View Full Version : Okay, dems, repubs, liberals, greens, conservatives - I have a statement to make

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Dec 16th, 2002, 12:19 AM
Not that it really matters ;)

But as a hardcore liberal, I have come to a hard decision:

I favor regime change in Iraq and Saudia Arabia.......maybe Iran.

First up, would be Iraq. Make is as quick as possible, but keep our folks there to ensure the transition is made thoroughly.

This upsets me, because I can't believe I agree with partially of what Bush wants....but for the good of the WORLD I want Sadaam out.....

God.....what am I thinking? ;)

King Lindsay
Dec 16th, 2002, 12:21 AM
Have you seen how much it might cost?

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Dec 16th, 2002, 12:24 AM
I believe it is worth it in the long run......as a liberal, I'm not usually concerned with how much stuff is going to cost - so long as it is done properly.

Dec 16th, 2002, 12:27 AM
Me Thinks That Someone May Be Less Of A Hardcore Liberal And A Great Deal More Moderate Than They Might Like To Think.;)

Dec 16th, 2002, 12:33 AM
It's a baaaaad precedent!!!!

What if China wants regime change in Taiwan, Brazil in Uraguay, Nigeria in Liberia, Mexico in El Salvador, Spain in Puerto Rico, etc.

It would never end. I still go with the UN approach to solve these problems.

King Lindsay
Dec 16th, 2002, 12:36 AM
VS Fan, I bring up cost only because the American economy is in quagmire right now, and war with Iraq would be a huge expenditure. Perhaps it's not the right time with the economy in the shape it is?

i also agree with Choco, and I posted a thread way back about Bush' shady reason for wanting this war.

Barrie dude, you can be a liberal and still support a war.

Dec 16th, 2002, 06:42 AM
oh VS, it happens to the best of us:). I am always surprised by how I'm supporting a president that is so pro-life:rolleyes: . and on some occasions I find myself thinking that a specific step by Sharon was the right one, even though I'm hard core left. it's called being a balanced adult, and not blindly following the group you've alliened(sp) yourself with.

and KL, though I get what you're saying about cost, you should also realize that the economic affects of a war aren't that predictable. yes, the war will cost money, but that money will be mostly put into american military industry, and the army... the economy is already moving in the direction of a recession, a war could actually be the thing to reverse the trend (not that that's a reason to go to war, but still, sometimes these things boost an economy). besides not everything is about money, sometimes you have to do what you think is right, and what you think is needed to protect yourself. people everywhere seem to feel it's unsafe to travel, to vacation in places they used to... our sense of security is worth the expense. and I object to people who suggest this war is only about oil. that seems so inaccurate to me. the cost of oil will probably rise because of war, and where it will go after the war, no-one knows.

Dec 16th, 2002, 10:39 AM
I agree with Choco. It's a very bad precedent.

~ The Leopard ~
Dec 16th, 2002, 11:15 AM
And I suppose getting rid of Hitler in, say, 1938 would also have been a "bad precedent". :rolleyes:

I think successfully getting rid of a dangerous, murderous regime would be a *good* precedent.

That doesn't mean I'm pushing for it right now... and I don't take the expense in money and human life lightly, for example... but I don't get this "bad precedent" idea. Do you guys (apart from Noga) have any idea of what the doctrine of prcedent is all about? It's only a precedent if the reasoning that justifies it justifies other action. But there is no reasoning in support of getting rid of Saddam that could be used to support getting rid of, say, the regime in Taiwan.

No one is saying that the principle to be followed is that any nation can attack any other nation for any reason it likes. It is that some small number of regimes are better removed for everyone's sake because they are a tyrannical and a danger to world peace.

Dec 16th, 2002, 11:28 AM
But who determines who's good and who's bad?

In Hitler's case it was clear, as for Iraq, they're still looking for a reason to attack Iraq.

Dec 16th, 2002, 11:38 AM
great post Joui. this is so true. people are using this "fear of precedent" as an excuse not to act at all. think what you will about this fight, but don't say we shouldn't fight it now, because it will set a "precedent" for later. it will not.

(and yes Joui, I know what a precedent is:D . and I'm in court actually for the next 3 days... it's a treat for a corporate lawyer like me who settles everything out of court:). also, 3 days of Tel Aviv sunshine instead of Jerusalem cold:D )

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Dec 16th, 2002, 11:43 AM
I favor a regime change where the citizens are not allowed personal freedoms......this includes China.

But most importantly, we need to start with Iraq and do it ASAP - I'm tired of the talking, the UN report that Iraq turned in was full of shit (this caused me to change my mind). I mean - they may not have "weapons of mass destruction" but who cares - Sadaam does not treat his people in any humanly way possible.

As USA, we are the worlds strongest country, so we can decide who needs a regime change and when ;)

Nahh -- I think it's best to work as a group to do something like this - I mean, it would be great if we had help (sans France) but you are not always gonna have 100% support from all the countries - so if we need to go it alone, then so be so. We will win regardless, that I am sure of it.

And Noga ;) thanks for the support.....I don't know WHY I'm feeling this way.....it's scary.

Dec 16th, 2002, 11:45 AM
but Tine, Hitler looks like a clear case to you now, but it wasn't then. countries took their good time. had their doubts. talked about waiting, about the nature of his intentions and that maybe they didn't go "that far" so it's better to just wait him out. just like now. Saddam is not hitler, but you get my point. you only know for sure if you did the right thing with the passage of time, looking back. we have to decide what to do NOW. it's a risk. you have to take a stand without being 100% sure. that's the tricky part.

~ The Leopard ~
Dec 16th, 2002, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Beggin' Beguine
But who determines who's good and who's bad?

In Hitler's case it was clear, as for Iraq, they're still looking for a reason to attack Iraq.

As I said I'm not necessarily pushing for it to happen now. I still have a lot of reservations about attacking Iraq. But, as Noga says, you can never be sure. Maybe if we (which basically means the US and its allies) don't do it - and soon - we'll regret our inaction. Unfortunately, it's a complex world and we have to live all the time with moral uncertainty.

But as for who determines who's good and bad.... well we are arguing about whether we think taking violent action to get rid of Saddam is or is not justified. The only people who can put the arguments right now are us, as individuals. Whatever Bush does, we will have to decide as individuals, based on whatever we know, whether he did the right thing. But a judgment that he did the right thing in launching an attack (if that is what happens) does not commit us to also thinking that it would be right for Brazil to try to get a regime change in Uruguay (or was it the other way around). We simply have to call the situations how we see them, against our principles and whatever knowledge we have.

Dec 16th, 2002, 12:23 PM
But the USA didn't first help Hitler to get power, did they? The USA didn't send weapons to Germany first only to fight against them later. How many of the weapons Iraq has are produced in Iraq?

You want a regime change in Iraq, fine, who are you going to replace Saddam with? Some pro-USA puppet who'll turn against in the USA in a few years so you can attack them again and change the regime again?

Dec 16th, 2002, 12:23 PM

Good precedent ---> the UN finishing its inspections in Iraq and if proofs of weapon programs are found, decide on military action.

Bad precedent ---> The USA ignoring the UN, stating vague accusations on Iraq without any real proof and finally attacking the country on their own.

Sadly, the 2nd scenario is what's happening atm. The US is just trying deserately to find proofs to justify a military action against Iraq, yet so far they have failed to show real proofs.
Also, they wanna convince the rest of the world of such an attack, yet they are completely disregarding the rest of the world. This is shown by the fact that the US, and the US alone has confiscated the report from Iraq about its weapon programs, while copies of the report will be given to the 5 permanent members of the security council and the other 10 members will have to wait till the US has completely studied the report and will hand them a short (read : cleaned) version of the text.

Dec 16th, 2002, 12:30 PM
Another bad precedent the US set: attacking Afghanistan in their war against terrorism. This would give GB the right to attack the USA since the USA is housing quite a few IRA terrorists.

Well said, Josh. The US stealing the report was absolutely shocking. We all know why the first weapon inspectors had to leave Iraq.

Dec 16th, 2002, 12:48 PM
this is a nice premise, Josh, if you think the UN has the capabilities to get to the truth, and that it's final report will be of any value. if you believe, like I do, that Saddam is much smarter than the people inspecting him, and that the UN stands no chance of getting to the truth, you're not holding your breath for it's report. apparently Bush and Blair agree with me. they can't publicly say they don't think the UN is of no value in an inspecting position, but it's what they think. did you see what they've been doing so far, Josh? it's almost amusing how everytime they almost get close to something, they can't get to it because it's "holly friday" or EED-al-fitter or something.
it's a simple catch, Josh. if you trust the UN, you also believe in it's ability to defuse the conflict peacefully. if you don't believe in the UN, then you don't believe it can solve this conflict, and you don't much care for it's report. and since this is the UN that denied the existance of a nuclear reactor in Iraq during the 70's, giving creative interpertations to photographed proof handed to it, and refusing to acknoledge it's mistake after proven wrong, I really couldn't care less what's in there report.

Dec 16th, 2002, 12:57 PM
Well Noga, in that case we should just dissolve the UN and make the US the sole judge of what is right and wrong in this world. Would that give you any more security?

Besides if all the accusations about weapons of mass-destruction are true, where are all the proofs? You'd expect the US, with all their technology would have enough proofs by now. Or is Saddam smarter than them too?

Fact is that I believe in the UN but so far some powerful nations (you named two of their leaders) have denied it the right to play a real role in world peace, simply because they can block any decision by the UN general assembly and they much rather like to act on their own to be sure it is done the way they like it and not necessarily the best way for world peace.

Dec 16th, 2002, 01:06 PM
dissolve the UN? don't tempt me Josh:hearts: . no, seriously, you should notice that I said that the UN is useless in an INSPECTING POSITION. I was careful there, didn't want to overstate things. I don't think the UN is generally useless. I just think it's as unobjective as everybody else, which makes it even more dangerous than everybody else, because it holds the APPEARANCE of objectivity. and I don't think it's report will be of use. they simply don't know what they're doing, and are giving Saddam easy opportunities to bail. I trust our secret services and the American secret services much more.

Dec 16th, 2002, 01:09 PM
I trust UN inspectors a lot more than American inspectors. Last time the weapon inspectors had to leave because they were abusing their inspections in order to spy. The inspectors admitted they were spying. In fact, one American inspector admitted the CIA told him they'd bomb Iraq on this particular date, he had to find a reason by that time.

Dec 16th, 2002, 01:26 PM
Well I'd rather trust a report on Iraq by the UN than a one by teh CIA or Mossad. I think the UN is way LESS biased than those two combined.

Dec 16th, 2002, 01:30 PM
see, here's the difference between us. you and Josh, everything you say is underlined by the assumption that everyone trusts the UN and excepts it as objective. hey, there are so many Europeans there, how could it not be just and moral? :rolleyes: nothing could be further from the truth. despite what you both think, I get to choose who I believe in. and I believe that the UN has failed once and again in exposing the truth and acting upon it, and that on the other hand, the US is anti-Iraq for a good reason. they didn't just wake up in the morning and decided to bomb Iraq for kicks. this guy is dangerous. and you know he's dangerous, and all this anti-america ranting is nonsense, and is the result of nothing but Euro-envy. both you and I know who the bad guy is, even if the people fighting him aren't perfect themselves.

Dec 16th, 2002, 01:34 PM
and the Mossad rules, and it if weren't for the Mossad exposing Iraq as developing the A-bomb in the 70's , you'd be much less alive today Josh, so there will be no bad mouthing the Mossad.

Dec 16th, 2002, 01:34 PM
Noga, I guess that's the difference between a lot of Americans and Europeans. We don't talk about good and bad guys, it's not black and white, it's grey. The US is anti-Iraq for a whole lot of reason (main reason being oil), but they're still pretty desperate to find one real good reason they can use to attack Iraq.

Dec 16th, 2002, 01:38 PM
ok:). except they're not looking for a reason, they're looking for proof of a reason that they know exists. (couldn't help myself, had to get the the last word in;) )

Dec 16th, 2002, 01:40 PM
Euro-envy? Anti-America ranting? uhm yeah right :rolleyes:

and the Mossad rules, and it if weren't for the Mossad exposing Iraq as developing the A-bomb in the 70's , you'd be much less alive today Josh, so there will be no bad mouthing the Mossad.

Well you don't trust the UN and I don't trust the Mossad and the CIA. There are numerous occasions were both of tehm have screwed up big time but I guess that's not important to you.

Dec 16th, 2002, 01:41 PM
If they're looking for proof, maybe all they need to do is check their own files, see how many of their weapons were sold to Iraq, but I guess they'd rather not use that as proof;)

And if simply owning weapons of mass destruction is enough to attack them, what about the US then? What about the one country which has actually used them, which has said recently they're willing to use them again?

Dec 16th, 2002, 01:49 PM
I don't think Bush and Blair are actually the same in their attitude to the UN...Blair is far more of an internationalist, he, far more than Bush, wants to solve problems by consenus...on the problems of the thrid world and the environment he has been an enthusiastic liberal champion, where Bush has offfered only hindrance.

I also believe that Blair, for all his faults, has a broad view of a better world which most would readily sign up to...whereas Bush's vision grows more horrifying by the day...

Blair's instincts on a whole range of issues are far more liberal than Bush's...he has often tried to pressure Bush into taking a greater role in a Middle East peace process, has recognised that a fair solution is vital the the whole world...he has sought to find a middle path between Mainland Europes' anti-Israeli instincts and America's anti Palestinian ones....

But regrettfully, when push comes to shove he will support Bush when (not if) he comes up with a pretext for war.

This may make his own standing in his own party precarious.

What we need to see is this...Bush make a case for war based on truth...no half-truth, no more desperately trying to link this to Spetmeber 11th...just the truth. Then we can judge based on the evidence, what is the right thing to do.

Dec 16th, 2002, 01:52 PM
JOSH! trust whoever you want to trust, but the fact we saved the world from Saddam having an Atom bomb during the gulf war (though, he probably wouldn't have waited that long to use it), is a fact. and I can't believe you're going back to that "if we're attacking countries with weapons of mass destruction, let's attack the US" argument. we talked about how dumb an argument that is before:rolleyes: .
and the Mossad hardly ever screws up btw, certainly not in a way that leads to general population damage (mistaken Identities very rarely, but missing the Iraqi weapon arsenals???). we also don't pretend to be objective, we are on our side, naturally. the UN however, pretends to be objective. and they could only wish, btw, to have our intelligence capabilities.

Dec 16th, 2002, 01:58 PM
The UN pretends to be objective?

Because it doesn't support your intelligence data of which you admitted that it's not neutral? :rolleyes:

Dec 16th, 2002, 02:01 PM
It's not a dumb argument to the Iraqis, Noga.
Right now there's exactly one country threatening to use weapons of mass destruction and it isn't Iraq.

Dec 16th, 2002, 02:06 PM
After some thought, I realize that the US has been engaging in "regime change" for the last fifty years in MANY governments on the planet. They have done/are doing it to any country that serves ITS interest. The do it either covertly or overtly as in the case of Iraq now.

I would hate to be a parent of a soldier who loses his life or is maimed just because of oil in Iraq.

As has been recently stated, both Iran and North Korea have nuclear programs far more advanced than Iraq. I wonder if the US will lead the charge for regime change in both of these countries. Matter of fact, N. Korean brags about its nuclear capability in the face of the US.

Dec 16th, 2002, 02:12 PM
no, Josh, because it has failed to acknoledge the Iraqi wrong doing all the way to the 70's, so why should I think it's any different now? and also because it's a one sided, trapped in the hands of certain countries (and a certain culture), highly ineffective body. no one should expect me to put my well being in the UN's hands. I have no reason to think the UN is interested in my well being.
there is a reason, Josh, why some people (mostly Europeans) trust the UN and why some people (mostly not Europeans) don't. that reason is exactly why the UN is not objective. you might think the UN is on the side of right, but objective it's not.

Dec 16th, 2002, 02:21 PM
You do know that the UN at this moment is a puppet of the USA? Most of its financial ressources come from the USA and when the USA doesn't like a certain UN decision it simply stops it payments.

Maybe the reason for you to call the UN not objective is based on the fact that it has condemned the Israeli actions on Palestinian territory in the past?

Still I'd rather trust a team of inspectors, from different countries than a country's intelligence agency that is only there to protect the interests of that country. The UN inspectors have no reason to be biased cause if Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, all their countries are concerned so they better do their job at the best of their capabilities.

The CIA and Mossad have very good reasons to be biased as their aim is not solely to proof Iraq's weapon programs but also find proofs to justify military actions agianst the country and gain popular support for their cause (this applies mostly to CIA).

Dec 16th, 2002, 02:39 PM
you don't know what the Mossad is saying about Iraq. and it's not saying anything to the UN, that's for sure. it's internal findings over the years are only brought to our army's and government's attention, and are completly trustworthy, as they are for us, to decide what our stand should be.

of course my distrust of the UN comes from it's attitude towards the conflict that my country's involved with:rolleyes: . gee, Josh, maybe we should get you to join the Mossad. it doesn't come so much from the codemnation of Israeli action though, more from the failure to condemn suicide bombings and the violence targeted at Israeli civilians. it comes from the complete unwillingness to recognize these action as terror. you can't be called objective if you've chosen sides, Josh. and that's the bottom line. you trust them because they've adopted your views, not because they're objective.

I'm going now, bye:wavey: .

Dec 16th, 2002, 02:50 PM
I agree with you that the UN is concentrating more on Israel than on Palestinian terror acts but I've always considered suicide bombings as acts of terror that cannot be justified, so clearly that's not my views. :p

Also the Mossad's main concern is the well-being of Jews, they are not interested in the well-being of the Iraqi people.
The UN on the other hand is concerned about the well-being of all and therefore seeks solutions other than war because that would affect the well-being of the people involved.

I trust the UN inspection teams because I believe they are more objective (note : I didn't say completely objective) than CIA or Mossad and I think the reason you don't believe that is because they have not adopted your views. :p

Dec 16th, 2002, 02:57 PM
ok, you had me once you said those were not your views:hearts: . fight over. I will be gone most day tomorrow, try not to have any interesting arguments without me.

(seriously going now. I'm done with work:D :wavey: )

Ted of Teds Tennis
Dec 16th, 2002, 03:05 PM

The UN is clearly unobjective, but appearing to be objective. They won't stand up to a POS dictator like Mugabe, who is for all intents and purposes trying to starve his political opponents. (Literally, food aid is being withheld from MDC strongholds, and the land redistribution scheme is not redistributing land to the farmhands, but to Mugabe's political cronies.)

And don't forget how the US got kicked off one of the 'human rights' committees in favor of the noted human rights bastion, Syria.

I'm a libertarian, so I recognize that the US government makes serious mistakes. But the UN are no better either.

Dec 16th, 2002, 03:09 PM
Well Ted, if you don't pay your contributions to the UN, you don't deserve to be in any committee either.

And a reason for the UN's ineffectiveness is the fact that the way it is organised is clearly fucked up. Get rid of the veto and make the UN more independant, cause it relies too much on the goodwill of its (powerful) members.

VSFan1 aka Joshua L.
Dec 16th, 2002, 05:18 PM
Yikes! This thread was supposed to be about me! ;)