Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Bard, Nov 19, 2005.
year ones agein,it was nessesary to remove sadam to maintain a world order.
I see the reason, Saddam has been a very bad ruler, to say it carefully. But did this kind of removal from Saddam make the situation any better?
Yeah, we should have asked him to leave nicely.
Well, I do believe Saddam was an (bad word deleted - no swearing please), of course he was! But the reasons why he was removed (that he had wmd's) was false. He had none. He had done as he was told and destroyed them all, I think the American government had hoped to find even a little something, but they didnt, even though they banged on about how he DID have them at that point, when he didnt.
My opinion is that war shouldn't be fought lightly. And upon choosing the battlefield, in no circumstance can religion be an arguement. Assumptions of devine mission of favour are highly dangerous. Look at the 9/11 attacks. They were carried out under devine favour weren't they?
Well, if war is going to smell anything religious I can only hope the battle lasts short and that few men will fall... against better knowledge. At any rate, I am going to stay FAR from any war like that. And whether this is a discussion about a war fought between two religions or a discussion about whether God has anything to do with the American side... I'm no part of that. It's your's to fight.
I thank you very much, and bid you all a pleasant discussion
Remember that all of the nation does not think that way.
call us blessed becuase we have strong economy, powerful government, and powerful army, call us blessed becuase we are on the top.
Two out of three isn't bad. The economy isn't strong, which is why you need a strong army with a trade deficit that the US has.
not to dis my self, but what is canada compared to the us? honestly skyanide, are econonmy is better thatn most country's in the world
Yes America is blessed in this way, but I think it has to do something with the peoples ambition to reach what they want. America has a bit different culture than Europe. The Americans do something for their wealth, many Europeans complain if they have no wealth, so... you're blessed...
But it's not Americas DUTY to bring this wealth to other nations. Many nations in the middle east perhaps don't want the American kind of wealth, I don't know. But this is the wrong subject.
No, I just asked if this kind of removal made the situation better, I myself would have done something different, but this is not for discussion.
How Padme said: The reasons have been false, perhaps Mr. Bush just searched for reasons to attack Iraq. Now that the American soldiers haven't found any weapons, a big part of the middle east says Bush is a liar and terrorists practice this situation for their hate-homilies.
So America lost his good image, particularly in the middle east.
So what did America hisself win in that war,
Yes, Iraq is free now, what is very important, but it is very instabl and how said: Americas image is very damaged from this war.
why are we damaged, when we took a dictator out of power and set up a democracy, is that not better?
ummh, yes thats better, BUT most people in the middle east don't think so. They perhaps don't know what Saddam did, so they think America attacked Iraq without reasons. So it is damaged in the middle east because of the war itself.
In europe it is damaged because there were no proved facts of nuclear weapons. And the soldiers haven't found any weapons. So in Europe the image is damaged, because all are against war and the people think, Mr Bush attacked Iraq because of the oil.
So that is what I can say about the situation here.
Well, actually it should be good for people in Iraq to be a democracy now, but many people lost very much because of the war and the situation is so instabil, that they have just few chances to build something up, like their own shop to get some money r something like that.
For people in Iraq, I think war brought freedom, but also hunger and pain. Some ask, if it's better to live under adictator and to have something to eat than to live in freedom and die becaue of hunger...
If you look at the economies of the two countries, while in absolute dollar terms the US volume is larger, based on population base is much worse. Look up the numbers PER CAPITA.
Canada is a base of natural resources, we export our oil and electricity and lumber and meat and agriculture. While our manufacturing base is suffering, the rest is quite good. (And why is that? because when the US manufacturing economy suffers, so does Canada's, because we export finished and semi-finished goods to them).
Look at the value of the Canadian dollar. Trading at $.88 US as opposed to a couple of years ago it was $.68 . Now, WHY? It doesn't sound like you are financially saavy (no offense) so I'll tell you. It's because international investors don't want to invest in the US economy right now, it's a losing proposition. But Canada's is not.
still i went up there last june, i and i was trading $40 us dollars for $50 canadian, so you might be having better exports, but we still have a advantage par say.
If the war was about oil, why wouldn't they have attacked Saudi Arabia instead, which has much more oil, and is much less guarded than Iraq? I don't see how gas prices were rising if we were getting all this extra oil. I haven't seen any of it put to use here yet.
The Iraqi people I believe are happy with what we've done. Obviously you can't please everyone, but I think we've pleased those who deserve it. The ones who've been living under poverty and terror with Saddam. A very large percentage of enemies killed after the defeat of Saddam have been insurgents from other countries. Terrorists. We're not intentionally blowing away Iraqis over there. Many soldiers who tell it from their point of view say they're doing well, and despite what the media says, we're not losing this war. Thousands of dead terrorists is a plus nomatter what you're in the war for. And about WMD's. There is evidence left and right that Saddam had WMD's at one point, and I'm not sure if anyone saw, but one of his own top generals or whoever he was was on the news confessing that he did have them, and he had plenty of time to move them, or hide them. He believed they were moved to another country. It was very interesting hearing him speak, and he had a lot to say.
Yes, You tell me the American point of view and I tell the European point of view...
What are we discussing about? The war is the past, I can't change it. Everyone has his own opinion of that ar. Sure, someone had to remove Saddam and we have to do something against the terrorists, but which price are you willing to pay? How many innocent people have to die till the last terrorist is dead?
To that thing that America can't loose this war: You also cxan't win, cause you're fighting against a network that is all over the world. It is invisible and if terrorists don't want to be catched, you won't catch them.
How many terrorists are there? Nobody knows.
Which nationality are they from? Nobody knows.
Where do they hide? Nobody really knows.
What do they look like? Nobody knows.
Which weapons do they have? No one knows.
If you catch a terrorist, there will be two new. If you catch a terrorist-general there will come new one...
No we shouldn't give up, but the chances to win against them are very small. And when Osama bin Laden hides in the mountains of Afghanistan, we will perhaps never find him. He knows these mountains, we don't and he knows this country and the poeple, he knows where he can hide. Bin Laden is very powerful, perhaps more than we think. So against who are we fighting? Against terrorist, yes...
CAn you really win this war. It is not more a war against Iraq, it is a war against terrrorism.
The war on terrorism is not win or lose, as you said. That's one thing I agree on with you. It will never stop. However, we can certainly reduce the amount of terrorists if we do away with the media. Why do they cut the heads of kneeling men and women? Easy. They're terrorists. They do it to terrorize. If we stop broadcasting the beheadings, we won't give them what they want. 90 percent of a terrorist's actions are aided by word of mouth. If we stop showing people, they will have no reason to do it. They still may, but they do already. Even if it means aiding the terrorists, a journalist will do anything for a story as you all know. It's quite sad.
Maybe we can't win, but we sure as hell can lose. So it's right to keep fighting. Nomatter the cost. It will be greater if we dont.
I'm no expert on world affairs, but aren't Saudi Arabia and America quite good friends? Hence we get oil form them anyway, and there's no reason to attack a friend.
What media are you talking of precisely, and how do you propose to "do away" with them?
Yes the televised beheadings are a publicity stunt, but they're also killing people because they hate them. If the cameras go away, they'll still be hating and killing people.
I'm glad a few people recognise the fact that a war on terror can never be won by fighting. It certainly can be lost by not fighting though. But when a war is fuelled by hate rather than land invasion or economic factors, there will always be more people who hate their enemy, so there will always be a war on terror until the world all holds hands and has a big group hug. Which sadly, ain't gonna happen any time soon. Perhaps our great grandchildren might see some changes, but these are conflicts that go back thousands of years. Why should we expect them to change within the time span of one lifetime? We can still hope I guess....
Who knows? Why would we attack a country only for oil just to make even more friends mad?
Yes, they still may, as I said. But certainly they would have less power and reason if nobody viewed it. Look, when we see those people kneeling down, we know there's not much hope. If they got into that position, it's already over for them. There's no sense in prolonging the miserable spectacle each day giving a "nothing yet" update. It's sickening to see them in their chairs, ready to pounce when they hear the first unsheathing of a machete.
I'm talking about media that broadcasts what the terrorists want them to broadcast. Well, there's a very illegal way we could do away with them, but obviously it would be great if they came to their senses and looked past their check on the table to actually realize what they're doing. The fight needs to remain at the heart of it all - terrorism, but media does play a large role in their machine. They can still be obtained on the internet of course, but it would help a great deal if US news stopped covering the story. I have noticed a decrease in coverage however from the Nick Berg tape to the newest one with the woman journalist, but the story is still there. It happens. It's war. It's not even news anymore, we know what they do. They cut their heads off. Heck, I'm beginning to think they should be compensated for the price of the story if they dont cover it. Pay them off, whatever it takes. Like terrorists, you can't stop it all, but you can try.
Right, media should be stopped. I agree with that. A bit of the terrorists power depends on media.
But not only the US news should stop broadcasting these films, also the Euopean should.
The problem is not media itsself. They just show what people want to see. So too many people want to see this, isn't this a bit ironic? They don't want these things to happen, but they want to watch such tapes...
And I agree with you that the fight should go on, but we should calculate the price. It is not ok to pay for every terrorist two innocent human. That's not a fair price!
I ask me where the terrorists get their weapons from...
Hasn't it been like that, that America supported Pakistan against Afghanistan? And Pakistan supported the Taliban to rule over Afghanistan and they got the power from them? Osama bin Laden is a Taliban, right? Just a question in between...
I've to get one time back to the Democracy. Well Iraq is not yet a democracy...
I'll take the example from Somalia:
There has been a civil war, a very brutal one and America wanted to stop this, right? A noble aim, really, but it hasn't helped. The soldiers were murdered brutaly and America had to give up, as far as I know (is this right?)
You can't bring a form of government to a country that doesn't want this form of government.
It lasted over 2000 years in Europe until people were ready for that form of government!
We can't expect that it will be faster in the eastern states, when the population don't wants to be governed like this.
This is a progression that can't be made faster by people from outside. The will has to come out of the country itself. It's good to give them the chances to make what they want, but then they have to do it by themselves.
If in Afghanistan wouldn't be these security soldiers from the UN(?) I think there wouldn't be such a system. There would be something like Anarchy, I think, because it needs time, that everyone accepts a form of government and is willing to support it.
Perhaps they don't want a democracy? Perhaps they think of something else?
In Africa has been a good working tribe-system, until the west civilization came... now there is civil-war!
Separate names with a comma.