While the 'civilized world' looked elsewhere...

'Uncle Joe' Stalin had a colourful phrase to describe the masses of well-intentioned, but sadly misguided people who would invevitably protest any Western attempts to contain him. He called them "useful idiots". They still exist today. Last weekend, the streets were filled with them, howling with outrage that the US would dare to use its military power against Saddam Hussein. Jeez, the nerve of some countries! :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, a week ago, before the anti-US protests happened, India expelled Jalil Abbas Jilani, acting High Commissioner from Pakistan, along with four other Pakistani High Commission staff members. Pakistan gave 48 hours notice to India's acting High Commissioner, Sudhir Vyas, and four of his colleagues, expelled for alleged "involvement in activities incompatible with their status".

These two countries are this close to war, possibly nuclear war, and I have yet to see or hear of any protests in the streets of Europe or North America. This conflict has much more potential to cause World War III than another Gulf War does. Where are all the painfully sincere peaceniks that were so adamantly demanding that America must "Give Peace A Chance"?

... or is it politically correct for neighbors to nuke each other, as long as they don't have any, like, ulterior motives, y'know?

I don't think that India & Pakistan are gonna nuke each other , or even start a war at all.

They had over a million soldiers on the borders months ago (right after the afghanistan conflict) ... And nothing happened , cuz the so much contries pressured them not to do so ... Even if no body took action I bet they would never start a new war , since they're both nuclear now ... These people ain't too dumb.

What is not politicaly correct is the U.S. intentional ignoring of the UN and the international comunity for their own plans.
If they moved on like this ignoring countries such as Russia , China (France & Germany currently too), and destroyed the UN authority , this is what may lead to the world war III .

The US have India by the purse strings, and India will do what the US says. I don’t think nuclear Armageddon will result in the fighting over Kashmir. It has not produced the kind of irresolvable stalemates that give rise to red button pushing to date.

Do you ever read "The Onion" ? There is an interesting piece regarding North Korea. That is where my attention is currently focused !

As far as the quote from Starlin is concerned, well we say the result of his political ideologies. I would question his judgment as to what is idiotic and what is not.

I still remember the Cuban missile crisis, when the US and the USSR were tittering on the brink of nuclear Armageddon, do you really thing either would have tolerated any political or military intervention by the UN or any one else for that.

Originally posted by Lordathestrings
sadly misguided people who would invevitably protest any Western attempts to contain him. He called them "useful idiots". They still exist today.

Excuse me but a lot of highly intelligent, critically thinking people fall into your "useful idiot" pigeonhole. Most of the protesters I know are politics/International relations students.
Assuming Saddam has Chemical/biological weapons this is how we will find out; by retaliation. All you need to do to create support for terrorism is to break a people by bombing them and their families.

Last weekend, the streets were filled with them, howling with outrage that the US would dare to use its military power against Saddam Hussein. Jeez, the nerve of some countries! :rolleyes:

Since when was war against one person? Many innocent people will die lots more will loose their innocence and die thereafter. Saddam is an evil bastard, no mistake but there are tons of evil bastards all over the world and nobody cares what they do to their people unless they can make some financial gain by "liberating" them, look at all the wars in Africa, who cared?

I don't know what the Canadian press is like but if it's anything like the American's its focus is tunnel-visioned and myopic.

Where are all the painfully sincere peaceniks that were so adamantly demanding that America must "Give Peace A Chance"?

SHOVE Y0UR STEREOTYPES WHERE THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE. Lots of very normal people have been protesting in Britain, close on 2 million out of the 60 or so million. Public opinion in the UK and the US is against war not backed by the UN. I really begrudge the stereotype of tree-hugging, dope-smoking hippies with childish-naive attitudes. These stereotypes are perpetuated partially by the desire of individuals involved to be recognised as belonging to a group of people who have solidarity and can probably trust one another (allowing short-cuts to be taken in establishing new friendships) and partly by right-wing press reports which like to suggest that opposition to government policy is largely the product of some people's large drug intakes and not a well-considered, legitimate response to bad policy. True, whatever a government does will come under scrutiny and you can't make everyone happy all of the time but if people don't protest other people will not take the time to evaluate the information available and form their own opinions.

If a regime change has to happen in an oil-producing country I dont' trust a load of ex-oil, motor car and weapons building industrialists who repeatedly de-regulate restrictions designed to protect the environment, work force and poor people from exploitation to do so.

Meanwhile, a week ago, before the anti-US protests happened, India expelled Jalil Abbas Jilani, acting High Commissioner from Pakistan, along with four other Pakistani High Commission staff members. Pakistan gave 48 hours notice to India's acting High Commissioner, Sudhir Vyas, and four of his colleagues, expelled for alleged "involvement in activities incompatible with their status".
These two countries are this close to war, possibly nuclear war, and I have yet to see or hear of any protests in the streets of Europe or North America. This conflict has much more potential to cause World War III than another Gulf War does.

Protests about what? What are our governments (Canadian and British respectively in our cases) doing to involve themselves in this dispute? I don't bloody know! Maybe you're right that this is a more serious problem but frankly my current nightmares are American in origin.
I'd be interested to know more about this issue but I don't see why knowing about it should change a thing about my own personal feelings about USA inc. and a British gov. that allows Americans to base missile "defence systems" in our country making us an obvious target if America decides to pick a fight with someone really dangerous.
If you were a dangerous megalomaniac with a nuke would you use it on your immediate neighbour?
The effects of their own weapons would totally screw their environment and poison a whole heap of their own people. This is before we consider an actual nuclear RESPONSE.

... or is it politically correct for neighbors to nuke each other, as long as they don't have any, like, ulterior motives, y'know?

P.C. or not it's insane. It's terrorists and not governments who might not care if EVERYBODY dies for their crazy cause.

Political disidents in the US:



"Out of sight, out of mind"

Point well made but I have also seen some very very horrible pictures of the results of the last gulf war also. Naturally they were censored at the time and only authorised journalists were allowed in. To dissatisfy the military is to loose authorisation and to be censored.

It seems unlikely to me that occupying forces would make as much of any effort to rebuild Iraq as they will to bomb it. When there's poverty and starvation (which, yes, there is also now, cause of sanctions which some argue could be lifted following regime-change) there's desparation and surely that's conducive to terrorist causes.

Also people seem to be missing the point that killing a whole heap of soldiers, whilst considered "legitimate" military practice is pretty horrible. No political purge is likely to have the same death toll as the destruction of a whole army. What I should like to know is "Is sadam's army conscripted?", I believe this is likely because in the Iran-Iraq war he sent children over mine-fields to clear them for his elite troops, this isn't something I can imagine kids doing by choice. Are the army to be fought willingly fighting for Sadam's regime or just folk like you and I who would rather not bloody their hands? I heard that troops surendered readily in the last war. 60% of the population of Iraq is Sunni Muslim, Sadam's ba'athist party is secular and supposedly socialist. This means 60% probably don't support him, maybe this is an argument for regime change also.

A subsidiary note: US female protesters would appear to be cuter than ours.

I realy pitty those who do not even try to ask WHY there is so much terror and pain in the world. i only hear them all shouting "we must not accept terrorism, we must fight terrorism, we must kill all terrorists". THAT is what i REALY call naive - not the tree hugging hippies.
If you only would be a LITTLE interrested in collecting knowledge of the backgrounds of the past history (which are to be found all across the net and in papers, etc) and realy start adding them up and draw logic non-prejudiced conclusions, you will see that all those Terrorism problems are home-made (not only by the USA though - that would be unfair - but it plays a VERY vital role - thats why it is mainly directed towards the US). And history has proven us often enough that fighting terror with terror(war) DOES NOT WORK AT ALL - it only leads to more terror! However - we will see what the future brings - the sad thing is, that our children are the ones to suffer.. i realy am afraid that our generation will not be mentioned as a very good one after we are gone.

I'm not sure its possible to do anything mindful without prejudice. My own views are prejudiced by the things that lead me to formulate them, so, I take it are the views of you guys! I'm here to find new prejudices, that's what makes this sort of thing so interesting for me, not the opportunity to bash people for their views but to test my own and my ways of expressing them.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Political disidents in Iraq:



"Out of sight, out of mind"

I bet you can get even more cruel pix from North Korea or hot places in central African nations.

But since these countries don't have much oil or other solid economical bases (i.e. it won't be a great benefit economicaly and/or politicaly to invade them , or not worth the money that would be spent on them) , they don't get much attention from the U.S. .

Excuse me , I'll have use your quote : "Out of sight, out of mind" !

LOL Rask . . . you're the man. Thanks for the good laugh.

Originally posted by SLY
I bet you can get even more cruel pix from North Korea or hot places in central African nations.

But since these countries don't have much oil or other solid economical bases (i.e. it won't be a great benefit economicaly and/or politicaly to invade them , or not worth the money that would be spent on them) , they don't get much attention from the U.S. .

Excuse me , I'll have use your quote : "Out of sight, out of mind" !

It's not even close to being out of my mind. It quite honestly bothers me quite a bit, however:
-Iraq has has been under obligation to disarm and prove that it's disarmed with the penalty of invasion and regime change since the end of the Gulf War. No other nation in the world is under such obligations.
-I'm sure we can both agree that Saddam and his government has been lieing about their weapons programs, and I would contend that they're lieing to hide the fact that they're not in compliance with the UN demands, and have no intention of ever being in compliance with the UN.
-Not following through in Iraq sends a message to all those other nations that there is no international will to follow through with the demands the international community makes. Worse yet, it gives them a blueprint to follow: Hold out until the very last second, make a minor, meaningless consession so the dovish elements in the UN say "hey, look, that's progress! Let's give them more time!" and repeat as neccessary until the world gets bored with it and moves onto something else.
-If this is really about oil and boosting the US economy, why go through with the HUGE expense of war and then several years of occupation if the same exact goal (increasing Iraqi oil production to lower the price of oil) can be acheived peacefully? This war and the deficit spending and post-war recession that will acompany it (if it happens) will hurt the US economy for several decades. However, when you consider the financial (but more importantly, human) cost of waiting, it's pretty clear (to me anyway) what action has to be taken, and now.

Originally posted by Azrael
I realy pitty those who do not even try to ask WHY there is so much terror and pain in the world. i only hear them all shouting "we must not accept terrorism, we must fight terrorism, we must kill all terrorists". THAT is what i REALY call naive - not the tree hugging hippies.

I think you're half right. One of my main criticisms of the Bush administration (and conservative America in general) is that they really don't think or care about how most terrorists became terrorists in the first place. They see changing US policy as "giving in" to the terrorists (something that admitantly, shouldn't be done), but they also fail to realize that US policy has infact created much of the problem, and certain areas of US policy should be chanced, not to capitulate to the terrorists, but because the plolicy was wrong.

About 3,000 years ago, Sun Tzu hit the nail right on the head in regards to war and how it should be waged. He pointed out that war sometimes has to be fought, and that turning away in such times is detremental to a nation, but so is fighting a war that doesn't need to be fought. He also pointed out that the war should be fought to be won because drawn out conflicts are costly and tend to fail and backfire. Sitting down and really looking at the history books shows these principals to be absolutely correct, right up to today.

A quick, decisive war in Iraq followed by a positive reconstruction of Iraq will work to eliminate terrorism (Osama bin Laden often points to the plight of the Iraqi people when justifying his Jihad against the West), and a potential source of very nasty weapons for terrorists. A long, drawn out war with heavy civilian casualties will make all of the above worse, but by that same token, doing nothing is already making the situation worse.

Originally posted by u10ajf
...re are tons of evil bastards all over the world and nobody cares what they do to their people unless they can make some financial gain by "liberating" them, look at all the wars in Africa, who cared?...

This is a major issue I have with this whole Iraqi war talk.In the other thread(and Rask,do you see how quickly cynism kills a thread?),I mentioned our(Kenya) own former president.If you ask me,this guy should join Milosevic in the Hague(and I'm not the only Kenyan who feels this way).President Moi had torture chambers in the basement of the govt. building holding the headquarters of the provincial adminstration.Quite some nerve there.He's massacred people.Is nerve gassing a whole village(Saddam)any different from bludgeoning some 300(official figures,who knows what the real figure was)people to death on an airstrip(Moi)?.Or killing several thousand people,and displacing tens of thousands more,under the guise of "tribal clashes"?(The Kenyan situation is such that we're so spread out and intermarried and dependent on each other and stuff,it's impossible to hurt another tribe without hurting your own,hence it's next to impossible to have a real tribal war).
The man behind these things is the man Bush described as "a good and strong leader."(He was right about strong)And when did Bush say this?October 2002.Not 16 million years ago.Not during the cold war.Not during his election campaigns.LAST YEAR,OCTOBER.Condemning Saddam(and no,I do not support Saddam),while at the same time praising a presidednt with similar traits to saddam.
Now,I never was good in math.But it doesn't add up.Not to me.Iknow,Iknow,saddam is an arse hole that needs to be removed from power.YES.But why is it that people who are the same are not the same to Bush?A bastard is a bastard.
I'll use an analogy to how I see this.You take the bus to work.A robber takes the same bus,but for different reasons(he might also,in his own sick sense,say he's going to work).You're in the same bus,but for very different reasons.Same thing here.I may want to see saddam ousted.So does Bush.But I can't help feel,for the reasons I've said,that he's doing it for other reasons.
About India and Pakistan:
This is a very different situation,Lord.For the following reasons.
India isn't trying to remove Perves Musharaff from power.Neither is Pakistan trying to displace Vajpayee.They are squabbling over borders.
These two countrties are about the same size,in terms of military might.Compare Iraq with USA.India knows Pakistan can **** her up.So does Pakistan.Which is why all they're doing is sabre rattling(If you're fighting,then ****,fight!!)
Rask,you say that Iraq is under some obligations from the UN,and that no other country is under such obligations.True.Now,how did Iraq get under those obligations in the first place?Was it coz Saddam gassed his own people?Was it coz he killed political dissidents?Was it coz he was stowing oil wealth away while his people were starving?Was it coz he was forcing children into his army?The answer to all these questions is no.Saddam got under those obligations when he invaded another Sovereign nation.So to me,grounds for war should similar to these.But don't tell me it's coz he's such a demon and he is causing so much suffering to his own people,blah blah.You(America)don't care about those.I don't know what you care about.But it definately isn't that(People suppresed and dying under a dictatorial regime).
In that other thread,someone talked about Saddam obliterating Israel from the map.Please.Even he knows that would be the end of him.Or is he suicidal as well(now I'm being cynical,but nicely).

Originally posted by kingdavid
Rask,you say that [u]Iraq is under some obligations from the UN,and that no other country is under such obligations.True.[/u]Now,how did Iraq get under those obligations in the first place?Was it coz Saddam gassed his own people?Was it coz he killed political dissidents?Was it coz he was stowing oil wealth away while his people were starving?Was it coz he was forcing children into his army?The answer to all these questions is no.Saddam got under those obligations when he invaded another Sovereign nation.So to me,grounds for war should similar to these.But don't tell me it's coz he's such a demon and he is causing so much suffering to his own people,blah blah.You(America)don't care about those.I don't know what you care about.But it definately isn't that(People suppresed and dying under a dictatorial regime).

Wait-wait-wait-wait--
You agree that Saddam is under certain obligations* from the UN, but you don't agree that he should be removed from power for not meeting those obligations... even though the consequences for not meeting the UN obligations have ALWAYS been invasion and regime change? What gives?

The best analogy for what's going on here is that of a criminal on parole for "Crime X." Saddam invaded Kuwait, the sentence for doing that was regime change, but he's been put on parole (given a second chance), and if he plays by the ALL the rules, he gets to stay in power of Iraq.

If a criminal is put on parole after serving a portion of their sentence, they don't have to commit Crime X or a worse one to go back to jail to serve the rest of the sentence, ANY violation of the conditions of parole means the criminal goes back to finish the sentence for Crime X and, depending on what they've done, they could end up serving a more severe sentence.

You're basicly saying "OK, we told him that if he didn't stop selling drugs we'd put him back in jail, and maybe he's still selling Crystal Meth to high schoolers, but he's not selling it to grade schoolers any more, so lets ask him one more time to please stop dealing and if he still doesn't listen we'll ask him again, but using different words." If the problem weren't really so serious, that could be a Monty Python skit.

Finally, I think I'm a better judge of what myself and America does and doesn't care about as I live here. Have you ever even visted? Not that it's directly related to Iraq, but if you're on AOL Instant Messenger and want to talk to somebody who can describe how it feels to see first hand the huge void in Manhatten where roughly 3,000 lives were suddenly snuffed out, IM me (Letch be Friends), I'll be happy to fill you in.


*The basic obligations in question being; disarm of ALL weapons of mass destruction, have NO missles with a range greater than 90 miles (150km, right?), put an end to ALL weapons development, and finally PROVE via UN inspections that all of the above have happened.

Dude , why haven't we seen the US forcing Saddam to make some political corrections ?
The only thing we've heard was ORDERING Saddam to resign & leave ... And it doesn't make any sense, cuz everybody know he would never take such an action since it would hurt his fu*king ego.
Why haven't we seen demands of democratic elections under UN supervision instead ?
Why do they ONLY speak of war?

And tell me , which is more dangerous on the UN's authority & future , the US attitude or the Iraqi attitude ?
At least , Iraqi officials (I don't mean to defend them of course) show respect to the UN when they speak .
On the other hand , the US is like denying the whole International community & the UN for their own good.
Is this how you teach "Democracy" to the rest of the world?
It's very normal to disagree with other countries like Russia,France,etc. ... But since most of the UN disagree with the US , the US should step back and respect the interests of other countries instead of implying their domination by military force.

This discussion will never end , but I'm afriad that if the US went for a war without support from the UN , it might be the mistake of a lifetime.

Originally posted by SLY
Dude , why haven't we seen the US forcing Saddam to make some political corrections ?
The only thing we've heard was ORDERING Saddam to resign & leave ... And it doesn't make any sense, cuz everybody know he would never take such an action since it would hurt his fu*king ego.
Why haven't we seen demands of democratic elections under UN supervision instead ?
Why do they ONLY speak of war?

A). Actually, the message being sent to Saddam is essentially "Comply with the UN resolutions completely and fully or we WILL kick your hind quarters."
B). Name a single alterior motive for going to war with Iraq that couldn't be attained [u]much[/u] more cheaply IF a peaceful resolution were possible.

And tell me , which is more dangerous on the UN's authority & future , the US attitude or the Iraqi attitude ?
At least , Iraqi officials (I don't mean to defend them of course) show respect to the UN when they speak.

The US is atleast being honest about it's position. Iraq has been telling bald-faced lies all along and still expects the UN to take them seriously. Now THAT is disrespectful.

The sad fact is that in the UN today, there isn't the political will to enforce it's own resolutions, therefore it's made itself irrelivent. France, Germany, and Russia's governments want to hold onto votes so they can stay in power (and keep a few billion dollars in sales of Iraqi oil too), and a lot of other governments resemble Iraq's just enough to make the idea of regime change a scary proposition.

First , a war can NEVER be called a cheap solution , innocent people's life ain't cheap.

You're saying that France, Germany, and Russia's governments want to hold onto votes so they can stay in power (and keep a few billion dollars in sales of Iraqi oil too) .
Why don't you flip it over ?
The US isn't satisfied that they're getting nothing that worth a sh*t from Iraq , while countries like those mentioned are getting it all ... So the US decide to invade Iraq with some bullsh*t reasons , so they can make some moeny from/with Iraq in the near future.

May be it's all about interests and money , if so , the US will be like a thug who kills for money. (sorry for being a little rude , but I realy didn't find other words to express)

Which is more cruel & evil ... Trying to prevent a war for your own interests or declaring a war to serve your interests ?

Sly.. this is senseless - it is the perfect example of how good propaganda works. (sorry - had to say that - no offense though!)

I'm not making a propaganda for any side , I'm justy posting my opinion as an outside viewer .

I naturaly lean towards peace anyway .

Remember, President Bush did not win by a large majority of the votes here in the states (were not even sure if he won by majority at all). I, myself, don't feel that Mr.Bush is a good representation of the American people and am counting the days until his 4yr term is up.I am tired of making excuses for our Presidents neanderthal behavior and am having a hard time developing a sense of american pride w/the way national affairs are being conducted by our government.