 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
J M
Joined: Mar 29, 2004
Posts: 3 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: United States
|
Saddam's Paranoia = Reality (?)
March 29, 2004 - 08:29 AM
|
|
As an AMerican, I was never completely convinced that the War in Iraq was ever justified. Terrorism is a international epidemic and President Bush's claim that it is necessary to demolish terrorism was an empty promise. Unfortunately, terrorism will never be conquered because it is not containable. By invading Iraq, President Bush tried to centralize the origin of terrorism, making the Middle East look like the epicenter of evil!! NOt only is this unfair, I would expect so much more for a leader of our country! What about terrorists all over the world? They cannot be forgotton because they are enstilling fear into the lives of many people. The whole purpose of this very short paragraph is to ask international users of TIG as to what your thoughts of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq was.
Do you feel it was justified?
Do you feel as if he tried to centralize the origin of terror, as well as essentially ignoring other worldwide terrorist networks?
Do feel as if President Bush is creating a giant paradox by trying to diminish terrorism by using violent methods?
I am very eager to hear these responses and have the ability to be informed of other opinions instead of the same old conservative view that I feel is ever present in my area. Please respond! Thank you very much!!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Alejandro Hernández
Joined: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 31 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: Mexico
|
The re-enchanted right
March 29, 2004 - 11:57 AM
|
|
Hi Global Chick...
I highly recommend you the this great article from a friend of mine: Rossana Reguillo; she is an expert about youth issues, cultural studies, and has been developed a research about the fears in Latinamerica.
What Bush has done has to deal with a strategie or political stituation that is call "politics of fear".
This is the link of the text, but it is in spanish... you can translate it through Altavista or Google:
Rossana Reguillo: La razón re-encantada: Magia, neoreligión y rituales en la era del colapso (The re-enchanted right: magic, neoreligion and rituals in the collapse era.
http://www.hemi.nyu.edu/eng/seminar/usa/text/reguillo_paper.html
Regards!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
J M
Joined: Mar 29, 2004
Posts: 3 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: United States
|
Thanks!
March 30, 2004 - 01:24 AM
|
|
Thank you very much for your reply. The article was very interesting!!
I hope more people will reply and share their feelings!
Thank you!!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Udara
Joined: Dec 10, 2003
Posts: 1055 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Sri Lanka
|
"Strike against Terror" by Thich Nhat Hanh
March 30, 2004 - 01:29 AM
|
|
Thich Nhat Hanh is a Buddhist Monk from Viet Nam. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work during that war.
"Strike against Terror"
by Thich Nhat Hanh
Terror is in the human heart. We must remove this terror from the heart. Destroying the human heart, both physically and psychologically, is what we should avoid. The root of terrorism should be identified so that it can be removed. The root of terrorism is misunderstanding, hatred and violence. This root cannot be located by the military. Bombs and missiles cannot reach it, let alone destroy it. Only with the practice of calming and looking deeply can our insight reveal and identify this root. Only with the practice of deep listening and compassion can it be transformed and removed.
Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness. More darkness will make darkness thicker. Only light can dissipate darkness. Violence and hatred cannot be removed with violence and hatred. Rather, this will make violence and hatred grow a thousand fold. Only understanding and compassion can dissolve violence and hatred.
"Strike against terror" is a misleading expression.
What we are striking against is not the real cause or the root of terror. The object of our strike is still human life. We are sowing seeds of violence as we strike. Striking in this way we will only bring about more hatred and violence into the world. This is exactly what we do not want to do. Hatred and violence are in the hearts of human beings. A terrorist is a human being with hatred, violence and misunderstanding in his or her heart. Acting without understanding, acting out of hatred, violence and fear, we help sow more terror, bringing terror to the homes of others and bringing terror back to our own homes.
Whole societies are living constantly in fear with our nerves being attacked day and night. This is the greatest casualty we may suffer from as a result of our wrong thinking and action. Such a state of confusion, fear and anxiety is extremely dangerous. It can bring about another world war, this time extremely destructive. We must learn to speak out so that the voice of the Buddha can be heard in this dangerous and pivotal moment of history. Those of us who have the light should display the light and offer it so that the world will not sink into total darkness.
Everyone has the seed of awakening and insight within his or her heart. Let us help each other touch these seeds in ourselves so that everyone could have the courage to speak out. We must ensure that the way we live our daily lives does not create more terrorism in the world. We need a collective awakening to stop this course of self-destruction.
Thich Nhat Hanh
Shanghai 19 October, 2001
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
J M
Joined: Mar 29, 2004
Posts: 3 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: United States
|
Very true
March 30, 2004 - 01:38 AM
|
|
What a well expressed essay. The essay completely describes exactly what I was feeling. President Bush claims he is ridding terrorists from the Middle East,however, he is only contributing to the violence. He feels terrorism can be abolished by killing human beings, when he knows that the only way terrorism will end is to destroy the root of the problem.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Erica Burrell
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: 2 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 30
Country: United States
|
Re: Saddam's Paranoia = Reality (?)
March 31, 2004 - 11:00 AM
|
|
I grew up with Iraqi Kurdish exiles so I will always have a biased vision of the Iraqi Liberation.
Do I think Bush was right to do it as he did? Not really...some people in Iraq feel we 'liberated' them........ but it seems to have mostly just pissed everyone off even more than they already were.
It wouldn't have taken lies about WMD to get me to support ousting Saddam tho, I just wish he had done it in a way that could have made it safer for everyone involved.
I mean how easy was it to get Saddam out of power? What has been hard as dealing with it afterwards.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Brian
Joined: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 464 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 39
Country: United States
Province/State: North Carolina
City: Raleigh
|
Re: Saddam's Paranoia = Reality (?)
March 31, 2004 - 12:40 PM
|
|
I probably would feel differently about Iraq if we hadn't been strung along with the WMD thing. Regardless, the timing of the Iraq war was way off. We needed to finish what we started in Afganistan before launching a major offensive in Iraq. Having said that, I do wish that the US has went down another road instead of answering death with death.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Evan
Joined: Apr 3, 2004
Posts: 10 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: New Mexico
City: Las Cruces
|
The right thing for the wrong reasons.
April 4, 2004 - 06:23 AM
|
|
The war in Iraq was, in my opinion, the right thing, but done for the wrong reasons. Bush should not have mislead the public about WMD's and Iraq-based terrorism, surely. However, by removing Saddam and his cronies from office, I beleive that a lot more good has been done, than if nothing had been done at all. If the United States had not invaded, Saddam's torture chambers would still be going. Iraq would not have a new interim constitution granting freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Although some Iraqi people do not like the American occupation, I think that it was worth it. Despite the fact that the operation could have gone a lot more smoothly, Iraq is now a better place for the oppressed. Now all we need to do is get their government off these training wheels, and remove the American forces, before we get more needless casualties on either side.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Cicero
Joined: Feb 1, 2004
Posts: 1020 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: London, City of
City: London
|
Re: Saddam's Paranoia = Reality (?)
April 8, 2004 - 01:45 AM
|
|
It does SUX when politics dictates the diplomacy and not other way.As is the case in IRAQ WAR.
War was planned WAY before 2003, it was planned in 2000.
I dont know the whole idea but they thought IRAQI people will make a "GOOD" example. hmmm.
Ave Futuria
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Udara
Joined: Dec 10, 2003
Posts: 1055 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: Sri Lanka
|
Re: Saddam's Paranoia = Reality (?)
April 8, 2004 - 03:30 AM
|
|
Well, I guess some of you guys in USA would feel happy
considering USA is the super power and it can conquer countries with force.
The enmity that the conquer generates through his own enmity toward his enemy, or even vice versa, results in the further production of enmity with the victory. In the discussion of war in anceint days in India,we find the king Ajatasattu attacking the king Pasenadi, with Pasenadi being defeated. And here is stated what is quoted above from the Dhammapada , with Pasenadi being the one to suffer. When these kings again met on the battlefield, Pasenadi captures Ajatasattu. But instead of executing him (partly due to a family relation, Ajatasattu is his nephew), Pasenadi only confiscates his army. The Buddha's response to the news is informative:
A man may spoil another, just so far
As it may serve his ends, but when he's spoiled
By others he, despoiled, spoils yet again.
So long as evil's fruit is not matured,
The fool doth fancy `now's the hour, the chance!'
But when the deed bears fruit, he fareth ill.
The slayer gets a slayer in his turn;
The conqueror gets one who conquers him;
Th' abuser wins abuse, th' annoyer, fret.
Thus by an evolution of the deed,
A man who spoils is spoiled in his turn.
This is not only valid for the ancient days but to the present as well.
Udara
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Cicero
Joined: Feb 1, 2004
Posts: 1020 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: London, City of
City: London
|
Re: Saddam's Paranoia = Reality (?)
April 9, 2004 - 02:00 AM
|
|
Kaiser is a good nickname Emilio.
I am anti-colonial and i will stay that way for good.
WHY?
Principle of Give and Take prevents me utterly from supporting ideas of colonialism which is a "TAKE-ONLY"
Since when Bush would speak openly on TV how he is plotting something! Politics is something i am personally involved to and i know what i ment by saying that. It is now CONFIRMED fact that war was planned years back.
Ave Futuria
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Brian
Joined: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 464 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 39
Country: United States
Province/State: North Carolina
City: Raleigh
|
Re: Saddam's Paranoia = Reality (?)
April 9, 2004 - 05:10 AM
|
|
"So was this war wrong because you don't like Bush's accent or the fact that he is republican?
Please explain this or shut up!!!" I've got an explanation for you and if you don't like it you're welcome to disagree but please don't include me in your "shut up" list. Or anyone else for that matter.
First I'd like to say emilio16 you must be the only non-American to speak up for Bush. Bush's accent and party have nothing to do with people's opinions of him. It has to do more with his actions/inactions, the company he keeps and who his father/brother is. Bush has surrounded himself with big players in the oil business like Condi Rice, Dick Cheney for example. Iraq has massive ammounts of oil. Bottom line. 9/11 was just an excuse for the Bush team to invade Iraq. They had in fact been itching to do it for some time but lacked support.
http://www.sundayherald.com/39221
The above site is just one source among many. The information is out there. Another reason may people despise him is that the state that decided the election that made him President was run by his brother Jeb Bush. Please do your homework before you appologize for someone so obviously in the wrong as Bush.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Antoine Wood
Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Posts: 88 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Brampton
|
Re: Saddam's Paranoia = Reality (?)
April 10, 2004 - 12:08 PM
|
|
Originally posted by emilio16
To all these so called pacifist I ask you, if war in general is evil, why then were there protests only during this war? Why not during the war in Kosovo and Bosnia (I remind you, no WMD's or UN security council support just the usual dictators)
So was this war wrong because you don't like Bush's accent or the fact that he is republican?
Please explain this or shut up!!!
When NATO went into Kosovo we all knew why they were going, there was a immediate crisis.
1) The world was misguided about reasons for going into Iraq. Whether the actual reasons are imperialistic or capitalistic, they weren't the reasons given.
2)There was no immediate threat for going into Iraq, by definition a preemptive strike must involve immediate danger.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Antoine Wood
Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Posts: 88 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Brampton
|
Re: Saddam's Paranoia = Reality (?)
April 11, 2004 - 02:51 AM
|
|
Originally posted by emilio16
To Antoine,
Your arguments seem sound yet they collapse when you say that there was no immediate threat to the US, even if this was true certainly in Kosovo there was also no threat to the US yet they went in anyway.
Also lets return to the reasons, I agree with you that some of the reasons given turned out to be false (although I still believe that the WMD's were incinerated before the Iraqi conflict), yet an old italian saying states:
A war started for the wrong reasons with good results is better then a war started for the right reasons with bad results.
Although the outcome of the Iraqi crisis remains uncertain it has a hell of a better chance of succeding then the mess in Kosovo that the Democratic party started 6 years ago.
Firstly Kosovo was not a pre-emptive attack.
Of by threat I didn't mean just to NATO (since it was a NATO action and not a solo action). was a sense of immediancy in the Kosovo case, that did not exist in the Iraq case. Even international human rights organizations agreed with this, NOTHING was happening in Iraq at that point in time. It wasn't as if they had to rush in to prevent Genicide, the genicide had happened a decade ago there was NO threat from Iraq.
Its nice that you believe that the weapons were destroyed, however what was the point in invading then? Lets look at the period leading up to the war. US asks for records of Saddam having destroyed his WMD stockpiles, he gives them, a huge amount, they say not good enough, your hiding stuff. They don't tell him what they want. He then tells the US that they can have as many inspectors as they want including CIA (the very same CIA who have recently been authorized to kill him under some situations). The US says that they don't require more inspectors. This makes NO sense to me. What's the difference between a military and inspectors when you're looking for WMD? The military kills the people instead of just asking them questions and destroys the bulidings instead of just searching them.
Mean while while Bush stations an army to invade an army who doesn't have WMD, you have another nation wh admits to having it that Bush wants to deal with diplomatically. A nation with the capacity to strike US soil with a nuclear attack. Now who's the greater strike, where the sense of immediancy, on the otherside of the continent. The US didn't threaten to invade Korea because Korea has a decent military and WMD. While they bravely attacked Iraq because the Iraqi military didn't stand a chance and they had no WMD. Iraqi civilians have caused more US causualies than their military.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Danny Sweeney
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
Posts: 214 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: United Kingdom
|
Re: Saddam's Paranoia = Reality (?)
April 11, 2004 - 03:52 AM
|
|
Is war ever justified? - we could fill the oceans with writings about that.
After 9/11 the world was shook - such an atrosity was almost unbelieveable. Invading Afganistan in an attept to find the suspects and bring them to justice for their crimes most people would agree is acceptable.
However Iraq hadn't commit those crimes - Saddam Hussain wasn't a partner with Bin Laden, by all accounts they can't stand each other. But ofcourse 10 years ago Bush senior had failed to get his oil - so there was the oppertunity for George Jnr to try and get his hands on it.
If the war was about stoping Human Rights violations (which perhaps would be justified) why wait 10 years and millions of lives later.
WMD - where are they - destroyed? Non-existant, most likely, besides it is the hight of hypocrasy for america who has more WMDs than any other country in the world and was, lest we forget the first one to use them. (Hiroshima)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
Home
Community
