US Politics and Iraq - a civil conversation between friends.

Mary · SearchIRC Admin Joined: 03 May 2003 Posts: 692

We have a very interesting conversation going under an unrelated topic. So more people can take part, we're moving it here. Please read:
http://searchirc.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1446&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
and then post your responses on this thread. Thanks!

w00t · Posted: Jul 25, 2004 3:22am Post subject:

I like that, order the topic and it dies out...

Mary · SearchIRC Admin Joined: 03 May 2003 Posts: 692

... and I caught hell for it from the users too. :p

VVar · none Joined: 07 Nov 2003 Posts: 27

Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan... what we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message.
Robin Williams' plan...(Hard to argue with this logic!)

"I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan:

1. The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past &present. You know, Hitler, Tojo, Noriega, Milosovich and the rest of those 'good ole boys.' We will never "interfere" again.

2. We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.

3. All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gather ed up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4. All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.

6. The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will
;require a temporary drilling of oi l in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8. If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9. Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building
would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.

The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE...

Now, ain't that a winner of a plan.

"The Statue of Liberty is no long er saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'"

Talrias · Lurker Joined: 16 Feb 2004 Posts: 163 Location: :noitacoL

And as usual an actor decides to stick his nose into politics and spout his uninformed message, ending up looking like a bit of a troll... Ah well.

This is obviously such nonsense and is not at all what people mean by peace. If you're going to try to be funny, Mr. Williams, at least do it sensibly and in good taste.

VVar · none Joined: 07 Nov 2003 Posts: 27

I know its Robin Williams, but I really dont think it's meant to be funny.

As for his uninformed message. He just said we should do what most of the world wants us to do.. What a very large percentage of the US wants us to do. How do you call that uninformed?

You are so right that it wouldnt mean peace. But people dont seem to consider it war unless the US is involved. There weren't problems in Iraq until the US invaded Iraq bringing war to this peaceful nation. But it is what people want. Let them have it.

katsklaw · Guru Joined: 28 Jun 2004 Posts: 1064

I think it's funny that a 230 year old country thinks that it's way of life is the "best" way of life and that the rest of the planet should conform to it's way of thinking regardless of the fact that there are countries/nations that have survived just fine for 10,000+ years before hand ... wait .. that sounds communistic. :/ Go Figure.

Mary · SearchIRC Admin Joined: 03 May 2003 Posts: 692

katsklaw, lol, there have been NO governments in existance for 10,000 years. None. Zero. 10,000 years ago was the Early Neolithic period, when people began domesticating animals, farming, making pottery. They lived in isolated tribes.

Although locations have kept the same NAMES for millenium, there are only a handful of countries in existance today, that have had the same government for more than 50 years.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but the establishment of the United States as a federal republic in 1776 created a precedent that was subsequently emulated in Europe and indeed, worldwide. Take a look at the graph on http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20c-govt.htm and see how multiparty democracies have been growing.

katsklaw · Guru Joined: 28 Jun 2004 Posts: 1064

I don't see the term "government" anywhere in my post. So why would you think I was talking about government? Perhaps because I said the word Communistic?

Pierce · none Joined: 09 Feb 2004 Posts: 47

did anybody watch Farenheit 9/11?

I thought it was a good way to show the world the other side, as we have seen what the news wants to show.

I think the US made a mistake in invading Iraq, the simple reason is, that most of the other superpowers did not show support. I thought that was enought to tell the States not to go there.

I dunno about you, but i have watched documentaries on TV about Americas weapons, their ability to hit with pin point percission, the "one shot one kill" idea. But when i watched iraq getting bombed live on TV, it was just a carpet bombing spree of the city. It was not a war of technological advances, it was not a clean war, it was a war like any war before it, dirty all out killing, the people with the greater population, and greater amount of weapons would win.

Then the question is why didnt the UN support a war against Iraq? They obviously didnt fear any war, even though most of the UN lives alot closer to Iraq than America. Maybe Iraq did have the ability to launch weapons in 45 minutes, but how far would they go, 7,000 miles? 400 miles? 2 inches, no where (car bombing)?

America is starting to pay for its actions. It saddens me to see a country I once saw as the "role model" for all other countries to act like this. People getting pointlessly killed. I still dont see why america bothered to attack Iraq, espically when its surrounded by major countries like France, Germany and the UK. And even more when UN weapon inspecters were only called out of iraq because of the imminent threat of America starting war on Iraq.

Nobody has thought of implications of the trial of Saddam. He has been granted a fair and equal trial which means the coin could land on either side for him. Okay okay i know what your saying, it couldnt happen, he couldnt be possibly trialed innocent, BUT what if it did? All the peopled that died would be in such vain, that people wouldnt be able to ever look at the stars and stripes again. And what about bush, would he be instantly be declared the greatest war criminal of all time?

War should and always be a last resort, and it should be remembered, if you dont want to be attacked, why have weapons?

Pierce

katsklaw · Guru Joined: 28 Jun 2004 Posts: 1064

I agree 99%. The 1% would be your reference to Bush as a war criminal. Wars have been fought for as long as people have had differences. IMO it takes actually committing a crime against morals and/or humanity to be a "war criminal". Bush did no such act. He has ordered the entry into a country based on unfounded intelligence reports ... yes ... but I would hardly call that a crime against humanity. If the act of going to war was concidered a crime, then there were countless of "criminals" that have done far worse than Bush. What the settlers did to the natives of the USA and continue to do is far worst than any action Bush approved of in Iraq.

Mary · SearchIRC Admin Joined: 03 May 2003 Posts: 692

My point is, you are comparing apples and oranges when you ask what right a 230 year old NATION has to tell 10,000 year old LOCATIONS what is "best".

A "country" is territory - it is a location. No one part of earth is older or younger than any other. "Nations" are governments that form political borders, and name their territory. The names often stick and become synonomous with the location. We all know where Germany, China, Japan, Greece, Iran, and Mexico are located, but their current forms of government are all MUCH younger than the United States.

If you are going to compare, then compare apples to apples. You imply its wrong for a younger nation to tell an older nation what is best, so please, tell us which government on earth is OLDER than the United States, and how they are better. I'm really interested in your reply. :)

codemastr · Idler Joined: 05 Feb 2004 Posts: 353

Yeah, most nations that have been around for thousands of years have been incredibly unstable and have undergone severe governmental changes. Look at Japan. No longer an Emperor that is a pseudo-god and whose word is law. Instead they have a parliamentary system. And I'm sure Turkey has always been a democracy, right? And no one ever overthrew the English monarchs, and no one ever beheaded the King of France, and Russia is still communist, etc., etc. Yeah the nations bearing those names still exist. However, they don't exist as the same government, so it is not the same nation. In fact, the definition of nation involves the fact that the people accept the government as legitimate. If the people overthrow the government, well then they probably don't accept it as legitimate.

Additionally, how are we imposing our system on Iraq? I don't see a prime minister in the US, nor a parliament. In fact, we did not impose a presidential system as we have in the US. If anything, the system in place in Iraq is most like the French system! And, I don't recall the US picking the system. I'm pretty sure it was chosen by the UN.

But to be fair, the US was not founded in 1776. When the US broke from England, it formed a government under the Articles of Confederation. That government fell apart. Instead, the Federalist system was put in place, if I recall, in 1788. So the current US as a nation was not founded in 1776.

But I have a question. Lets say there is a 12 year old kid. This 12 year old has just written a plan that will bring about world peace. I'm not saying it could make peace, it WILL make peace everywhere in the world beyond any doubt. Katsklaw, by your logic, we must ignore this child. Why? This child is a mere 12 years old. How can he possibly know more about creating world peace than those people who have devoted 60 years of their life to this idea? Just because someone isn't as old as others doesn't make him stupid. I know of several 12 year olds who are geniuses. The fact that they are younger than I am does not mean I ignore them, in fact I would value their input. But you are saying, since the US is "younger" than other nations, that means we can't possibly be right. And that logic is incredibly flawed.

Mary · SearchIRC Admin Joined: 03 May 2003 Posts: 692

aquanight · Lurker Joined: 14 Jun 2004 Posts: 118 Location: Boise, ID