Jump to content
✨ STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE WORLD TOUR ✨

why is everone against the war on iraq?


Matter-Eater Lad

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've heard enough of that! It's so tedious been part o the "democratic" generation! How much I hate that!

 

Well, really I'm more interest in the U.S.A policies, inside the country and things like that. As I'm a foreign, I mainly hear the foreign policies; that's what I get! :rolleyes: Well, really this is meaningless, I just like history! :sneaky:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it so Ironic, how two years ago the whole world loved us?

When America was savegely attacked by Al-Qaeda terrorists on 9-11, virtually the world was WITH US. What I don't understand is why can't people see that if the United States is the most powerful country and after what happened on 9-11, don't they see that this whole thing has gotten out of control and now it doesn't even matter if you are in the United States or not to be safe? You are not safe anywhere anymore... But ohhh when we try to take action, before another disaster happens, the whole world is against us that is kinda shocking, but the true is that the simple word of "War" scares everybody and knowing all the facts I still don't understand why some people are against I think the President Bush did the right thing...'cause if you think about it...either way he was screwed already... if he hadn't done anything, there would have been another disaster already and people would hate him for that, instead he took action and people still hate him for that...so he was screwed already...

The world apparently likes the U.S. when it is on its knees. From that the Democrats deduce a foreign policy, remain on our knees, humble and sumplicant, and enjoy the applause and "support" of the world. That is just not degrading but fool's bargain...3,000 dead for a day's worth of nice words and a few empty U.N. resolutions. The fact is that the world hates us for our wealth, our success, and our power. They hate us into incoherence. So for all you anti-Americans out there, go suck your own dicks!

*applauds*

I say well put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you see, there really isn't anything wrong with war. If you look at the worlds past, not too long ago people would invade each other all the time. Its how the great wall of china was built. The human race has not "evolved" since then, human nature is to destroy and protect yourself. Its what humans do, they can't help it. Only recently have humans learned how to control themselves. Saddam must have missed this memo. So, by the US taking Saddam out by force they were doing something necessary. Saddam just couldn't control himself, he was given way too much power for the kind of man he is, and weapons of mass destruction or not he was dangerous. What can I say? He was a scary guy ( :wideeyed: ), I can understand why Bush would feel threatened by him. I think the reasoning behind it was also that Bush felt responsible for the rest of the world being the current "super-power". Really though, if he hadn't taken action what would have happened? Another terrorist attack? No one really knows, but it the long run I think his choice was for the better. It wasn't like putting up a map and throwing a dart at it to see which country to attack next. It was not senseless violence, his actions were justified. Bush gave a lot of different excuses for this war, he was hoping that the public would accept one of them. I think he realized the real reason for the war was not to find or destroy the weapons of mass destruction, it was just to get saddam out of power. Besides, senseless violence or not, what difference does it make? Are Americans still happy? Are they still living their lives normally? Do they still go to McDonalds? To the best of my knowledge, Yes. This wasn't even a real war, it was a one sided raid. The US could not have lost no matter what so why not do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you lost the point i was making, which is that you can't morally support this war. on moral grounds. on the grounds of U.S. actually had any moral reason of attacking.

 

as for you saying that not long ago humans used to attack each other....I sure hope that we have evolved into something more civilized, as I know we have. There's Geneva Protocol, if you're aware of it. :rolleyes:

 

Human nature is to protect oneself, you say. What was the U.S. protecting itself against? By giving away its WMD to Saddam in the first place?

 

 

Bush feeling responsible for the entire world is like saying Bush is your messiah.... :lol: too naive, really, for me to comment. :/

Why do you think leaving Saddam alone would have led to another terrorist attack? He didn't cause terrorist attack on anyone. He had nothing to do with 9/11. Afghan war was to avenge 9/11. Al Quaeda and Saddam are hardly the same. :rolleyes:

 

Americans might become more happy is they start using nuclear weapons again. Or start attacking small countries with their might.

Is that a justification....that Americans are happy? :rolleyes:

 

 

Yep, this was a terribly one-sided war. The same as when U.S. will next attack any other banana republic, for no good reason.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the only people in the US that were negatively affected by the "war" were families of lost soldiers, and there were very few. Even so, they make such a big deal about losing soldiers these days. I mean, I'm sure these were great people and they will be missed, but what does the rest of the country care? people are dying every second, besides their families, no one knew these people that died for them. I don't think losing soldiers is a legitimate excuse for being angry about this "war". So what is the reason to be angry? If there was no media, I don't know if even half of the US would have have found out about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep, i agree with you on that, now that you put it in those terms :o)

 

American media just need something to keep them busy. Afterall, how do you think they fill up 24-hours a day of coverage? :huh: Half of it is repeat, the same tape over and over and over again. The other half is two talking-heads talking about someone's analysis of what happened. :rolleyes: That's what CNN and Fox have become...idiot channels. :rolleyes:

 

And yep, U.S. hardly lost any lives in this war. Because most of the damage was done by U.S.AF pilots flying high above, firing missiles from thousands of feet away. Essentially, they have become the killing robots with no feel of how it is to actually go kill someone...

 

But I would rather U.S. not lose any. And no, that doesn't mean we stop all the wars. There are legitimate, real wars and battles. And then there are others. This one falls under 'others'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very happy there weren't more casulaties. I can't imagine being a mother who lost a son or daughter in this conflict. You still feel proud of your child because they sacrificed themselves for a great cause, but when they lose their lives for something where the causes and goals are controversial it yields a constant "Why?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American media just need something to keep them busy. Afterall, how do you think they fill up 24-hours a day of coverage? Half of it is repeat, the same tape over and over and over again. The other half is two talking-heads talking about someone's analysis of what happened. That's what CNN and Fox have become...idiot channels.

Exactly! You got it right on.

So far I agree with this whole page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American media, like all television entertainment, is just responding to the American public. It's not so much they need soething to fill up all the time, though this is true. To me, it's easier to understand it in terms of the viewers. The viewers want more and better stories to occupy their time, and when an element of demand enters the picture the qualities of the product become distorted.

 

In that way, it's like the music business. Typically that which is right in front of you (i.e., Britney Spears) is nothing but that which they are trying to sell you. The product closer to the true asthetic probably lies behind the fascade.

 

I like that last sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

hey if more young folks like us take interest in 'public interest programming' then there will be more of it, i'm sure. i mean, PBS shouldn't have to come begging 3 or 4 times a year. once a year and their coffers should be full! lol. I took out my membership just as soon as i got this job...

 

it does take some dedicaiton. and yes, it isn't meant to be 'for-profit', but that doesn't mean they don't make good programs. they've won many many Emmy Awards. They can be more current on culture, though. :rolleyes: And why are they stuck on only Britcoms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hosannas for Bush Jr.!! :lol:

 

Moscow Times (moscowtimes.com)

Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003. Page 10

 

'Bleeding Strategy' Comes Home

By Nicholas Berry

 

Back in the days of the "Evil Empire," the United States pursued what was called the "bleeding strategy" toward the Soviet Union.

 

Reacting to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration, like the Carter administration before it, decided to bankrupt Moscow as the best way to win the Cold War.

 

The Soviet Union would be financially bled.

 

Economically isolating Cuba and Vietnam would force the Soviets to pump considerable sums of money into these clients to prop up their regimes. Supplying weapons to the mujahedin fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan would put heavy costs on the occupation.

 

And Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) would force the Soviet Union to devote ever-increasing shares of its national wealth to its military forces.

 

Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union and the demise of its Communist rulers, many American conservatives hailed the bleeding strategy as the main reason for winning the Cold War.

 

Reagan won it. Although simple minded, this belief lingers among Reagan's champions in America. The existence of the strategy is also widely known abroad, especially among Russian officials and intellectuals.

 

Now, the shoe is on the other foot.

 

Conversations with Russian, EU and Chinese officials strongly suggest that the bleeding strategy is now being used against Bush's America.

 

It is no secret that the leaders of these major players view Bush's preemptive use of force, his pre-occupation on the war on terrorism and on challenging axis-of-evil regimes, his disdain for the UN and international law, and his highly threatening military buildup, including the U.S. missile defense system, as contrary to their interests. Presidents Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao, Jacques Chirac, and others favor multipolarity, not American unipolarity.

 

Finding it difficult to re-direct Bush to a wider, more internationalist orientation, these leaders are taking advantage of what they see as an opportunity to blunt and eventually change the direction of U.S. foreign policy. They appear to have adopted three ways to do it.

 

First, Bush's narrow focus allows them to appease the United States by joining the war on terrorism and to step back by tacitly approving the Iraq war.

 

Bush then is free to pursue his narrow agenda. And that leaves the rest of the world free to pursue their agendas without much U.S. interference. Russia moves to reestablish its sphere of influence and rejoin Europe. China advances its economy and regional influence in its pursuit of great power status. The EU concentrates on expansion, unity and even military cooperation.

 

Second, major powers in Europe and Asia see Bush's grand strategy as weakening American power almost daily -- power that they see as misguided and harmful. This weakening is good.

 

Noting that the United States employed a bleeding strategy to debilitate and fracture the Soviet Union, major powers are now content to let the United States bleed itself. Little help is given to the expensive occupation of Iraq.

 

Objections to Bush's costly (and dubiously effective) missile defense system are muted and it proceeds. China, EU countries, Russia and Japan are lending money to the United States to the tune of $2 billion daily, thus aiding and abetting huge budget deficits that will eventually squeeze Washington's financial ability to maintain its imperium. Interest payments overseas mount. The dollar weakens.

 

This bleeding makes the United States less able to engage in militarism elsewhere, such as toward North Korea or Iran. It burdens the United States, thereby lessening its international economic clout. It reduces Bush's opportunities to interfere in their domestic affairs, whether on human rights, elections or economic restructuring, thereby giving them wide policy latitude.

 

Third, because Bush's strategy is unsustainable because of its enormous costs, its failure to deal with a wide variety of important issues and its dramatic denigration of diplomatic influence, major powers know that Bush's grand unipolar design cannot last long.

 

Eventually, either Bush changes or he and his policies will be repudiated at the polls. Bushism, like Bonapartism, is not forever. The United States will eventually return to normal diplomacy, military moderation, multilateral operations, and to support for international law and organizations.

 

There is no need to advertise the bleeding. Bush is doing the bleeding pretty well all by himself.

 

 

Nicholas Berry, director of ForeignPolicyForum.com, contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...