During the earlier part of this century Britain colonized other coutries in the name of Civilization( making the coutry more civilized ). But covertly and in a well organized way they drained colonies resources. At present America is doing the same thing in the name of Freedom( Bringing freedom to the other countries from so called dictators).
But as usual they are mainly focused on the resources.
History says human beings exploit other human beings and that is what happening now.

I need your views on this topic. Please open up and speak

Regards
Siva

I wouldn't call what the US is doing 'colonizing'. That term does not fit. Nation building, setting up puppet governments, etc. would be more accurate. Anyway...

Look at the timing of all these events. It seems there three options considering the events that led up to our current situation:

A) Current military initiatives are in response to and because of a perceived security threat.

B) Current military initiatives are for other purposes (perhaps oil) but where done with the timing and coordination to make it appear otherwise.

C) Current military initiatives are part of an large idealogical plan to force various countries into a certain type of governmental rule.

I believe a good argument could be made for any of these scenarios. It is likely a mix of all three. Option C is the only option that without question is at play and has no refutation. For this reason, I see it as the greater reason.

Are any of these options valid cases for military action? In my view, only A. For this reason, I am extremely critical of the case made by the US to attack Iraq.

In short, I think it has less to do with resources and more to do with an idealogical position. The position that "freedom" (Bush's version) is to be spread to the entire world. This possibility needs no further evidence than the speech we will hear tonight.

I can't wait till Iraq becomes a very successful, self-run democracy. LET FREEDOM REIGN.

Yes Iranian Styled Theocracy,let Her Reign!

We didn't rebel because England was draining our resources. Read the Declaration of Independence. It describes pretty clearly our reason for breaking away. Also read Edmund S. Morgan's "The Birth of the Republic".

Oxygen,
who gave the US permission to invade other countries in the name of Freedom. When a country is waging war against it's enemies there will be for sure some secret motives. Draining the resource in the name of Freedom is utterly unacceptable. The tables will revolve one day and the assualters will be punished severly. I don't mean US here. Who so ever is pre-emptively striking other countries with illusions will be punished may be today or tomm' or even after a century. But everything what US is doing right now have to be answered to their people. Do you think people in US agree to this agression. Even the 9/11 family victims will not agree to it.
Regards
Siva

Viv, I wasn't arguing that. We all have our own beliefs as to why we're over there. What I was contradicting was your implication that we tossed off English rule because they were draining our resources. The colonists had no problem providing raw materials to England and buying their manufactured goods in return. That was how the Imperial economy stayed alive. It was more about something similar that happened in Kansas awhile back where the state capitol was passing laws designed to benefit the metropolitan part of the state but was hurting the agricultural part. The farmers lodged their legal protests with the state, but the governor blew them off, essentially telling them that if they couldn't make it as farmers they should move to the city. Even the feds were insisting that they had better things to do until the farmers brought up the Declaration of Independence as their grounds for preparing to secede from the state of Kansas and form a new state. (Must have been some shitty conditions for secession to come up in a serious vein.) THEN the feds got involved and defused the whole thing by working it out between the two groups. The farmers, as I recall, pretty much came out of it with most of what they'd wanted.

Oxygen,
Thanks for your reply. Understood your point. Forget about the internal matters in US. Tell me why US is always assuming herself that it can bring freedom by force. Bringing freedom by Force will not work in long terms. I truly beleive ,the way Indian democracy born ( non violence) is the only sustainable way. Each and every country will have her own desire upon it's fate. It's their will and wish. They can decide on which policy they can adapt to. Not on American dictatorship. Whole through the history America has divided a country and ruled. E.g., Vietnam, Korea, Iraq (Sunni,Shia, Kurds).
American tax payers are responsible for their goverment actions across the world. Any country can't be a super power for long, history says so.
The country which dictates the world affairs will be dictated soon. Pls. don't think that I hate america. I used to love America when Clinton was the president, even when Bush attacked Afghanistan.
But this attack against Iraq is completely faulty on all ways and i have to say American tax payers are responsible for this action.

What if you avoid paying taxes? Or if you did not support the war? Or never liked or voted for Bush? Still personally responsible?

Say Kerry is elected. Still responsible? Are the germans still responsible for WWII?

I think its more fair and accurate to blame the administration. The US population did not vote to go to war.

Any where in the world public will never vote for war, i too agree. But still they are responsible for their represented goverment actions.
If the administration is bad or good it's the people who have decided their fate. They can overthrow the government if they feel it has mislead them. Why did the American public didn't do this, because the majority still agrees to the present administration.

what you guys think of my previous post :rolleyes:

where are you from vsivam? :m:

where are you from vsivam? :m:

Myself., iam every where ..... just kidding.
Iam from India

Well, when we invaded Iraq, the president stated his reasons pretty clearly. He said that we were invading Iraq because we thought it probable that they had not, and would not eliminate their WMD and/or WMD programs as they had promised, and that as a fringe benefit, it was nice to be able to free a people from a terrible dictator while in the neighborhood.

To the same dictator America was supplying arms and ammunitions earlier. Well, let's forget that case. America and Britain invaded Iraq because they beleived that Iraq possesed WMD, but where are they now. Now Americans are every where in Iraq why can't they find it if they beleived it was there.

Once again if Americans think they have to bring freedom from dictators then there are so many dictators in line. why not them? , why onby Iraq? .
The answer is very clear Oil.

Americans have to accept the truth and they have to pay the exact price for the OIL to quench their thirst. Not by invading other countries in the name of Freedom. Freedom is a holy word and Americans have made the word naked.

:m: Siva

To the same dictator America was supplying arms and ammunitions earlier. Well, let's forget that case. America and Britain invaded Iraq because they beleived that Iraq possesed WMD, but where are they now. Now Americans are every where in Iraq why can't they find it if they beleived it was there.
We invaded Iraq because, based on the totality of the history, there was a significant probability that Hussein had not destroyed all of his WMD and/or WMD programs. Bush had no choice but to take that probability seriously since the weapons are so lethal. If the odds of proposition A being true are 25%, and the consequences of proposition A being true are ghastly, it is appropriate for one to act aggressively to protect oneself from that 25% probability. The fact that in retrospect the 25% probability didn't come up is irrelevant. Hussein had had the weapons, had lied about them, and had used them, and the only open question is how recently.


Once again if Americans think they have to bring freedom from dictators then there are so many dictators in line. why not them? , why onby Iraq? .
The answer is very clear Oil.
Maybe because we have not been trying for a dozen years to get those other countries to eliminate their WMD. You are simply not listening. The president stated, and I stated in this thread that the motivation for the invasion was WMD. The prospect of freeing a nation from a terrible dictator was just a fringe benefit.


Americans have to accept the truth and they have to pay the exact price for the OIL to quench their thirst. Not by invading other countries in the name of Freedom. Freedom is a holy word and Americans have made the word naked.
WMD not oil.

Hi Brandon,
I will reply you shortly. Iam in a hurry
Regards
Siva

Any where in the world public will never vote for war, i too agree. But still they are responsible for their represented goverment actions.
If the administration is bad or good it's the people who have decided their fate. They can overthrow the government if they feel it has mislead them. Why did the American public didn't do this, because the majority still agrees to the present administration.

In a democratic republic the majority doesn't overthrow their government if they believe it has mislead them. That is what the election process for.

Hi Brandon,
I will reply you shortly. Iam in a hurry
Regards
Siva
I'll be here.

During the earlier part of this century Britain colonized other coutries in the name of Civilization( making the coutry more civilized ). But covertly and in a well organized way they drained colonies resources. At present America is doing the same thing in the name of Freedom( Bringing freedom to the other countries from so called dictators).
But as usual they are mainly focused on the resources.
History says human beings exploit other human beings and that is what happening now.
Siva

I've been in many peoples homes and I've not met one who was a true representaive of their gov't. People are people. The rich rulers of any country dominate its trade and foreign relation policies. Isn't this the case in India? The US Gov't is approx. 600 elected folk, I cannot think of one who is not wealthy. Every 2 years a population of 300+ million get to 'vote' to change a few of them. Every 4 years they get to 'vote' on the most powerful.

Regarding 'in the name of freedom', you must be relatively young. America has been crushing many countries for decades using that tired old horse. I would refrain from blaming Americans. Most Americans have no idea what their gov't is involved in. There is no real oversight of the military and the press is seemingly blind,deaf, and decidedly dumb on any analysis that puts the ideals of Old glory to shame.

America has cornered the market on doublespeak, so I don't see how you are suprised that freedom means 'do what we say or suffer'.

Yes i too agree that Hussein had WMD's. Is he a significant threat to America?.I don't think so.
It's really utter foolishness (sorry for being thick) to take actions against other country based on propositions. Now who is suffering, it's Iraqi women and childrens are suffering now. Will you allow your country occupied by Iraqi army saying that America possesed WMD's(though they have). Every country in the world does have the right to possess Weapons to protect their soverneigty. It's a well known fact now that, since Iraqis didn't pose any credible threat to America they invaded them. Pls look in to the claims made by Bush before war, is any of the one true?.
Now NorthKorea have openly declared that their enemy is Bush's America and why didn't America wage war against them?
Because America know they possess WMD's and nuclear weapons.
I was a real supporter for America when they bombed Afganistan. But what Americans doing now is completely against humanity and for sure they have to answer for their actions.

I have a basic doubt. First of all tell me who is America to say that this country can have WMD, where as this country can't have.
Who are they to put this world order? Are Americans appointed by God to look after the world. This may sound silly but this has to be answered.
Will you accept if your country men is killed by other nation's army?, and if your government is a puppet one activated by some one else?.

Regards
Siva

In a democratic republic the majority doesn't overthrow their government if they believe it has mislead them. That is what the election process for.

So you mean to say that the people in America has to go through this lie.
Iam not sure about American constitution. But i beleive they should have some option to replace the government if the people feel that the Administration is not good enough. In India, Japan we have something called No Confidence motion which can even topple the government if the administration found guilty

So you mean to say that the people in America has to go through this lie. Iam not sure about American constitution. But i beleive they should have some option to replace the government if the people feel that the Administration is not good enough.

I already said Americans have an option, and again it's called an 'election'. You vote unpopular officals out of office. You don't rise up and overthrow elected officials every time you disagree with their screw ups.


In India, Japan we have something called No Confidence motion which can even topple the government if the administration found guilty

And the US has the impeachment process, but this administration has not been found guilty of anything other than some bad decisions at this point.

I already said Americans have an option, and again it's called an 'election'. You vote unpopular officals out of office. You don't rise up and overthrow elected officials every time you disagree with their screw ups.

And the US has the impeachment process, but this administration has not been found guilty of anything other than some bad decisions at this point.


But the bad decision had cost so many innocent lives, not in America but in Iraq. When Iraq was no where related to 9/11 why this hasty decision?.
I personally feel that this administration should be guilty of misleading the American people in War against Iraq.
American soldiers who are dying there are dying in vain.

This country which has made so many mistakes over the history will be punished by the God. People in America has to realise that their government is trying to dictate other countries, which in turn one way or other will bring down their own country. No country in the world remained as super power for long, history says so. America has to realise this truth and should avoid arrogant behaviours and stop invading other countries.

But the bad decision had cost so many innocent lives, not in America but in Iraq. When Iraq was no where related to 9/11 why this hasty decision?.
I personally feel that this administration should be guilty of misleading the American people in War against Iraq.

But as yet no commission has proven that this administration purposely mislead the American people. If that were to change, then yes.


This country which has made so many mistakes over the history will be punished by the God.

Who's god? Your god? Bush's god? I'm not particularly interested in superstitions.


People in America has to realise that their government is trying to dictate other countries, which in turn one way or other will bring down their own country. No country in the world remained as super power for long, history says so.

I'm well aware of history.


America has to realise this truth and should avoid arrogant behaviours and stop invading other countries.

I agree, although I did support the invasion of Afghanistan, as I believe you said you did as well. I would have no problem with the invasion of Iraq if the administration had made a better case for it than they did.

Yes i too agree that Hussein had WMD's. Is he a significant threat to America?.I don't think so.
Since one single WMD smuggled into the US and used could kill as many as a million people, this strikes me as a huge threat.


It's really utter foolishness (sorry for being thick) to take actions against other country based on propositions.
Don't know what this means.



Now who is suffering, it's Iraqi women and childrens are suffering now
Our invasion was justified by self-defense, as outlined in my first comment in this post. People have always suffered during wars going back through the entire history of our species. But, frankly, considering that Hussein ruled his country with an iron fist, and had about a million of his people killed and many tortured, their suffering now doesn't seem that much worse. At least their suffering now may be transitory, since it is mostly caused by people who are horrified at the idea of elections and think nothing of implementing attacks specifically directed at non-combatants. The US in cooperation with the government of Iraq are trying to stop the terrorists from causing this suffering.



Will you allow your country occupied by Iraqi army saying that America possesed WMD's(though they have).
No, nor need I do that to be consistent. My position is that of all the nations and terrorist groups that will try to acquire WMD in the present or the future, the terrorist groups and a few of the worst dictators with ties to terrorists should be prevented from doing so.


Every country in the world does have the right to possess Weapons to protect their soverneigty.
What does sovereignty mean in a government ruled by a few thugs who kill and/or torture any citizen who dares to voice an opinion?



It's a well known fact now that, since Iraqis didn't pose any credible threat to America they invaded them.
Hussein had made WMD, had tried to make others, had used them, had concealed them, and had lied about them. The only open question is how recently. Based on what was known at the time of the invasion it was entirely possible that he still had them and was completing his development and accumulation of others. One single WMD smuggled into a western city and used could kill as many as a million people. That seems like a pretty credible threat.



Pls look in to the claims made by Bush before war, is any of the one true?.
Yes, his claim that there was a significant chance that Hussein had not disarmed. That was very true. Furthermore, based on Hussein's past behavior, there was every chance that once sanctions were lifted and the spotlight was off him, he would secretly resume his WMD development. The worst of the worst dictators, with ties to terrorism, and a propensity for annexing neighbors ought not to be allowed to possess these doomsday weapons.


Now NorthKorea have openly declared that their enemy is Bush's America and why didn't America wage war against them? Because America know they possess WMD's and nuclear weapons.
That is exactly right. We should have been more vigilant in preventing North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, but we screwed up and now they are invulnerable for all intents and purposes. We didn't want to let Hussein achieve this near invulnerability.




I was a real supporter for America when they bombed Afganistan. But what Americans doing now is completely against humanity and for sure they have to answer for their actions.
Keeping WMD out of the hands of evil madmen and latter day Hitlers is actually a good thing for humanity.


I have a basic doubt. First of all tell me who is America to say that this country can have WMD, where as this country can't have. Who are they to put this world order? Are Americans appointed by God to look after the world. This may sound silly but this has to be answered.
All responsible nations should joing forces to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists and the worst of the worst dicators. We are allowed to act in our own defense. We would have been very unhappy if Hussein had used WMD to obliterate one or two of our cities.


Will you accept if your country men is killed by other nation's army?, and if your government is a puppet one activated by some one else?.
We conquered Japan once, and turned them into a democracy. The same with West Germany. We are commited to self-rule for all people and have scheduled elections for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Freedom" is our moral justification for dominating others.

Witness Vietnam, the Iraq war, and the Cold war, of course.

Americans have to accept the truth and they have to pay the exact price for the OIL to quench their thirst.The American thirst for oil was created by the corporations who control our president and vice-president, not by the people themselves. We could cut our oil consumption by at least 75% if everyone who could do their job at home were allowed to. That would be enough to make us self-sufficient and have no need for petroleum from the Middle East. Telecommuting experiments have occurred frequently over the past fifteen years and they were always successful. Most American workers spend their day using a computer and talking on the telephone, two devices that they all have in their homes. But these experiments are always quietly cancelled with no explanation. It is the energy companies who rule our country.

The best reason to vote for Kerry (and probably the only reason since he's just as big a jerk as Bush) is that he is not a pawn of the energy companies. I doubt that world politics will be affected by the ketchup market. ^_^

What if you avoid paying taxes? Or if you did not support the war? Or never liked or voted for Bush? Still personally responsible?
Say Kerry is elected. Still responsible? Are the germans still responsible for WWII?


I think so. The individual...maybe not. The German society as a whole still needs to recognise the element in their 30's psyche that allowed Hitler to rise. We are defined by our pasts, in my opinion so are countries and communities.
The same applies to the US. The US needs to accept responsibility for its mistakes.
It seems to be me, however, that other countries are the exact same. It's not a uniquely American issue. Here in Ireland, a 'neutral' country, we allowed our Shannon Airport to be used during the Iraq War as a stopover. There was much made in the media of the considerable indignation the country felt. The majority of people I know did feel uneasy at the manipulation of our position. Most, however, accepted the appeasement of our great employers, the Americans, as inevitable. I was one of those people. With the mistake (a mon avis) of the Iraq War I feel shame for not acting with better ideals.
I misused my own freedom of thought and expression, I twisted my thought process to be pragmatic...this could still be a good thing.


I already said Americans have an option, and again it's called an 'election'. You vote unpopular officals out of office. You don't rise up and overthrow elected officials every time you disagree with their screw ups.
I agree. I'm sick of people complaining of being denied democratic powers when their Government acts in a way they disagree with. The elected government is elected by the people (well in EU,US etc) and generally IS fair. If a counciller picks a representative you don't like, it was still your choice of counciller. I really say thank god to the fact that my government chooses our EU commisioners.
I hate the term democratic deficit.

Islamic "freedom" is far different than the Western "Christian" freedom. North America should be careful not to push western values on Islamic nations! This is why you Americans have so much trouble with terrorism!! DO NOT PUSH WESTERN IDEAS. Islamics want their own space!! LET THEM BE!
I find the US increasingly ignorant of other nations values and ethic codes!

Hideki Matsumoto the world isnt as simple as it used to be
it is complex japanese betamax vcr that is difficult to
troubleshoot and repair

first lets see japanese do a good deed
let other nations have electronics

Philocrazy. Japanese govt is part of the UN aid workers group. We ship millions of tonnes of Rice to Africa. We make all sort of things better than US can do. I see you are attacking my culture and ethnicity. Exactly what type of bullshit that gets U.S. into trouble!
Leave other countries alone . Let them have their own culture !

just like in vietnam, the americans wanted to "free" the vietnamese by giving them a capitalist government. the only reason the communist one was poor was because they had to spend so much money fighting off american terrorists.

right now the americans are calling al-sadir a terrorist for trying to run the country, he was chosen by the iraqis to lead, but the americans want their appointed govt. that they pay off to steal oil

BTW. dont dis japan, japan rocks
nippon ga dai suki desu

al sadr was chosen by the iraqis to lead?

Islamic "freedom" is far different than the Western "Christian" freedom. North America should be careful not to push western values on Islamic nations! This is why you Americans have so much trouble with terrorism!! DO NOT PUSH WESTERN IDEAS. Islamics want their own space!! LET THEM BE!
I find the US increasingly ignorant of other nations values and ethic codes!
We invaded because of WMD, not to free the Iraqis from a hideous dictator. That was just something that it was nice to be able to do while in the nighborhood, not our reason for going in. Having removed the existing government, we had an obligation to get the Iraqis started on a new one, and since we believe in democracy, that is the type of government we are setting up.

If your values and ethical code dictate that these countries should be ruled by tyrants who deny the people any say in the country's government, and often keep most of the money for themselves, then your ethical values stink. Furthermore, who said that the people in these countries don't want democracy? It's not like anyone is asking them. Somehow I doubt that many people prefer to have no say in how their country is run.

We invaded because of WMD Lol you say "we" as if your government cares about any of you and your pride blinds you from your government's real intentions. WMD's were an excuse for many other things beyond what you are so proud of.

Lol you say "we" as if your government cares about any of you and your pride blinds you from your government's real intentions. WMD's were an excuse for many other things beyond what you are so proud of.
On the contrary, we invaded because of WMD. Long before Bush 2 came on the scene, I advocated invading Iraq for this reason, and I, therefore, supported him when he did. One single use of one single WMD in a population center could kill between a few thousands and more than a million people depending on the exact scenario. With dangers this grave, we were absolutely right to act. Had I been in Bush's position, I would have invaded before he did. As for them caring about me, the way it actually works is that I vote for the candidate who most closely parallels my own opinions.

No, you vote for someone that makes the best appearence (in terms of publicity stunts). WMD was only an excuse for many many other reasons that the average American wouldn't understand.

WMD was only an excuse for many many other reasons that the average American wouldn't understand.
Well, I'd like to see some evidence to backup your assertion, but even if you were correct, it would only mean that Bush did the right thing for the wrong reason. The level of danger posed by WMD is so great that terrorists and monsters like Saddam Hussein simply cannot be allowed to acquire any significant capacity to use them. What would it have been like to fight WW 2 against a Hitler armed with WMD? I don't want to find out.

If Hussein had WMDs, it was because Israel has WMDs, and Israel has attacked Iraq and other Islamic nations in the past. Further, Israel is a state based on opposition to Arabs. Thus any smart Arab nation wants WMDs to defend itself.

During the earlier part of this century Britain colonized other coutries in the name of Civilization( making the coutry more civilized ). But covertly and in a well organized way they drained colonies resources. At present America is doing the same thing in the name of Freedom( Bringing freedom to the other countries from so called dictators).
But as usual they are mainly focused on the resources.
History says human beings exploit other human beings and that is what happening now.

I need your views on this topic. Please open up and speak

Regards
Siva
That's a perfect perpective. it is most likely true. But it is going to end someday anyways.... At least Iraque will get some democracy.... :/