory when Iraq sued for peace. And your comparison to Hitler and Stalingrad, is not accurate. By the time Hitler started attacking the Soviets, we had already proven himself to be a complete animal bent on the destruction of certain racial groups and world dominiation at any cost. There is no evidence that Iraq was out to take over 1/2 of the world. Had the Soviets accepted peace before Germany was pushed back into its own boarder, they would have been almost as stupid as you are being on this topic. Next bullet point, Iran, peaceful? We must have different history books here! The only time that any Muslim fundamentalist state has been peaceful is when they are preparing for their next attack. Remember, fundamentalist Muslims consider non-Muslims to be only one step better than a cow, and that they are to be enslaved whenever encountered. And the Iranians do not value life anyway, or else once they had pushed Iraq back within its borders, they would have accepted Saddams peace offering, instead of forcing Iraq to do what Iran knew they would, kill a couple hundred thousand more Iranians with bio and chem weapons.

Ivanji, first off, what is your national language? Well, if it weren’t for America it would be German! So my grandfather (who lost half a leg in WWII) says "your welcome for your freedom, you ingrate!".

“1. USA is the only state in the whole world who have been convicted for state terrorism.”

What court convicted us, when and for what crime?

“2. They shouldn't be allowed to attack Iraq becouse last time they lost 148 soilders, add three zeros and you are coming close to what Iraq lost, many civilians.”

Iraqi soldiers killed Kuwaiti children in their incubators! If the Iraqi people don't like the fact that their government invited, and continues to invite attacks, and places military targets in them middle of civilian areas, then one of them needs to put a bullet in Saddams head! You also do not get the point of war. Only losing 148 soldiers while destroying your enemey is what is called a "victory". Would it have made it alright with you if we had lost a couple hundred-thousand troops before the war was over, would that have made you happy?

“3. Should they be allowed to destroy whole nations just to find one, two or twenty terrorists? No. But this is what they did to Afghanistan and what they will do to Iraq.”

America attacked the Taliban, who were the ruling government of Afghanistan. We did not kill Afghans to find 1, or even 20 terrorists. We attacked them because they committed an unprovoked act of war on America! And before you refute that, a person under the protection and physical control of the Taliban, funded and orchestrated an attack on a strictly civilian target that resulted in the death of over 3000 non-combatant men, women and children. The Taliban then refused to hand over that son of a diseased camel and a feral swine to any authority to stand trial. That makes the Taliban accomplices, and as such just as guilty as Osama bin Laden. The US did not intentionally attack any civilian targets. All of our attacks were aimed at what we believed to be military targets. Were we perfect in this? No, but we did try. It is a little difficult to attack military targets without hitting any civilians when your enemy places those military targets in the middle of civilian communities!

“4. I have never said that Mulla Omar, Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein are good. I just defends them.”

You are a real stand up person, I always respect people who want to defend those who think that the murder and mutilation of women and children is an acceptable manner in which to make a political statement :eek: . I really like people who support a person like Hussein. I suppose that you believe that the use of rape rooms and torture devices is A-OK! Your buddy Saddam does. You really think that Saddam should not be removed from power. Even if you don't believe that he is actively supporting terrorists, just the fact that he has women raped in front of their husbands and children, and husbands tortured in front of their wives and children, and has used chem and bio weapons on his own people should be enough to make the world cry out for his removal. But that is ok by you, you are going to defend him! :rolleyes:

“5. If they finds out that any western country have a terrorist group, let say Germany, but they can't prove it to the goverment should they bomb Germany? NO! And they wont becouse Germany is a western country. Idiotical. They are fascists, fascists I tell you.”

If we discovered that Germany was harboring, encouraging, and financing a terrorist, and they refused to hand over these criminals after they had committed an act of war against us, would we bomb them? Not at first. We would try economic sanctions and asking the UN to assist us in this effort for justice. If that didn’t work would we bomb them? Not just yes, but h#ll yes we would. And we did bomb Germany once. Remember the Nazis? WWII? Remember that from your history books? As for your fascist comment, the Merriam-Webster definition of fascist is: “1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”. Lets see, we do not promote one race over another, we are not a dictatorship. Our government is currently under the control of the Republican party, a party that does not place nation above individual rights, and our government only uses forcible suppression in the case of a threat to our citizens, and does not use it internally at all. Our government is not only split up between 3 branches, but responsibility is also split between the States and Federal government. Which part of the definition of fascist are you referring to? Quit showing your stupidity by throwing words around that you can’t even define!

“6. USA was as guilty to the Cuba-crise as Sovjet and Cuba. Remember their little nuclear-launchers in Turkey?”

Big difference between Turkey and Cuba. In the case of Turkey we were invited by not only Turkey , but also by NATO. Another difference is that if we hadn't, Sweden would today be a former Republic of the USSR. If you don't believe that the Soviets would have ran you over in a heartbeat, ask the Finnish people for their opinion of the Soviet Union. There was no danger of American taking over an entire continent. The Soviets had about a 20 to one military advantage over NATO. It would have taken the Soviets less than 2 weeks to overrun Europe, and then the only way to push them back would have involved another Normandy type invasion by the US. The threat of nuclear reprisal was the only thing holding the Soviets back.

“Conclusion:
USA is as bad as any "terror" country, if not even worse. USA...”

As far as America being a terrorist county, GO TO H#LL! America does not make random attacks against civilian targets. We do not go out of our way to kill women and children unless they become combatants. I will admit we did some terrible things to women and children in Vietnam, and they should not be forgiven, but it should also be remembered that the Vietnamese would strap bombs on to women and children and send them in to kill American soldiers. You hate America, fine, just admit it is because, economically, technologically, and militarily we have totally outpaced the world. It is historically very fashionable to hate the dominant world society. However, America has done far more to advance the peoples of the world than we have done damage them. Before you dispute that, go do some research to see just how much of our GNP goes to undeveloped and under-developed nations around to world. How much food do we provide to the undernourished of the world? How many American charities do work in the worst nations of the world? I think you will find that the cost of our charity is greater than the entire GNP of many European counties, such as Sweden! America is not perfect, but we are still one of the model citizens of the world community.

By what evidence was Iran a threat to Iraq? First of all, you seem a little prejudice ridden :mommy: The only time that any Muslim fundamentalist state has been peaceful is when they are preparing for their next attack. Remember, fundamentalist Muslims consider non-Muslims to be only one step better than a cow, and that they are to be enslaved whenever encountered.:mommy: You seemingly don't even know that there is a difference between Shiites, radical Shiites, Suniites and radical Sunnites (iirc named Wahabites (a saudi direction btw) like the Taliban for example). That, as well as the general content of that quote, is not a sign of beeing too well informed, and admittedly a little sickening to read. :almostmad: Mullahmania galore :rolleyes:

As pointed out the Iranian military was down, the only thing Saddam had to perhaps fear was an uprising of the Shiite groups in Iraq. He adressed that problem with his proven cruelty against his own people - but why attack Iran? And you misunderstood me, I said that Iraq was still holding iranian territory when they asked for peace first, not vice versa. And what difference does it make for you when Saddam wasn't to get 1/2 of the world but just the country you live in? Is that the difference between a good butcher and an evil one? Mind, Saddam had just assassinated his predesessor when he started the war against Iran. He had to gain prestige, and a war against a weaker neighbour was just the right thing for a quick, profitable success.
Though you really seem convinced about Iraq attacking preemptive, consider the folowing points:

Saddam wanted to take advantage from the, after the islamic revolution, disorganised state of his neighbour country. It seemed easy prey. Put it the way you like it, Iran was the victim country, and how many evil things they might have done in Lebanon (more later) or intendeded in Iraq, that can't change this simple fact. Iran, that much is sure, had no war plans against Iraq. So why preemptive? IMO you overstress the meaning of that word a little.
Amusingly you bring up the arguments Saddam used to justify the war as your owns: Worries about the Shiites in Iraq starting a rebellion. The Shiites are a minority in Iraq and would hardly be able to control more than the marshland around Basra - a nuisance but not a threat to Saddam. When you generally don't like to believe Saddam - why are you so blueeyed when he sais something you like to hear? And another thing: You said you don't force your proxies to fight in a war. Right. But by encouraging them you carry responsibility for the things you started. That is for Iraq not very different than perhaps in Chile. You cannot encourage someone to start a war or civil war and then claim that it is his war and that you don't have any responsibility for the excesses and atrocities of your proxy. That is hypochrisy. And wat else? Maybe Iran was threat a to US national safety? Because of disliking the US? The loss of the base in Iran was clearly a loss to the US. They lost valuable SIGINT stations alongside the russian border and a lot of high tech equipment in Iran. The embassy siege was silly and humiliating, right. You are aware that the Shah was a dictator? The US massively supported him; for the iranian opposition not really a reason to like the US. What else? Iran also was supporting the shiites in Lebanon, brothers in faith (Shiites are a minority in Islam). The Shiites were fighting Israel and their own neighbours in Lebanon. By method every force in lebanon was a terrorist group, even the *good* lebanese who supported Israel and the west. Shiites later blew up the US Marines in Beirut (as well as a lot of french soldiers as you probably don't know).
Initially successful the *multinational* (US-french) peacekeeping force in Lebanon eventually was unwanted (as for example in Mogadischu as well. Some might have drawn lessons from Beirut ... :rolleyes: ). When sending Soldiers out for peacekeeping in a place like Beirut where the local population does not want peace that is almost unavoidably a failure.
A peacekeeping force has to be neutral, a moderator. After beeing neutral for a while the US preferred to coose a side, that of the actual president Gemaiel - and became a target. Not very surprising. Seemingly the US didn't understand that and had to receive the same lesson again in Mogadischu.
When doing something stupid and suffering losses as a result of that it is questionable to only blame (and bomb) the opponent. Doing so is myopia.So?

[ January 12, 2003, 09:58: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

DarkWolf:

1. 1987, laying landmines in a civilian harbor(don't remember where.)

2. The desert storm wasn't a war, it was a massacre. That was was i ment.

3. Bin Laden is not a hundred-piece as bad as Bush, your defence minister or any other in your stupid freaking goverment.

4. Are they civilians-murderers? Yes, i know that. How about USA? Should we ask all of those thousen of killed civilians families by the American army in the 'nam?

5. Ok, you would bomb them. But what if you finds out that those terrorists are also in France, Russia and England? Attack them and you will get your ass kicked so hard you will have to remove the boot with a chainsaw.

6. NATO is just like UN just maipulated by USA. Like when USA took the papers from the UN-inspections in Iraq and edited them a "little."

7. America DOES makes orginized attacks att civilians targets. My guess that efter Iraq it will be the next small, underpowered, oil or other mineral-rich country in the middle east so they will control the whole region.

8. ejsmith: thanks for the support.

9. I lost over half my relatives on my fathers side in WWII. They where jewish germans there. And we all know that they weren't so popular. And FYI, i would rather be controlled by Sovjet than USA.

/my two cents

[ January 12, 2003, 18:02: Message edited by: Ivanji, son of Loki ]

Ragusa,

I do know the difference between the different flavors of the Muslim religion. However, the fact of the matter is it was not only the Shiites celebrating in the streets of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan after 9/11. The fact of the matter is that an identifiable group has attacked America. That group is supposedly a vast minority in a sea of a "peaceful" majority. However, that sea of majority does nothing to prevent, stop, or punish the minority for the crimes they commit, and actually revels in every successful attack. This makes them accomplices to the fact, and just as guilty. I can guarantee you that if one of the American militant movements were to start terrorist attacks against any country of the world, the American people, and the American government, would immediately bring those involved to justice. It is the moral responsibility of every one of these "peace loving" Sunnis to stamp out their terrorist cousins. But they are too sympathetic to the cause. Is America historically complicit in the entire affair? You bet. However, we are still trying to undue what was done during the cold war, things we did in an honest attempt to protect a maximum number of lives. Did we engage in proxy wars with the Soviets? Of course, but as I said before, it would have been a long nuclear winter this century if we hadn't. What we really did was get a cat to kill a mouse, then a dog to get rid of the cat, then a tiger to get rid of the dog. Did we do the right thing? No, but hindsight is always 20/20. I believe that we are currently attempting to remedy the situation that we created. If we wanted to, we could probably the Saudis to take care of the Iraqi’s for us, but then we would just end up with another problem and one less ally. The entire world is effected one way or another by the actions we take. If we choose to go one way certain groups will criticize us, do what they want and another group steps in. Apparently very few of the governments of the world truly oppose us, and believe me, that is more telling than any evidence that anyone on this post can present. They have far more knowledge of what is going on than you or I.

If America were truly the new evil empire, there would be about 10 or 12 new territories under our control. We do not take others land and keep it. We are currently the dominant power of the world. With that comes the responsibility of policing the world. We have not chosen this role, it just fell to us. Other countries of the world were happy to sit back and let, if not force us into doing this. What do you think the German economy would be like if Germany had to spend the same percentage of its GNP on its military that the US does. Most of the western world has been happy to sit back and let America spend its wealth to insure their security. Given the power that America has, I believe that we have been for the most part benevolent in this role. I have a good friend who grew up in Iran. She saw first hand what happened after Khomenii took over. There was no peace. The Iranian people were terrified. Human rights were completely suspended. Before Khomenii there was peace, security, a blossoming economy, freedom of speech, and a progressive society where arts and technology were being explored and expanded. After Khomenii, it was like the clock was turned back 200 years. Women were being stoned in the streets for being seen without their burkahs. Men were publicly beheaded without trial for allegedly speaking out against the government. She was an eyewitness to these things and a credible witness at that. So I really have a hard time with your peaceful representation of Iran.

And finally, you are right, if we choose a side, then we shouldn't be to surprised when we get hit by the other side. The problem is that the rest of the world seems to think that just because we are big and powerful, that we should just take it. :rolleyes: We have every right to ally ourselves with those we choose, and we have every right to defend ourselves when attacked. :toofar: As far as the politics go there will always be militants, and pacifists, and everything in between. It is all shades of gray, but you and the rest of the world owe a debt of gratitude to the US for playing the part of moderator and protector, regardless of the fact that we have not been perfect in those roles.

Ivanji,

"And FYI, i would rather be controlled by Sovjet than USA." There was a reason why all the former Republics of the Soviet Union couldn't get away from the USSR fast enough. Too bad you don't understand that.

Thank you for showing exactly what you are and your maturity level. I will hope for your sake that you are still young, and that with a little time to mature you will see just how naive you really are. Until then, your opinions are like those of a misguided child. The views should be spurned, but the child nurtured. :grin:

Oh and I will respond to #5.

5. Ok, you would bomb them. But what if you finds out that those terrorists are also in France, Russia and England? Attack them and you will get your ass kicked so hard you will have to remove the boot with a chainsaw. If that happened it would be called a World War, and at this point we would all be in the $hit. The fact of the matter is that most of those countries would not condone such behavior, and if you are more than a child, you should understand that.

Just so you realize, your 2 cents are exactly like an American penny. Not worth as much as it costs to produce. :rolleyes:

Here, here Darkwolf!

I get so sick of all the US bashing. If you have a problem with our constitution fine, if you do not believe our philosophy of life and freedom fine. Our biggest fault is that we are the strongest nation, therefore the easiest to criticize. I don't want my country to be the police around the world, but if we learned anything from WWII it is how easy it is for countries, neighbors, to sit around doing nothing, only to find they are not immune to the issues going on next door. Go ahead and complain about how slowly we Americans came around to help in that war; Damned if you do damned if you don't. We wouldn't be where we are now had we stayed out of that picture.

This does not mean I support everything my country is doing at the moment. I just believe the US has one of the best political systems available in the world.

Ok i change the fifth question. What if ONLY Russia had terrorist? Would you attack them even if. Remember that they have the nuke you know.

And I am not naive. I am a patriot, a smart one who isn't so dumb that I will go back to the dumb ones.

I am a real man, a socialist!

[ January 13, 2003, 17:22: Message edited by: Ivanji, son of Loki ]

As for shooting back, think about it. IMO it depends. When you start a peacekeeping operation as a neutral party to keep war parties from killing each other that doesn't take away your right to defend yourself when beeing shot at.
When you provoked beeing fired at that may be different. Usually soldiers do what they have learned: When someone shoots at them, they shoot back. This menthality is deadly for a peacekeeper. And I feel that there is a lack of understanding about that point. A peacekeeper does his job well when both sides dislike him.

So when political leadership makes a move to join one of the parties, the peacekeepers mutate into combattants - the move unavoidably provokes violence. This not only is not in the interest of the country you originally want to settle peace in, but not in the interest of the soldiers you sent there. Soldiers and civilians pay for such political mistakes.
Politicians should spend a good deal of attention to the possible consequences of their decisions, anything else is irresponsible. As in the case of Beirut the consequences weren't hard to predict.

When a president (Reagan in the case of Beirut) makes such a move, or mistake, and when, as a result of that, his soldiers die, it is always easier to credibly blame a flag burning mob
and to fire a couple of cruise missiles than to admit a mistake - we all know how evil the average mullah is :rolleyes:
It is thought too short to only say: "Since Shiites bombed us we now bomb them in reaction". Since the Shiites know why they bombed the Marines - as a reaction on the previous provocation of joining a side, this will only create a new reason for further violence. So indeed, not firing back might be more prudent sometimes, but eventually that would undermine the credibility of a president, as well as his chances in the next elections.

Following Klausewitz war is the continuation of politics with military means. Taking this as a criterium: What was the use of shelling of Shiite positions after the bombing?
The bombers weren't hit, civilians died instead. Further hatred was caused and more bombings of US facilities followed. And what political aim was achieved by that? The shiites, previously mainly indifferent and busy with their old enemies - the sunnites of the PLO and the christians as well as with the occasional israelis, now really had a reason to hate the US. A decicive strike against terror :rolleyes: What kind of mess is that, politics?!

Ivanji,

Socialism will not work until you get humans to change their nature. Most people would rather take what little is offered to them without having to work for it than to get off their butts and try to make themselves more than they are. Let's look at how socialism works in a real life situation.

Two people go to work at a firm at the same time. One of them is a real go getter, works through lunches, puts in overtime off the clock, always goes the extra mile. The other one just kind of shows up, you know on time, most of the time, and is usually back from lunch on time, and stays in their word area until the clock shows exactly the time it is to leave, and heck they even stay awake most of the day. Now in America, the second worker would be fired. Meanwhile the first worker would have the title of Manager in a few short years. He would be getting a steady stream of raises, of which he would get to keep at least 60% of. In a socialist system, the second worker couldn't be fired. It is not really his fault, maybe he just isn't very intelligent, or maybe he grew up in a lazy household, but it isn't his fault, he is just a product of his environment. Meanwhile our first worker, well, he probably is still getting promotions, only problem is that he only gets to keep 30% of this new found wealth. You know, he has to pay taxes so that the government can give his money that he earned to someone who is too lazy to go get a job and work like he did. And also the company he works for can't really afford to give him as big of a raise as he would have gotten in a capitalist system, because they have to support on the lazy workers who don't do their jobs, since they can't be fired.

So lets see, who are the 2 biggest groups that are going to be in favor of socialism? Well it certainly isn't the smart guy who is working his butt off to get ahead. So it must be the stupid and/or lazy ones.

So Ivanji, which one are you, stupid, lazy, or both?

I know which one I am voting for ;) .

You see, real men actually prefer capitalism. The reason for that is because they want to stand on their own 2 feet, and provide for their families without dependence on or having to pay excessively to the government.

Now, this thread has gotten WAY off topic. So I tell you what, I will give you the last word. Take your best shot sport! Show us all how superior you socialists are. :rolleyes:

Last word eh? I am not as good in writing as you so I will make this short.

It wont work until human nature changes, no. But then lets change it. I believe in a strog socialistic revolution that will show the people which the greatest political system is. A patriot will work, the other one too becouse i don't believe in total freedom so I guess you will get what happens. Remember Sibiria anyone?

Its hard to express my word and ideas on this community, with a reply system. Can we take this on mIRC? I would like to talk to you there.

And BTW, the second worker wouldn't get fired. He just have to be a suck-up guy on work.

I believe in a strong and socialistic world.

/This was my two öre.

[EDIT] - I don't want to make any enemies here DarkWolf. Just so you know.

[ January 13, 2003, 23:51: Message edited by: Ivanji, son of Loki ]

Well spoken Ragusa!

We actually agree on about 90% of your last post. I agree the America needs to stop taking sides in these skirmishes. As a matter of fact, the next time some group starts doing a little ethnic cleansing I hope America turns a blind eye. Doesn't affect us! Why should we care if people are being oppressed, tortured and murdered as long as they are not Americans? Heck, we might end up on the side of the losers, and then we have a big bull’s-eye on our backs. Or we might not choose a side at all, and get smacked by both sides. I mean, we have no real obligation to choose one side over another, even if one of the sides is committing atrocities. They are just 2 equal sides after all. So why should we be involved at all?

I just wish that the rest of the world would stop telling us that it is our job as the richest country in the world to be the world's police. And welfare provider. Sure would be nice to see Americans stop dying in foreign countries that would rather that we weren't there. Let the UN take care of it with their peacekeepers, and let none of them be Americans. No more American soldiers under the command of any foreigners!

PAX AMERICANA! :rolleyes:

The rest of the world better remember one thing though. When you walk up to the biggest toughest kid on the playground and punch him in the face, you are going to pay the price! And in today's world, that price is high indeed. So if you think your country's leaders are complicit in such a plan, you better get rid of them one way or another. :mad:

[ January 14, 2003, 00:22: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

Reading your rant I doubt you have understood a single word of my text.

okay guys, feelings are riding high here and trains are passing each other on different tracks.

Ivanji needs to learn much

Darkwolf needs to lighten up a bit and let the defenses down enough to look at what rational arguments are out there

Ragusa might be better off talking with a democrat

and I,
have entered into a battle playing umpire in a way that is entirely biased.

Scara, it's a lost cause. And, more than likely, pointless. The best thing you can do, here, is pull a Nym.

Get both sides so worked up, that the whole thing explodes, and it's some really massive bloodbath.

Then, when the shooting stops (because the targets are so far apart, now, that people have to travel to find a target), everyone is a bit more talkative. They are talkative because now the lions and tigers encroch, and instead of killing other humans, they are having to kill lions and tigers. The whole zenophobia thing.



Teenagers are like this. Anyone watch "The Ozzbournes" on the Telly?

The mother is just plain awesome. The kids are totally going off on each other, cussing and spitting, with Mom sitting right there inbetween them; silent as a mouse. But as soon as it comes to blows, Teh Mom is in there, pushing them apart.

Scara,

The fact of the matter is, America has made some mistakes, and it is really easy for these self-righteous Euros to point the finger at us for it, and tell us how bad we are, when the fact of the matter is that the only reason that they are able to have the freedom to say the things they do is because of America. Europe is so overblown with its inflated sense of superiority that it is sickening. America will be wrong in the eyes of these pompous individuals whatever we do. It is a lot like a sporting event, after the game is over fans love to tell everyone what the coaches should have done to win the game, but none of those fans seem to realize that it is really easy to sit back and look at the game in hindsight and pick it apart. On top of that, even if the couch would have done what the fans wanted, the game still may have turned out as bad or even worse. And then the fans would have wanted the coach to do something else. There is a reason that the coaches are where they are and the fans are on the sidelines.

I have no problem with someone expressing an opinion of how someone thinks things should be, but trashing America is just another of Europe's petty fashions. If even one of these Euros would admit that America does far more good than harm in this world, I wouldn't be so impassioned. The fact of the matter is, they are jealous of, and simply dislike America. And to be quite honest, I am probably just adding fuel to the fire, so I quit. When someone wants to hate, and wallow in it, there is nothing you can do to help them, they have to get past it themselves. So with that I will take my leave of this thread. :wave:

ejsmith: I think I understand you and some of your posts a little better now...but what the heck is a Nym?

@Scarampella - Warning, Icewind Dale spoilers (not II, the original)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Nym was a character (NPC, not joinable) in the original Icewind Dale that baited the dwarves and elves into a war which essentially led to the extinction of a large majority of both.

thanks for the explanation, I really gotta get this game! And don't worry, Tal, I will purchase it here!

[This is the "Serious Topics" forum, so try to keep on topic more than elsewhere - BTA]

[ January 16, 2003, 00:33: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]