What is Happening in the US? - page 4

Hi, I decided to start this post because I wanted our American cousins to understand that the division, and angst over the possible war in Iraq is not shared in almost every other country of the... Read More

  1. by   kmchugh
    This is Kevin, not giving Portland the dignity of an answer. He just ain't worth the stomach acid he wants to work up.

    Kevin McHugh
  2. by   Q.
    I'll answer.

    I think we should handle N Korea, for now as a lesson. Never negotiate with terrorists or other freaky warmongering dictators.
  3. by   molecule
    Hopes for Peace Erase 2003 Losses; Ralley Started Friday, Continues Today
    >>>In a statement released Tuesday, Bush said that while he believes Iraq President Saddam Hussein is in violation of the original U.N. resolution on weapons of mass destruction, he would make an effort to work with other United Nations members to come up with a second resolution.

    "It's a great day in the neighborhood," said Ned Riley, chief investment strategist at State Street Global Advisors. "You've got a continuation of a feeling of less pessimism of the United States' possible multipronged alienation of the world. I do think we can mend some of the fences and prepare for less confrontation after Iraq ... then we'll get some of that war discount out of the market."

    Wall Street's rally began Friday, when chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix delivered his latest update on Iraq to the United Nations Security Council. His report said his team of inspectors found no sign of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that they also couldn't say with certainty that all such weapons had been destroyed or declared to the United Nations, as required under U.N. resolutions.

    Still, Blix's report made war, which had seemed all but imminent before Friday, less likely, at least in the immediate future. This led to buying that left the stock market with a weekly gain for the first time in five weeks. The market was closed Monday for Presidents' Day, but the buying continued when stocks resumed trading Tuesday.

    Blix's stance, as well as massive anti-war protests in Europe and the United States over the weekend, could help push the Bush administration to try to secure international support and U.N. backing before leading a possible attack on Iraq.

    >>Meanwhile several defense stocks hit new 52-week lows as investors focused on the possibility that war might be avoided, or postponed. Shares of L-3 Communications (LLL: down $1.85 to $37.35, Research, Estimates) fell more than 5 percent, while Lockheed Martin (LMT: down $0.60 to $46.80, Research, Estimates) shares slipped 2 percent and DRS Technologies (DRS: down $0.70 to $24.00, Research, Estimates) shares lost about 3 percent. <<<

    http://money.cnn.com/2003/02/18/mark...york/index.htm
  4. by   Nancy kisor
    Sadam is way out of control, but this is all about oil. Over 500,000 Iraqis have already been killed due to U.S. sanctions! The bottom line is that WE are pretty much the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons!
  5. by   vettech
    Originally posted by Susy K
    I'll answer.

    I think we should handle N Korea, for now as a lesson. Never negotiate with terrorists or other freaky warmongering dictators.
    The fear I have is that the N Korea problem MUST be addressed. They have the nuke and lord it over us every time we look at them funny and I think Kim Jong Il may be just looney enough to throw one, especially if he thinks he can hit the mainland US with it.

    Negotiation is not the correct word... they are blackmailing us, plain and simple. However, like any worthy blackmail effort, the noose is quite tight and we seem damned no matter what we do.
    If we negotiate, it only enourages every petty dictator to gain WMDs. They threaten nuclear destruction while asking for a non-agression treaty which seems rather contradictory (to say the least!).

    Frankly, the N Korea thing may come down to the most frightening idea - calling their bluff. It worked with Khruschev but I don't know if Kim Jong Il is sane enough (or even human enough) to blink.

    Just to preempt the flames - for the record, I am NOT saying we should risk a city vanishing in a nuclear fireball. However, I think that time may come as I think it is unlikely negotiation will create a permanent solution.
  6. by   Q.
    Negotiation is not the correct word... they are blackmailing us, plain and simple.
    Yes, I believe now they are. But I was referring back in history when we slapped the responsibility of making sure N Korea didn't build any nukes on the UN. And with the UN there, with cameras, N Korea managed to build up this weapons program. Right under the UN's nose.

    THAT'S why I say use them as a lesson. Let's not Iraq do the same thing, but building up these weapons right under the nose of the UN - again.
  7. by   vettech
    Originally posted by Nancy kisor
    Sadam is way out of control, but this is all about oil. Over 500,000 Iraqis have already been killed due to U.S. sanctions! The bottom line is that WE are pretty much the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons!
    I was wondering when someone would throw this card, er, all three of these cards actually.

    On the subject of oil, you're absolutely right.,.. this whole thing is about oil. But you're looking on the wrong side of the arguement when you blame oil. The French have oil contracts with the Hussein regime that are worth $40-50 billion. What the protestors say is correct, "No War for Oil"... France is suing for peace in order to keep their lucrative contracts.

    The story from Australia's MSN (first place I found it in my Google search)
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_45897.asp

    I quote the above article "...oil experts who had analysed the deal described it as "extraordinarily lopsided" in favour of the French company"



    As to how many have died over the US sanctions? None. Do you think Saddam quit building his tanks or his lavish palaces? No. H'e decides where the money is spent. He WANTS starvation in his country because it gains him sympathy. I suppose you'll blame the US when we attack a clearly military target, an aircraft hangar for example, that he has stuffed with innocent civilians.

    Now, on to to the nuke issue. How many do you think the military planners expected to die if the US had been forced to invade mainland Japan to end the war? I have seen estimates of more than a million Americans alone. How many Japanese would have died? How many Aussies? Russians? Chinese?
    By dropping two atomic bombs, almost firecrackers compared to today's nukes, 100,000 lives were lost. That is a frightening and sad number but a drop in the bucket compared to the number that were lost in the Nanking Massacre committed by the Japanese (estimates of 200,000 to 400,000 dead) or other such atrocities (the Bataan Death March rings a bell).
    They were clearly beaten and had been given ample opportunities to surrender, they refused. Would you have rather seen over a million more souls die on both sides?
  8. by   vettech
    Originally posted by Susy K
    Yes, I believe now they are. But I was referring back in history when we slapped the responsibility of making sure N Korea didn't build any nukes on the UN. And with the UN there, with cameras, N Korea managed to build up this weapons program. Right under the UN's nose.

    THAT'S why I say use them as a lesson. Let's not Iraq do the same thing, but building up these weapons right under the nose of the UN - again.
    Oh, I agree whole heartedly. I was simply adding to your point, not disagreeing with it.

    How many Kim Jong Il's do we want to face?
  9. by   VivaLasViejas
    I'm with vettech on the NK issue. I'm far more concerned with the psychotic who has weapons TODAY that can reach the US, than I am with a slimeball half a world away who has not made an aggressive move against us in 12 years.

    What I don't get is why Shrub thinks he has to wage an expensive war, which will undoubtedly take hundreds or thousands of innocent lives in the bargain, when the real aim is to take Saddam out. Makes about as much sense as using an AK-47 to kill a cockroach. Rules? What rules? Oh yeah, it's OK for us to get our young men and women killed (not to mention innocent Iraqi civilians), but not OK to assassinate a foreign leader who almost everyone agrees the world would be better off without. Sheeeesh.
  10. by   kmchugh
    Originally posted by Nancy kisor
    Sadam is way out of control, but this is all about oil. Over 500,000 Iraqis have already been killed due to U.S. sanctions! The bottom line is that WE are pretty much the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons!
    OK, between this and another post in another thread, my head is spinning. The answer you got from vettech pretty much sums up my feelings. The truth is, were this war about oil, it would not have to be fought. As I pointed out before (sigh) at the end of the Gulf War, the US was in control of the largest Iraqi oil fields. Had we wanted them, we would have taken them then.

    500,000 Iraqis, huh? Got that stat from Saddam, did you? The fact is (as pointed out by vettech) NO Iraqis have been killed by the sanctions. More than a million have been killed by Saddam. Torture. Midnight arrests. Imprisonment. Death sentences without any courts. And the expenditure, by Saddam, of money intended for the support the Iraqi people for personal aggrandizement. And lets not forget weapons procurement and development.

    And you don't want to get into the "US is the only nation to use nukes, us nasty old people" with me. Ask Mario.

    Mjlrn - Your point about assassination is well taken. And since the prohibition against assassination is not law, but rather from fiat of a presidential executive order, it can be overridden by another executive order. Unfortunately, the number of people who would have to be assassinated to unseat Saddam's Ba'ath party is staggering. Just to do that would require a war. And assassination of a head of state is not as simple as Hollywood would have you believe, especially when that head of state is paranoid, as Saddam is.

    Kevin McHugh
  11. by   vettech
    Originally posted by mjlrn97
    I'm with vettech on the NK issue. I'm far more concerned with the psychotic who has weapons TODAY that can reach the US, than I am with a slimeball half a world away who has not made an aggressive move against us in 12 years.

    What I don't get is why Shrub thinks he has to wage an expensive war, which will undoubtedly take hundreds or thousands of innocent lives in the bargain, when the real aim is to take Saddam out. Makes about as much sense as using an AK-47 to kill a cockroach. Rules? What rules? Oh yeah, it's OK for us to get our young men and women killed (not to mention innocent Iraqi civilians), but not OK to assassinate a foreign leader who almost everyone agrees the world would be better off without. Sheeeesh.
    Whoa, don't put words in my mouth. I am in favor of taking out Saddam's regime. I was simply voicing my opinion on the N Korea issue as a separate matter.

    Iraq will become another N Korea if given the slightest opportunity. Putting a bullet in Saddam's head won't solve the issue as there are a lot more scumbags there right behind him. The news taht come sout of Iraq about those sons of his make Saddam look tame!
    The entire government has to be scrapped and start anew with learders who can be trusted. Leaders actually chosen by the people they govern, which is a totally alien concept to that region.
  12. by   Q.
    Originally posted by mjlrn97
    What I don't get is why Shrub thinks he has to wage an expensive war, which will undoubtedly take hundreds or thousands of innocent lives in the bargain, when the real aim is to take Saddam out. Makes about as much sense as using an AK-47 to kill a cockroach. Rules? What rules? Oh yeah, it's OK for us to get our young men and women killed (not to mention innocent Iraqi civilians), but not OK to assassinate a foreign leader who almost everyone agrees the world would be better off without. Sheeeesh.
    Well I think, and someone correct me, despite the United States being an aggressive, selfish, destructive, unhumanitarian, greedy, evil, ethncentric nation simply assassinating a leader is a war crime, I believe.
  13. by   VivaLasViejas
    Thanks, Kevin, you made some good points. And vettech, I'm sorry if I ascribed a meaning to your post that wasn't there; I merely meant to say that you made a valid argument for paying attention to what Kim Jong Il is up to.........instead of virtually ignoring the very real threat NK poses, the way Bush is doing (the latter is merely my own opinion).

close