A world torn...

Red Eye Racer

Red Eye Racer

3,194
We all know the general specifics of the middle-east crisis, so I'm gonna skip the intro.

At this moment in time, I'm an exremely confused/worried American citizen. As most of us know, the current effort to disarm Iraq has been one to debate, not only amongst ourselves as citizens of our great nations, but amongst our leaders also.

In the last 24-48 hours, American policy makers have 'upped the antie' by heavily scrutinizing 3 particular nations that have taken a stand against the possible invasion of Iraq; France, Germany, and Belgium. US representitives say these counries owe us (usa) a debt of gratitude for saving them from German tyranny in the early 20th century, and Communism during the Cold War. Therefore, they should support the effort to invade Iraq.

This is eating me up,.... I have no clue what to think about this any more. One 1/3rd of me says, "Be a patriot, stand up and support your elected leaders". Another 1/3rd says, "WTF? Is my country balckmaling the 3 opposers with these remarks?" The final 1/3rd of me says, "If we present an altimadum, will it create WW3; an effort to rid the USA of it's title as 'the' Super Power?"

I'd like to hear what you all think about this,... from a worldy perspective. I'm esspecially interested in feedback from our German, French, and Belgium brothers' and sisters'. Is the USA in the right for scrutinizing or not,... and why?
 
First off - this will not erupt in to World War III. Iraq has neither the support nor the capability to turn it into such. If hardships occured during the war, it would merely unite more countries behind the United States.

Second - the one-third of you that says 'support your elected leaders' is right, and the main reason why is simply that we did so much for France and Germany just sixty years ago, and we lost over 2200 people on September 11 - we're certainly entitled to a little help. France and Belgium will help - no question - but Germany hates this country and they hate war. They love oil, though, so if it comes down to abstaining from Iraqi oil or fighting for the oil, they'll take the 'fighting for oil' bit. I'm not too worried about the support.

Third - who cares about Belgium? How big is their army? Americans say they want 'unilateral support' in a war, but I bet most Americans couldn't find Belgium on a map - so there's no sense killing innocent Belgians to further our unilateral cause.
 
It's refreshing to hear a little honesty. I think anyone with a conscience feels the same way you do. I run the gamut as well. I can see it from all sides and perceive the moral correctness of each. The split between The US and Britain, and Germany, France, and Belgium is sad. I know there are people on this forum who think nothing really bad will happen as a result of all of this but I think that's reckless. NATO could fall apart. The UN could loose all credibility and crumble as well. If either of those two things happen the stability the Western Hemisphere has experienced for the past fifty years will be lost. I'm not afraid to admit how anxious that can make me.

At the end of the day I believe you have to be decisive. The only perspective worse than any of the three you identified is indifference, lack of action. I, for one, tend toward my country's official line: action. Of course I have reservations. But my reservations over the alternatives are greater.

This is in stark contrast to Europe's official line: Inaction. "Diplomacy at any price" is the EU's motto and they should be glad they have America protecting them. No matter what, we'd still bail their asses out again and again, like we have in the past. Europe has a private army... it's called America.

What Germans and Frenchmen don't get, and if they do they don't act like it, is this: the relative peace that allows them to enjoy this unhealthy dependence on diplomacy is only possible due to the stability that the US has brought to the Hemisphere.

But Anti-Americanism translates to votes in Germany and France. A politician is a politician.
 
Brian the U S is trying to build a coalition to do what needs to be done. The other nations are just trying to be representative of the people who elected them and at the same time protect there own interest. If the U S does go to war ..strike that when the U S does go to war to protect its citezens and the rest of the world from attacks like sept 11 and a nut case dictator who likes to gas. poison and even nuke his neighbors , we in the U S will see who our freinds are. Allied armys are always difficult to get together and even more difficult to get to a concensus. This is a historical fact. The U S is more than capable of dealing with the situation alone but it chooses not to . When the bombs drop we will see who's on our side. We gave our blood for the world throughout the 20 th century. The people in wesern europe would not be in the position they are now if it wasnt for our armys and the Marshall plan wich restored europe ater the second world war..The Berlin wall would still be there and countless other relics of a cold war that may still be going on if not for the resolve of the American people and there leaders. Bottom line is we were attacked . When we are attacked we fight and you loose.
 
Ok,.... ok. Good feedback so far guy's, thanx.

I guess it's a little harder for me to hold those countries to an obligitory status because I grew up in a later generation (though I was alive for the crumble of the Berlin Wall).
 
Originally posted by milefile

At the end of the day I believe you have to be decisive. The only perspective worse than any of the three you identified is indifference, lack of action. I, for one, tend toward my country's official line: action. Of course I have reservations. But my reservations over the alternatives are greater.
Click to expand...


If this country's motto was action, the twin towers would still be standing.

Recognising a threat isn't hard, and when life is in jeopardy, convincing people of action shouldn't be hard, either.

This is in stark contrast to Europe's official line: Inaction. "Diplomacy at any price" is the EU's motto and they should be glad they have America protecting them. No matter what, we'd still bail their asses out again and again, like we have in the past. Europe has a private army... it's called America.
Click to expand...

Eh. Combined EU forces total more than all US forces, I'm sure.
 
Maybe in manpower for the Armys. But not the Air Force and not even close to our biggest weapon of all our Navy. Thats why the U S can project power all over the globe.
 
Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
.

In the last 24-48 hours, American policy makers have 'upped the antie' by heavily scrutinizing 3 particular nations that have taken a stand against the possible invasion of Iraq; France, Germany, and Belgium. US representitives say these counries owe us (usa) a debt of gratitude for saving them from German tyranny in the early 20th century, and Communism during the Cold War. Therefore, they should support the effort to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...

Did they really say all that?

That really sickens me.
 
What about an assassination attampt on these tyrants. Are we planning on over-throwing Saddam and letting him live through it,... or is our goal to eliminate him from the face of the earth?

Can't civilian lives be spared if we just drop a bomb on his house? Why isn't it that easy?
 
Unfortunately, there are strict rules and laws that govern assassinations. Currently, the CIA is trying to get the rules revised so that assassinations are able to be carried out. Even the FBI is currently working on being able to conduct assassinations.

But the main hinderance of a plan such as the assassination of Hussien, is that we do not have many operatives currently in place. It's considerably much more difficult to get a special forces team in close to Saddam than it is to have a spy already in place.
I can't remember who it was exactly, but back in the early 80's there was a strong push to eliminate a great deal of US field operatives. These are the men and women that work as spies directly in the area of concern. These field operatives were reduced in force in order to save human lives, and the US had to rely more on electronic surveilance for means of intelligence gathering.
Hopefully the rules will change. But a plain and simple assassination of Saddam would not solve all of the worlds problems. Someone else would fill the role that Saddam played and that person might want to play even more rough than how Hussien is currently.
One thing that I have come to understand by listening to some of my associates that are from the middle east is that there is a certain violent sense that, what you have done to me, I will do back to you 10 times worse.

But myself, I am a bit torn on this whole situation. I for one want to go in there guns blazing and be over with it. On the other hand, war is messy, and lives will be lost. Another part of me questions if we are pushing this to far, to fast. And yet another part of me, feels the situation that the people in the middle east are in. I only say this because my very good friend is from Egypt. And he has givin me some amazing insight on how the people think over there. He's been on the receiving end of US foreign policy. In his opinion and from what he has personally seen, the US is not equal in it's foreign policy. The US plays it's favorites and does not treat all countries equally across the board. His example was Isreal and Palistine.
I could go on for hours about the stories he has told me about life over there, but I wont. It's just another thing to add on top of the whole situation.
It's certainly not a simple equasion and there are many variables, but I suppose when it all boils down to it, we should definatly stike before we ourselvs are hit again.
 
I have heard that Saddam not only has doubles, but also has decoys in his caravans, where all but the actual chauffeur of Saddam, and a few others, do not know where he is. Elaborate meals are set up in hispalaces just to give the appearance that he my be in a palace.
 
Originally posted by boombexus
He's been on the receiving end of US foreign policy. In his opinion and from what he has personally seen, the US is not equal in it's foreign policy. The US plays it's favorites and does not treat all countries equally across the board.
Click to expand...

A lot of people point this out. And I don't doubt it's true. But so what? Why do we have to be equal? Every country has interests and that's where it's effort and resourses will go.

As Americans we have almost no comprehension of being on the receiving end of anyone's foreign policy. Our government calls the shots, and personally I think they are a little overbearing and inflexible about some things, i.e. Kyoto, International Military Court, etc. I see how America's official refusal to participate in many international movements would make us look bad. But we are not really bad just because we look so. It's a metter of perspective. We look at the same issue from a different place.

I heard some commentator guy put it this way: Everybody always admires the biggest, toughest, richest kid on the block... and they also resent him. The way to keep the scales tilted toward admiration is to avoid unilateralism. And as far as Iraq goes, we have, so far.
 
As far as I am concerned, agreeing to the International Criminal (it's not called military) Court is as risky as not putting the US District Attorney's office under scrutiny, which is being done, at least in the media, constantly.

One can claim all sorts of protections exists, but sometimes the protectionism one has for Americans from possible abuses by a world body whose laws may not even match well with the US Constitution, or one's paranoia if that is what one wants to call it, is too strong to be eased.
 
A major problem with how America is perceived is that there seems to be a mindset that thinks that not only is the Super Power invulnerable to all but the "minor" surprise attack, and that one in such a position should not be complacent and do anything to upset the balance of the world.

While America is called arrogant for its foreign policy, it can be said that for it to presume its power protects it from suffering an attacking of unrecoverable proportanions is arrogant. The important thing is which policy will give the best results.
 
And as pragmatic as it may be, if others actually looked at their model of stability, where the oppressed of tyrants wait for the far too patient hand of diplomacy to actually work in a swift manner, they may see the moral flaw in it. Having to tolerate a thousand present evils for the sake of not having to deal with the hypothetical large evils is very saddening. I am not preaching for war, but as destructive as a war on Iraq may be, do the diplomats of the world really think that the Iraqi people have a strong faith in a process of possible liberation that even the diplomat would admit could take 20 years or more?
 
Originally posted by milefile
A lot of people point this out. And I don't doubt it's true. But so what? Why do we have to be equal? Every country has interests and that's where it's effort and resourses will go.
Click to expand...

I agree with this as well. But then my friend explained it to me in a way that I think we all can relate to. He went on to explain a situation at work. This example can be used universally I would imagine.
You and a fellow co-worker, who both share the same job title and responsabilities. You both have been guilty of some sort of violation at work, but your boss favors the other worker. That other worker does not recieve any punishment for his wrong doings or is just given a light slap on the wrist, where as you are treated to the full brunt of company policy. Is this fair? You both were guilty of the exact same thing, but your co-worker got off much easier than you did. And after trying to explain to your boss that the treatment was unfair, you were only ignored by your boss. How would this make you feel? Resentful? Embarrassed? Angry? I know that I would be a bit miffed in that situation. The same goes for the countries that we deal with. Palistine and Isreal for example. We tend to coddle Isreal and deal with them in a more toned down fashsion than we do Palistine.

After it was explained to me in this manner, I began to see the logic behind it. How would I have felt towards my boss and towards my co-worker. Would I start plotting some sort of revenge to get back at them? Would I lash out and try to make it know that I was wronged? Would my preformance at work start to suffer? Ask yourself these questions in the scenero laied out above as if you were running a country. How would you feel when there are millions of eye's upon you? How would your people feel?
I am however not entirely convinced as to how well the work environment relates to US foreign policy, but I do see alot of correlation between the two. I can see that a small country that feels like it's been treated unfaily might feel the need to lash out in such a way, but only to be heard.

So why should we play equally? I think that we might just make a few less enemies.

Just something to ponder.
 
Originally posted by boombexus
I agree with this as well. But then my friend explained it to me in a way that I think we all can relate to. He went on to explain a situation at work. This example can be used universally I would imagine.
You and a fellow co-worker, who both share the same job title and responsabilities. You both have been guilty of some sort of violation at work, but your boss favors the other worker. That other worker does not recieve any punishment for his wrong doings or is just given a light slap on the wrist, where as you are treated to the full brunt of company policy. Is this fair? You both were guilty of the exact same thing, but your co-worker got off much easier than you did. And after trying to explain to your boss that the treatment was unfair, you were only ignored by your boss. How would this make you feel? Resentful? Embarrassed? Angry? I know that I would be a bit miffed in that situation. The same goes for the countries that we deal with. Palistine and Isreal for example. We tend to coddle Isreal and deal with them in a more toned down fashsion than we do Palistine.
Click to expand...


Israel never did anything wrong.

Yes, I know, some right-wing self-righteous, "I have the answers" idiot is going to come in and attempt to prove me wrong, but the truth is that Israel acts the way the United States should act. You're provoked? Attack. Intelligence suggests weapons buildup? Take the facility out. Very simple.
 
Actually M5 power is right.
(but I gotta say, in america its not the usual thing for liberals to support isreal and conservatives to support palestine... most protest in major cities would suggest the opposite)

Isreal has not done anything wrong, and has only been the victim of unrelenting anti-semitism.

I think the best thing for the world to do would be cut off the out side instagators in this situation.

Isreal has only defended itself, and the natural progression of defense against an enemy that will not give up, is to take an offensive stance when possible.

Offense is the best defense many people say... isreal is a perfect example of this.

The arab world has constantly attacked them and even when the entire arab world was "jumping" isreal in a 5 on 1 attack, they could not defeat the jews.

This sort of defeat brings horrible shame and only enflames the hate that was already existant.

I believe I will support isreal unconditionally until palestine can adopt a more conventional way of dealing with the problems.
 
that is total bull****. im sure m5power will agree with me. israel has done nothing wrong? ever?

peoples hate towards israel is not "anti-semitism". it is a hate for people that come and take their land (because a fictitious book from over a thousand years ago says they can), and occupy the territory that they are now allowed to use. I really hate the word "anti semite". Maybe i dont understand its meaning. but is there a term for someone that hates arabs, chinese, blacks, norwegians, ......... no there isnt. If i think what a jew does is wrong, I am an "anti semite". this is a joke. that word is overused. the only "anti semites" i would consider in history are nazi germany and sheet heads from the south.

"they could not defeat the jews."

I feel some sort of self pride in that statement.

"I believe I will support israel unconditionally......"

Unconditionally? I will not even wipe my ass unconditionally. what if poop on your ass is proved in the future to prevent cancer.

And milefile, this isnt me being an "anti semite". it has nothing to do with my feeling about jews. it has to do with people being hated for *what they do*, not their background.

EDIT: it looks like i accidentally mispelled it once, thanks
 
Israel. It's probably a common error, but one worth correcting. I used to make it.

One problem people have with Israel is that it seems to collectively punish for damage caused by one person, the trainers and arms suppliers not included. It may be that the missile attacks have a strategic element that makes sense, but much of the world sees an act of revenge where there may be people uninvolved with the suicide bombing that was the likely cause for the Israeli attack harmed or killed. This can be quite upsetting even for the most unbiased observer. Israel may need to do those attacks for safety reasons, such as not wanting soldiers to go where bombs may be rigged to kill the soldiers, but the damage and potential loss of innocents caused by missile attacks is hard to make easier for Palestinians and others with the strategic necessity justification.
 
Whether or not you are anti-semetic depends on whether or not you are judging based on fact or hate-inspired theory; whether or not you are judging them as individuals or as a whole, some people of a kind of Judaism, or some who happen to be Jewish, or all Jews; and how you feel about the religion itself.

I heard that there was a book that bore a very similar resemblance to a 19th century play. The Elders of Zion or something. The play connection is thought by some to debunk the authenticity of the book as part of a Zionist conspiracy.
 
Well good call on the israel thing, I probably spelled that wrong also.

I do want to mention also that semitic is a term that applies to both arabs and jews.

I also think it's kinda funny to see someone say that they felt a sense of self pride in my earlier comments... that to me is a compliment towards my persuasive writing skills since I'm a 21 y/o Irish-American. (Btw, if it matters, Im not jewish, nor am I catholic. I still dont know what to make of religion.)

Unconditionally is a strong word, but when taken into context, it actually applies quite well.

I specifically said that I would support them in said way until the Palestinian's would change their angle of approach towards their problems.

I want to remind you that the bible is not the reason the Jewish people were given land in Israel, nor was it the "jewish people."

It was the survivor's of the holocaust, and it was a result of that holocaust that provided those people that land.

And it was the U.N. that established the resolution which created the state of Israel.

I dont exactly think the Jewish people of Isreal are completly innocent.
Can anyone be completly innocent?

I believe that it is a matter of history...

Israel only took what the Arab world gambled by going to war.

When you fight a war, the battle feild and the spoils go to the victor.

When egypt, syria, jordan, and iraq took aggressive actions they stood to lose just as much as they stood to gain.

Now those countries have lost that land and will not allow the displaced refugees (palestinians) back into their own countries. (namely jordan)

More than anything in your post I sense a hate for the people of israel and a hate for anyone who will not take the side of the palestinians, regardless of the tactics used to acheive the end goals of the palestinian people.
 
Originally posted by M5Power


Israel never did anything wrong.
[/B]
Click to expand...

Never ever? :P



As Talentless touched on above, Israel will tend to go a bit overboard with how they deal with the Palastinians and vise versa. Although how many times have you listened to the news and heard, "1 Israeli soldier wounded and 15 Palastinians killed?"

I'm not trying to prove either one right or wrong, I just wanted for others to possibly see the flip side of the coin as I was shown not to long ago.
 
that was a very good post. i have a hard time disagreeing with anything you said. some of the things you said are the first ive heard of them. i should research some of this.

you are wrong in your last sentence though. I do not agree with what sucide bombers do. and I think it would be so easy for peace to be made if the offense by them would stop (or it would set an open stage for peace, and if the israelis couldnt agree for a state to be made and occupation to end, it would make them look bad.)

my response to ,"they could not defeat the jews" was made because it sounded like arrogant nationalism. self pride is good, but to a point. i predicted it was self pride because your past post had a very israel biased tone.

i stand by my post though. all of the faults i found in your previous post i still find wrong in.
 

Similar threads

Dotini
Global Energy Crisis
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Eunos_Cosmo
Eunos_Cosmo
Cristobal1234
Porsche 963 LMDh Porsche Penske Motorsports 2023
Replies
1
Views
3K
Cristobal1234
Cristobal1234
Cristobal1234
Wolf GB08 TSC-LT Pikes Peak 2021
Replies
0
Views
12K
Cristobal1234
Cristobal1234
VBR
MSNBC Producer Quits - “We are a cancer..."
Replies
10
Views
1K
ryzno
ryzno
Suzumiya
The New Blood - A story based off of a GT4 Spec-II playthrough.
Replies
3
Views
2K
Suzumiya
Suzumiya

Latest Posts

Back