Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6]   Go Down

Author Topic: War with Iraq  (Read 26200 times)

schm00

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • 3583 Bytes Free. OK.
    • Lair of the wiley schm00
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #75 on: September 26, 2002, 09:08:08 am »

I for one think that US interventionism is the root of todays terrorism in America, and that we would be much better off staying out of any other countries problems, period. Does anyone think we would have angry muslim extremists over here raising hell if we simply left their country alone?

Call me callous, but I dont think it is our responsibility to help "liberate" any foreign land for anyone. If you ask me, it's been a long time coming and frankly I am suprised it's taken this long for terrorists to become a real threat to the US.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #76 on: September 26, 2002, 10:59:48 am »


I for one think that US interventionism is the root of todays terrorism in America, and that we would be much better off staying out of any other countries problems, period. Does anyone think we would have angry muslim extremists over here raising hell if we simply left their country alone?


I do.  I think it would take a while, but the islamic nations are stuck in the age of empires and warrior missionaries.  They are motivated to conquer other nations and to destroy other faiths.  They are not strong now, and they might never become strong enough given the current political atmosphere.  However, if every nation stood aside until they were directly attacked, the islamic nations would conquer one nation after another until they _were_ powerful.  The only thing that would stop them would be competition between the islamic states.

Their leaders are not content to remain within their borders, but want to expand them.  They have stated this outright many times in the past.  Should we assume they are bluffing, and lying to their people?  Do we wish to allow the consolidation of islamic power through conquest?

It is my opinion that this situation is unlikely to the extreme, but that is only because the world will _not_ act in a non-interventionist way when provoked by conquering invasions upon other nations.  The US is merely trying to end this threat before they take over their _first_ nation.

On the other hand, I _do_ think that we have intervened far too often in the past.  I just don't want to dismiss the idea of intervention entirely.  After all, the US would probably not be here if it weren't for the intervention of the French.  They lent just enough naval strength to help us turn the tide of the Revolutionary war
Logged

schm00

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • 3583 Bytes Free. OK.
    • Lair of the wiley schm00
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #77 on: September 26, 2002, 12:40:25 pm »

However, if every nation stood aside until they were directly attacked, the islamic nations would conquer one nation after another until they _were_ powerful.  The only thing that would stop them would be competition between the islamic states.

Hmm. You have valid points, however I don't think they detract from my argument of interventionism breeding terrorism. While islamic wars might result in a larger, more forbiddable foe which may someday rise and try to overthrow our country, I think that would be more of a motivator to build a better defensive system.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2002, 12:41:32 pm by schm00 »
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #78 on: September 26, 2002, 02:55:02 pm »

Terrorism is a common strategy because it is supported by some and tolerated by many.  If it were punished severely and quickly, it would soon become a fringe strategy.  As an example, examine the Israeli way of handling hijackings and hostage situations.  Airline hijackings are non-existent due to the impossibility of gaining any advantage.  Similarly, hostage situations are treated with swift death, without concern for the hostage's lives.  Sure a few hostages died early on in the program, but now they don't even _have_ hostage situations anymore, since there is no advantage to be gained.  

As such, any act of terrorism should be quickly tracked down, and the terrorists and their immediate supporters should end up on the wrong end of a bomb.  While the suicide bombers themselves may not care if they live or die, their programmers/leaders do, and the nations and groups that support them are not immune to fear.  A short stint of extreme brutality can remove the threat of sponsored terrorism forever, relieving the need for later larger wars.  All that will remain after such a campaign are the small independent groups, which alone cannot cause significant havok.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Are You Properly Invested?
« Reply #79 on: October 11, 2002, 11:25:56 am »


And just to make sure things go properly:

Quote

The US has rejected an offer by Iraq to let it inspect sites it suspects of being used to develop weapons of mass destruction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2315989.stm

Another no-brainer.


Quote

Despite talks between Iraq and the UN on restarting weapons inspections, the US has said it does not want them to resume until a new resolution is passed in the Security Council


Without that new resolution, inspecting any particular group of sites is worthless.  The only way that Iraq can stave this off is to allow fully unfettered and unscheduled inspections.  The new resolution will demand this action.  If the US goes in now and inspects those sites (which were undoubtedly cleaned up as soon as the US announced its suspicions), that will give the UN excuse to delay passing a more stringent set of inspection demands.  Saddam Hussein is playing a very intelligent game of deception, and many in the UN are happy to play along.  

You've explained why oil might be a motive for going to war.  You have never shown it to be the only, or even the most important reason.  There is nothing inherently wrong with making money off of war.  If the war needed to be fought, we can't _not_ fight it because someone, somewhere might make some money.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Are You Properly Invested?
« Reply #80 on: October 11, 2002, 02:05:28 pm »

Quote
author=maestro
The only way that Iraq can stave this off is to allow fully unfettered and unscheduled inspections.

You would of course welcome unfettered & unscheduled inspections of your own person, home, & property at whim (without any related evidence of wrong doing).

No doubt any upstanding real American would immediately agree to this. After all, patriotism now means bending over for ones government when told to do so (sans lube)... for our own good of course. (tongue in cheek)

Oh wait... we already do so... thanks in part to that wonderful (anti) Patriot Act, and the mass of crap decrees which followed it on a nearly weekly basis.

I stand corrected.  ;D

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
-- Thomas Paine

This is more like a situation where a warrant has been sworn to search your house, and you won't let them into the bathroom.

And once again to reiterate, there is no law protecting the rights of nations.  Nations' rights only exist to the extent that the nation can defend those rights.  By necessity, there is no rule of law between nations.  To have enforcable rule of law between nations would require a global government.

Quote
However, to state all obvious reasons, and attempt to demonstrate such, would leave me with too many fronts to work with, which I'm not about to do (I also have to occasionally get work done too, otherwise customers get ticked off.  :) ) Its more than enough effort to simply point out a couple issues at a time - currently oil/natural gas & war profiteering.
You've no need to rehash the fact that some politicians (many?) will profit from this war.  I concede that fact.

Quote
Quote
There is nothing inherently wrong with making money off of war.  If the war needed to be fought, we can't _not_ fight it because someone, somewhere might make some money.
Even when the same folks orchestrating the situation are the ones profiting from it? Kinda like a doctor releasing a plague to keep himself in patients. Certainly nothing wrong with charging for services rendered, but um... even when one is creating those very same scenerios which then require ones services?

I would argue that your simile doesn't apply appropriately.  Imagine the doctor gave you a treatment to cure an illness, but that treatment caused a side effect (which was known to be likely).  The doctor would be well within his rights to charge you for an additional treatment to diminish the side effect.

I contend that the war must be fought for reasons _not_ pertaining to oil.  If this to be true, there is nothing wrong with making money off the war.

As such, we shoudl be arguing over whether the war does or doesn't need to be fought, not that the government might make money off the war.  In fact, if the _government_ (rather than the politicians) can make money off the war, all the better, since that would mean _we_ would pay less of the cost of waging the war.

Quote
The problem/solution creation concept in itself isn't a issue of course - this idea has been around for a long time (this method - though not intentional - pays the bills of most folks in the puter field, as the solution to an existing problem tends to become the next problem, sigh), but it becomes very dirty business when it results in major loss of life, extensive property damage, and such.

if it can be unintentional in the computer business, can't it be unintentional in politics?  You seem to just jump at the chance to attribute every political action to malice, rather than stupidity where it often belongs.  There _are_ good people in politics, who try to do what they feel is best for the country.  Of course they are not altruistic, per se, since they gain power and a upper-middle class income from doing this, but one needs not be an altruist (if such a creature exists) to do good things.

Quote
There is also the matter of agreement (or not) between the parties involved to conduct such business in the first place. I have not agreed to such (which comes out of my tax dollars, and goes into whos pocket? Yours? Certainly not mine... unless I've invested in war related industries, and even then I'll only see a fraction of it return if I'm lucky. The mass profits are taken off the top, not the bottom.)

Until we have a successful Free Nation Project, we will have taxes, and those taxes will pay for what the politicians determine we have asked for (since we voted them in).  This complaint is immaterial in the current political setting.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2002, 02:08:23 pm by maestro »
Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #81 on: November 01, 2002, 11:17:14 am »

While it was amusing, I dissagree with you mouse that these things are "easily verifiable".  In fact (with the exception of the obvious and relatively meaningless things like Condolizza Rice had a ship named after her) I'd say more than half of the assertions were obviously false.  Exspecially with the numbers they throw around.  There are many ways of dissproving the assertions for example if Cheney at any time ever had $34 Billion he would be tied with Warren Buffet as the second richest man in America.
The Taliban was in many was a puppet set up by Pakistan about 3 years ago.  They did not even exist during the Russian/Afganistan war and the US never sent them money or arms.  When could they have?  The Oil pipeline is NOT going through Afganistan it is going through Azerbajan and Turkey it's already a done deal.  Assertions like "Cheney's company builds oil piplines" are stupid because of course it does it's an oil company.  etc. etc. etc.

Mouse it is obvious that you really think oil is respocible for all of this.  I will try to go back through your posts and read as much as possible and then I'll tell you what I think.  A few parting reasons I don't think oil is NEARLY as important as you is because.
1. The war will probably cost as much as the entire value of all gas sold int the US for an entire year.
2.  When the price of oil goes up the oil companies make more money.  If the war is to get control of oil then it will increase our supply of oil and reduce the price and the oil companies will make less money.

-Eddie
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #82 on: November 01, 2002, 01:55:53 pm »

Quote

Those holding a product set its price, irrelevant of the quantity they hold. Welcome to the Global Economy Chess Game.

Hopefully thats enough to get going with, along with the previous posts in this thread. Again, let me know on any points which you feel aren't well covered, and I'll try to supply links, data, or whatever. Theres no shortage of such.


This only works out if the holders of the product collude, and as we've seen, even OPEC isn't very good at colluding, since a short-term violation of that collusion can net the betrayer a lot of loot.

We see this happening in diamonds, but from what I understand, almost _all_ diamonds start out in the hands of one company, De Beers, who has shown willingness to go to extreme lengths to maintain that monopoly.  Oil, on the other hand is available around the world in greater or lesser amounts, making Oligopoly a bit difficult.

This is also why I do not believe in conspiracy within the government on any significant scale.  There is far too much profit and power avaliable to the betrayer in almost any consipiracy between powers.  Anyone willing to conspire against the people of the nation is not below betraying his fellow conspirator for greater profit.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #83 on: November 01, 2002, 02:26:08 pm »

So you suspect the US _government_ will become the property-holder of the world's oil?  Because if not, then we won't have any one oil company in the US holding it.  The oil companies will scramble in the dust fighting over any oil that becomes available due to war.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #84 on: November 01, 2002, 02:56:53 pm »


Quote
author=maestro
So you suspect the US _government_ will become the property-holder of the world's oil?


No, not quite... Thats a reversal of sorts in cause and effect. That would be equivalent in a way to saying that the gun that shoots the meat eats the meat. The person holding the gun benefits, not the gun itself.

The government is simply an instrument to attain such. Behind this instrument are genuine people, whose names, as well as their connections & past history, we know well.


But as long as there is no _one_ person in charge, then conspiracy will be difficult due to the untrustworthy nature of partners in crime.
Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #85 on: November 04, 2002, 01:15:38 am »

Ha ha Mousy mouse you are too much of a conspiracy threorist!  I am only on page 2 of your responces and you are like Mel Gibson in conspiracy theory.  I will continue to go through your responces so I don't reinvent the wheel here.  

I just think it's funny how you think a sector of the economy that makes up less than 1% of the U.S. economy is behind all major political decisions and activities in the entire world.  How did the oil companies get so good at controling the world?  Why not Walmart or some other larger sector of the economy?

-Eddie
Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #86 on: November 04, 2002, 01:39:49 am »

Sorry mousy I didn't make it through yet but I wanted to put forth a few quick questions anyway.

Guess what I don't think Iraq is an immediate threat because it is obvious to me that it is not any more of a threat than it's been for the past X years and most people should be able to figure that out if they care too.  Now what I want to challege you on mousy is your concept of sovernty because I think it is messed up.  
Personally I don't care if we attack Iraq, but if we do attack we had better do it responcibly.  You are against preemption against any soverign state but soverignty is a totally arbatrary distinction.  It is determined by other soverign states recongising a state a sovereign.  Any consideration of 'sovernty' for a non representative government in a pro-libertarian decision making process is foolish I think.  If I saw someone having their rights violated I would try to stop it.  It doesn't matter to me that they are not citizens of my country.  I would only talk to the government if it had some kind of represenativite government otherwise I would ignore it and pretend like it doesn't exist and probably get in a war when I stop their army from killing people.  What is a legitiamate army and what is an illegitamate army?  What is a band of rouges and what is governing body?

-Eddie

Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #87 on: November 04, 2002, 05:13:53 pm »

Sovereignty is purely based upon power.  If you have enough power, you are a sovereign state.  Even if you are not powerful enough, if enough other powers agree to your are a sovereign state, you are a sovereign state based upon their power (although that's a dangerous position to be in).  As such, the US is unlikely to ever lose its sovereignty, since it maintains its position as the greatest power in the world.
Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:War with Iraq
« Reply #88 on: November 05, 2002, 12:42:26 am »

Well sovernty is based upon power but only if you want to be soverign.  I'm sure the mob could make a soverign state if they wanted to but it is in their interest to stay in the shadows.

Mouse I know that premption has been covered elsewhere and the whole "well I have a gun pointed at your head" vs. "it's over there in the night stand and I'm to get it and kill you" vs. "I'm really mad and going to go home and get my gun" has been been discussed even in the little I read.

As for soverignty I still think the US fits my description of "some type of representative government" and we will probably have to dissagree about that.  Again this is another relative distinction which is difficult to make real progress on with others.  I don't think the pres. election was 'stolen' you do.  I don't think that there is a massive conspiracy anywhere and I am guessing that you do.

For me I think the media is stupid and our method of electing people is stupid.  I think everyone is lazy and apathetic and it's sad.  
I do agree that the actions and the policies of the US Federal government have no connection whatsoever to what the people want.  Basically if you keep the people fat and happy (or convince them problems come from elsewhere [i.e. corporations]) then they'll reelect you and let you do whatever you want.  I really do think it's sad how Americans have absolutely no control or even slight influence over foreign policy.  What I really hate about the coming war with Iraq is not that it is happening but that the american people were sitting on their couch and if asked "Should the US go to war with Iraq right now?"  they would say "Uhhhhh........ no?"  and then Bush decides to go to war and they said "huh?........... okay whatever"
Despite how much I hate these circumstances I blame the people of the US for putting us here from their apathy.  Mouse maybe you think that all American elections are staged or somthing or that no matter who people vote for the result will doctored so that the people in the back room decide who wins.  IF you do think that I dissagree.  You might argue that people do get to choose between Ds and Rs but that is just a farce a show to make people think that they live in a democracy because really the choice is the same.  
IF that is what you contend then I actually kind of agree.    I would agree that there is little real choice.  Perhaps the only main point I dissagree with you on is that I don't think there are any people "in the back room" making decisions.  There is no master elite class controling us.  Instead I think it's more of a Brave new world scenario without the people in charge.  Everyone has their little world of mesureing the frequency of wigit vibrations that most people don't have time to care about everything else let alone learn about the issues in detail.  
I was in the Pension/EE benifits field for about 8 months after I graduated college.  I very large part of many people's job was to learn and correctly apply the pension tax code.  Well so who writes these laws?  The only people who care about pension tax code are people who work in the pension field.  Sometimes people who don't know about pensions think they have a bright idea that will help employees and add in some law that doesn't make sense.  So eventually they get that section taken out because none of the people who work with the law like it.
Anyway the point is that I believe the reigns of power lie around for anyone who cares to scoop up.  I think the people of the US could easily overthrow the bad parts of the current system they just don't care enough to.  They don't have time between finishing the 513C transmittal package, picking up Charlie from Day camp, folding laundry and watching the Packer's game.  In Texas the Religious right has basically taken over the school textbook adoption policies and actually gets textbook printers to change and reprint their text books.  Why?  Because Texas is such a big market for schools and no one else cares about text book adoption.  no one else shows up for the public hearings on textbooks except for these guys.  Oh well though, that why I like this project.  Even if we piss people off wherever we move maybe they will start caring about their country and community again and get involved.
-Eddie
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6]   Go Up