The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
another WAR 2003 Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 7th February 2003
  #31
Old 7th February 2003
  #32
Jax
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by bassmac
City folk seem to be more complacent about taking their freedoms for granted. Middle America are the one's who gave us the majority of the kids who battled (and died) in our wars - and those people don't forget the fact that we had to fought for the things we have now, and need to fight to keep them.

Like it or not - we didn't get to where we are now by holding peace rally's.
LOL. That sure doesn't make how we got here justifiable. Many countries all over the world consider the US a terrorist country because of how we've almost always handled foreign relations when our government deemed that our interests were threatened. The military was called in to squash the opposition, or die trying. The US's policy of, "this is how we want it to be and if you don't like it, tough ****" has earned us more enemies than friends. Recently, that fact has risen up from the depths and smacked us in the face. It's also true that every country in history that was once a world power achieved the position on far less than admirable terms. This goes back to the Romans and before.

Also, I have to wonder... did you ever hear about this era called the 60's? I agree that today, people don't give enough of a **** (and the attitude certainly is not relegated to "city folk"), but I disagree that wars waged on the basis of fears are acceptable. In the 60's, people were outraged enough by the state of this country, and to a slightly lesser extent, the role the country played in other parts of the world, that they organized in mass rallies unlike anything this country has seen before or since. It happened more often and and on a larger scale, with more serious intent for change behind it than anything that happens today. Like it or not, changes were made and the influence of the people had an impact upon our government.

Looking at it from either your perspective or mine, and all of those in between and reaching to the farthest extremes, it's painfully obvious that this is a divided country. Our government has not handled foreign policy and national security well enough to continue using might to make right. While we would like to think there there is no justification for the terrorist acts committed in our country, there are a lot of people in the world who would beg to differ. I don't wish harm upon us, but we reap what we've sewn.
Old 7th February 2003
  #33
Lives for gear
 

And I thought this was one forum that could avoid this. At least it's pretty civil in here.

I only have a question for pondering by those interested. Obviously, doing nothing is the easiest course. Likely not the wisest though, longterm.

But let's suppose it turns out that there is no military action concerning Iraq, North Korea or the other dicatorships of concern here. Let's assume we abide by the notion that there is no imaginable rationale for going to war, as seems to be the official German position.

So here's my question. If then, at some point in the not distant future, a nuclear or biological weapon that likely originated in one of those counties is used to take ten of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even (God forbid) millions of innocent lives, will you regret the lack of action? Will you castigate somebody else for "letting" it happen?

It's hopefully just a theoretical question. But worth a moment's consideration, IMO. And not to cut too close to home here, but about 45 million people died in WWII. There is no doubt that earlier action against the dictators involved, before they gained full strength, would have saved tens of millions of lives. Would that preemptive action have been wrong as well, according to the logic being professed here in this thread?

Basically, if we do nothing, and it blows up in our face, who will you blame?


Regards,
Brian T
Old 7th February 2003
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Knox's Avatar
 

Brian . . my point is / was, in 2003, war in and unto itself, is a ridiculous way to fix petty squabbles between countries, dictators and politicians and their 'isms'. "Petty squabbles" themselves seem a waste of time in this day and time . . though obvious. Of course I realize that is easily said but very hard to do, especially with some of the mental instability of some of these leaders.
Old 7th February 2003
  #35
Lives for gear
 
catfish11's Avatar
 

flame on!!!

if america wanted oil why bother w/ iraq
we already have bases in saudi arabia (50% of world reserves)we merely would have to grab it, period.
but we haven't have we.

unfortunately due in great part to the former relationship
between the u.s.s.r. and u.s.a. the world served as our own geopolitical battlefield part of that competition involved MASSIVE
arms build up, even to undesirable client states
realize this was serious business
part of communist dogma was the call for the violent overthrow of
the "weaker" capitalist, liberal democracies
one only as to look at the newly freed states of eastern europe
and see where their sensibilities reside to appreciate their feelings towards the vicious totalitarian regime
in the present circumstance

mr. saddam has invaded 2 of his nieghbors and poisoned thousands of his own people (well not from HIS tribe, sorry. do i smell a camel fart?)
if israel (another democracy it is fashionable to dislike)
had not bombed iraq's nuclear reactor in '83 we would have faced a nuclear armed saddam hussein that controlled much of the world's oil

i personally believe the world is at a crossroads
we in america bear a great deal of responsibility that there are
weapons of biblical terror spread across the globe
merely waiting for a tyrant pathological enough to unleash them

does anyone doubt that bin "can't get it up" laden
would not be or perhaps been happy to use them
in his "spiritual quest aganist the great satan"
(40 willing virgins await in heaven!!!!!)

are we to sit still while nation states ruled by despots
threaten to bring humanity to the brink of extinction
with terrors so profound we can not concieve them

america moved in the balkans to free people from milosevic's
racist tyranny
we moved in afganistan for our own interest and also helped free a people

after the first great war president woodrow wilson concieved
the idea of the league of nations and dreamed of disarming the world so that man could pursue is quests in peace
his ideas did not take
if nothing else th 20th century was the century was mass genocide and institutionalized evil

chamberlain sought appeasement w/ hitler
the germans are understandably adverse to war
(besides the fact that their pharmacutical giants have helped to build saddams biological warfare capability)
the french fired upon american troops as the landed on the beaches of southern france to liberate them during world war two
the french helped to build saddam's nuclear program
as far as i am concerned the french have been low level enimies of america since de'gaul
no comment on the russians

europeons drive cars too. we ain't the only ones

it is fashionable and easy for people who have zero historical sense to see america as a great evil
and popular to, while appreciating the freedoms we enjoy here, to rip apart america
with no thought as to the consequence that such actions would bring if one were to say deride saddam as an iraqi in iraq

reporter from bagdad-
"mr iraqi man on the street, what do you think of your president?"
"o, he is a very bad man, but i feel perfectly secure mr reporter telling you this because though he be a bad man, he is a great respecter of personal freedoms, o my yes"

the communists and others were right to a degree -
many are weak in liberal democracies where few REALLY appriciate freedom and are willing to stand for it

a thought for all you america haters who see us as great bullies
this country gives more humanitarian aid per capita by far than any other
and i only wish that some of you "free europeons" could have been around when jack booted ****s played their pathitic racial chauvinism out in your occupied countries

or maybe a child screaming as the commissars dragged away an activist parent to pharmacological hell to be turned into a state vegetable without recourse to trial our civil liberities

i would say one should ponder on the past, so that one might appreciate where we and how we have come to where we are now
but i have learned that knee-jerk liberalism is much easier
than thoughtful study and analytical dissection

woodrow who?
Old 7th February 2003
  #36
Gear Head
 

forgetting history

Quote:
Originally posted by bassmac
If you had a neighbor who stock piled chemical & biological weapons, I'd think you'd want to make that sort of thing your business.
Here's the rub: the US armed Iraq in its rather extended conflict with Iran in the '80's (just as we saw fit to sell weapons to then archenemy Iran during that time--isn't that special?)

The US also armed the Taliban in the days of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan--those cats really gave a new twist to the term "freedom fighter," eh?

US military presence in Saudi Arabia (protecting oil interests, natch) was one of the things Usama Bin Laden was so bloody pissed about.

And what about the Shah of Iran? One of the things that really got the current Islamic fundamentalist movement jumpstarted was US support of that deathsquad-having despot.


Quote:
Originally posted by bassmac

Being ignorant to what's going on around you is what gets people killed. tut
Being ignorant of what's gone on before you gets even more people killed.
This is a slippery slope, and one that, as with our support of the Shah etc., could have repercussions that last decades.
Old 7th February 2003
  #37
Lives for gear
 
Steve Smith's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by BrianT
And I thought this was one forum that could avoid this. At least it's pretty civil in here.

I only have a question for pondering by those interested. Obviously, doing nothing is the easiest course. Likely not the wisest though, longterm.

But let's suppose it turns out that there is no military action concerning Iraq, North Korea or the other dicatorships of concern here. Let's assume we abide by the notion that there is no imaginable rationale for going to war, as seems to be the official German position.

So here's my question. If then, at some point in the not distant future, a nuclear or biological weapon that likely originated in one of those counties is used to take ten of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even (God forbid) millions of innocent lives, will you regret the lack of action? Will you castigate somebody else for "letting" it happen?

It's hopefully just a theoretical question. But worth a moment's consideration, IMO. And not to cut too close to home here, but about 45 million people died in WWII. There is no doubt that earlier action against the dictators involved, before they gained full strength, would have saved tens of millions of lives. Would that preemptive action have been wrong as well, according to the logic being professed here in this thread?

Basically, if we do nothing, and it blows up in our face, who will you blame?


Regards,
Brian T
And if we invade IRAQ, and it happens anyway, will we regret?

I don't think the USA ignoring what was happening in the rest of the world during WWII gives it the right to "circumvent " tragedy at random. Believe me, I am not in So-damn-insane's fan club, but this whole thing feels slimy to me, YMMV As an immigrant who can do nothing with politics in this country but pay taxes, it is a very unnerving time to be here.

props again to everyone for the level of civility here in GS in this discussion.
Old 7th February 2003
  #38
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

i cant read all this ****... but i just wanted to make a statement on something i did peruse..

why is it war or nothing? we dont have to do nothing, but we dont have to go to "war"... i think its that same shortsighted thinking that got us in the situation we are currently in.

of course its a shame that there are diabolical minds in power [including the US]... but i just despise war of any sort.
Old 7th February 2003
  #39
Lives for gear
 
catfish11's Avatar
 

war sucks, no doubt about it

these idiotic regimes in the mideast have created a culture of hate with us as the target
most of their retoric is psuedo ****/allah kill the infidel B.S.
that's all fine and good
but a bunch of nit-wit revolutionaries that think they can force an arab uprising , a holy jihad by attacking innocent people did just that
iraq, the saudis the egyptians various other regimes all find it in their own interest to feed their population a hodgepodge of conspiritorial teachings designed to inflame and provoke while deflecting these suppressed peoples anger at the scum that rule them - so they can stay in power
an example
the arabs 4 times have started wars directed at the annilation of the jews in palestine
they openly professed a desire to finish what hitler had started
they lose yet now moan about being the victims
in israel arabs have the right to vote
do they in egypt or saudi arabia or iraq

after the chinese revolution the kuomintang were defeated and fled to taiwan
they did not pursue a victim oriented attitude of revenge and ethnic hatred
they built a new society raising the standard of living high above their mainland communist cousins
same in south korea- look pathos pathitic prick who has enslaved the north- those asshole can't even feed themselves but NEED nuclear weapons- yikes!!!
despite continuous offers of assistance arafat and other hate-mogering psuedo revolutionaries have refused to accept it and forced palastinians to remain in sub-human environs so that they could be indoctrinated into the ranks of terrorists- fact
arafat has refused such housing assistance
meanwhile arafats wife and family reside in luxary in some swiss valet or something, he has funneled probably billions into his own coiffers- no one really knows he totally controlls all P.L.O. assets-
the george washington of his country, yea baby!!!!!

i could care less personally what these middle ages schmucks did
except it is this on going culture of hatred and lies and misguided religious zealotry that has now reached across oceans to our shores and claimed 3000 american lives

if these scum get nerve or bio agents good night
it is our presidents DUTY to protect us

another tid-bit to infuriate you touchy feely types
people whose belief systems are grounded in the middle ages do understand the use of force and don't doubt it
i.e. gaddafi and crap quickly ended after we bombed his families tent in the desert

these assholes are nothing more than barbary pirates, send in the marines........"from the shores of tripoli..."

and so what we supported iraq - the iranian government had taken 52 americans hostage for like a year
the world is not romper-room
and saddam hussein is not capt. kangaroo
the russians moved in to afganistan to support a vicious socialist regime it was thier waterloo
thank GOD we supported whomever was fighting them
it helped put an end to their ****ed up state forever
hodad, or do you miss their great socialist experiment
Old 7th February 2003
  #40
Lives for gear
 
jazzius's Avatar
 

There may be some very good reasons for removing Saddam and i'm sure the Iraqi people would be delighted, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush's motivations are:

Oil

The US economy (the kickstarting of)

Revenge for 9/11 (He couldn't get Osama so Saddam will do...he's also a dodgy looking Arab)

Bush is a pinhead who's leading us into uncertain times.
Old 7th February 2003
  #41
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by catfish11

they openly professed a desire to finish what hitler had started
they lose yet now moan about being the victims
in israel arabs have the right to vote
do they in egypt or saudi arabia or iraq

Wowowow, Catfish, think before you write.
I really don't think you could generalise like that, that the worth thing to do actualy. Every arab don't want to finish what the **** started.
Israelian can blame themselves on a LOT of issues.
And before you start flaming me on that, jewish blood is running in my veins, and, as a European, my family suffered from concentration camp.

Quote:
those asshole can't even feed themselves but NEED nuclear weapons- yikes!!!
Well, the only assholes I see, is thoses leaders that keep their people under starvation, thoses peoples that WILL suffer from bombings, and will, as Bin Ladden, escape from the country before you woud be able to put a finger on them, you know that.


Quote:
despite continuous offers of assistance arafat and other hate-mogering psuedo revolutionaries have refused to accept it and forced palastinians to remain in sub-human environs so that they could be indoctrinated into the ranks of terrorists- fact
arafat has refused such housing assistance
meanwhile arafats wife and family reside in luxary in some swiss valet or something, he has funneled probably billions into his own coiffers- no one really knows he totally controlls all P.L.O. assets-
the george washington of his country, yea baby!!!!!
Take some perspective, I don't think he is in such enviable condition, and I don't think, even I, as jewish, could support the Israel leaders either for the moment.

Quote:
i could care less personally what these middle ages schmucks did
except it is this on going culture of hatred and lies and misguided religious zealotry that has now reached across oceans to our shores and claimed 3000 american lives
Well, I can understand how the events of 9/11 affect you, but there again, if you consider them as "middle aged", you got to see us at the same state of development. Historicaly, we all, as a community, have blood on your hands, and we invented the worth wars that this poor planet have ever seen yet, in the name of religion, race hatry, and plain domination.


Quote:
if these scum get nerve or bio agents good night
it is our presidents DUTY to protect us
We invented thoses weapons, USA, Russia, and probably France and GB have them, who's gonna protect the rest of the world from us then ?

Quote:
another tid-bit to infuriate you touchy feely types
people whose belief systems are grounded in the middle ages do understand the use of force and don't doubt it
i.e. gaddafi and crap quickly ended after we bombed his families tent in the desert
This simplistic point of view might just not apply to Saddam and Bin Ladden.
Saddam was bombed in his houses on regular basis, it did NOT change his point of view

Quote:
the russians moved in to afganistan to support a vicious socialist regime it was thier waterloo
Well, re read my statement about Gulf/ Afghanistan victory. US will fight in a more difficult field, with no support from the inside.
It won't be THAT easy, and it WILL cost lifes.
Remember Vietnam.

Quote:
thank GOD we supported whomever was fighting them
it helped put an end to their ****ed up state forever
hodad, or do you miss their great socialist experiment
When you are starting a war, make sure god is on your side, cause he might as well taking no part of it.

malice
Old 7th February 2003
  #42
Lives for gear
 
catfish11's Avatar
 

there is really no point to disscussion when comparing a regime like iraq with the U.S.
however, about the fact rhat the arab countries preached a neo-brand of antisemitism akin to ****sm is without dispute, their leaders not i used such comparisons
on a daily basis in their press we are talked of as a puppet of the zionist entity that holds the world in their conspiratorial grasp

the religious idology that admonishes followers to martyr themselves in a holy crusade aganist the infidels exists now as it did during the great islamic conquests of the middle ages

iraq is ruled by a tiny clic who originate in the area of tarkit (sp)
there will be great pleasure generally when the yoke of their oppression is lifted

comparisons to vietnam were also made in the first gulf war and afganistan - these are entirely different situations

by the way america certianly has blood on it's hands especially in regards to vietnam

a war started by the french to reclaim their colony and continued by the liberals godhead- kennedy

regardless of how evil you may think this country is and it's leadership - it was islamic terrorist elements - many supported openly by hussein that first attacked us

we will be seen by iraqis as liberators when we march thru bagdad

as we are considered in northern iraq, where under our and the brits protection kurds and others are now openly practicing democratic precepts
Old 7th February 2003
  #43
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 

i clicked to reply the post ...

after writing close to a whole book , i simply erased all the lines .

i have no agruments that are able to convience somebody .

i am waiting on CNN to show me the newest pictures about missiles hitting a target which was loaded with civilians .

WOW cool stuff , more dead bodies please , its more fun for us .

maybe we can use nuclear weapons this time to have a chance for real excitment . lets bomb europe first please . i like it when it feels real . YEAHHHHHHH . i want to be scared and **** in my pants . i need to make any experience available .

meanwhile i am hitting myself with a hammer 10 times a day .

try it at home , its FUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNN



grggt
Old 7th February 2003
  #44
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

5down1up,

I know what you are feeling right now.

The night of the first strike of the Gulf War, I got seriously drunk in Brussels at the time. I think war is a terrible thing to do. The whole world is loosing bits of its humanity doing that.
Might do the same on this one.
I'll have a thought for you next time I'll get drunk

and THIS is my last post here on this subject

For real this time

Peace

malice
Old 8th February 2003
  #45
"Skilled advisors" or not I belive the man in charge of America is too stupid and too inept at diplomacy to lead ANY country during wartime. He is an ex achoholic, ex cocaine user, the man can't string simple sentances together. Its a joke.
Old 8th February 2003
  #46
Lives for gear
 

Neville Chamberlain was the Prime Minister of England during the 1930's. He took the opposite approach to George Bush on pretty much everything. Below is a direct quote of his, outlining his policy regarding problematic foreign governments. In this case, he's refering primarily to Germany, which was at that time defying specific provisions of the Treaty of Versaille. One specific provision Hitler was defying was the following:

" limitation of Germany's army to 100,000 men with no conscription, no tanks, no heavy artillery, no poison-gas supplies , no aircraft and no airships" (My Bold emphasis)

In any event, Chamberlain considered Germany's violation of the treaty, the treaty Germany had signed in order to end WWI, was not sufficient reason to force his compliance militarily.

Chamberlain said:

******
"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators."
******

Sounds great in concept. Didn't work out so well in practice however. Hitler continued to develop his military, unchecked, WWII broke out and 45,000,000 people died. God only knows the number of wounded.

OTOH, we have Winston Churchill, now seen as a visionary. However, during this same period just before WWII, here is a quote from those who opposed Churchill:

******
"British pacifists denounced Churchill as a "warmonger" when he warned of the **** menace. They also disregarded this warning: "May there not be methods of using explosive energy incomparably more intense than anything heretofore discovered? . . . Could not explosives even of the existing type be guided automatically in flying machines by wireless or other rays, without a human pilot?"
******

People accused him of ridiculous rable rousing with such statements. No such weapons existed. But less that 20 years later, England was being bombarded by V1 and V2 rockets and there was a critical race with Hitler to develop the atom bomb before he did. Had he possessed nuclear weapons, then what might have happened?

War is awful. The only time it is justified is when it will save more in human suffering than it costs in human suffering. And those times are rare. But they do come at various points in history.

Is this the case now? I don't know. And neither do you. Predicting the future is a tricky business, either way you go. But those of you so certain that you know the best course of action must certainly be wise beyond those of us who are mere mortals. And do you possess adequate information to make that call, more than those making the decision?

Keep in mind that I'm not saying whether we should or should not attack Iraq. But history has many examples of both of those decisions being the right one, and of both of those decisions being the wrong one.

I believe it is arrogance to pronounce one or the other as the only proper decision under all circumstances, as some seem to do. It sounds so noble to cry "Peace, peace" but history shows Neville Chamberlain's inaction in the name of peace to have set in motion the worst war in history.

Just food for thought.

Regards,
Brian T

P.S. Jules, Winston Churchill wasn't just an ex-alcoholic, he was an active alcoholic during his tenure as PM of England.
Old 8th February 2003
  #47
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

the problem with that analogy is that iraq is not **** germany. although im not so sure that bush isnt closer to hitler than saddam is... there are too many ties with the bush family to **** germany.

not to mention the fuel this is feeding alQ.

bush could effectively start WWIII and that scares the piss out of me.
Old 8th February 2003
  #48
Lives for gear
 

The point is not equating two countries 60 years apart.

The point is that it's always easier to do nothing, but not always right. My issue is that some seem to think that we can't posssibly go wrong chilling out in this case. That's incorrect.

Military action may turn out to have been the right call. Or not. It may happen. Or not.

The seemingly unquestioning certainty that avoiding confrontation is right is what concerns me. That always feels like the safest call. My example was to point out that history proves that sometimes the tough call is the right one, not equate the two scenarios exactly.

And again, those who just know what's the right call, but without any actual responsibility if they're wrong about that make me uncomfortable.

And FWIW, if we were to try and make an analogy apply specifically here (not my original intent), the **** Germany of 1930 was not the **** Germany of 1941. Few people had any clue things would get that bad. If the free world gets passive, any number of countries will possess nuclear and biological weapons in the next 10 or 20 years, and they will get used.

Not the legacy I choose to leave for my daughters.


Regards,
Brian T
Old 8th February 2003
  #49
Lives for gear
 
Steve Smith's Avatar
 

I would be keen to mention it was the US who even after it was known that Hitlet did nto have the bomb, continues to devolop it, and dropped two on Japan, when less than one would have done the job....

mark my words, Saddam will get out of this war, just as Bin laden did the last, and all we will have done is bombed the people of IRAQ back another 50 or 100 years in devolopment.

Alpha, that is what scares the **** out of me as well. everyone is all gung ho about a war in IRAQ ( it seems ) but when it gets brought home by an enemy we cannot find, much less fight, things will get ugly. I really cannot find a reasonable rationale or way out of this conflict. But hey, what do I know? I still spend more time each day trying to get a better vocal/guitar/drum sound than I do trying to prevent any mid east trouble....
Old 9th February 2003
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Midlandmorgan's Avatar
 

I , like most of you, have very powerful feelings regarding the situation...but one thing is for absolute certain: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of what we say/think/feel will change the course of events already set in motion...I really don't think President Bush will listen to me even if he did take my call (and I have an inside track; his old house is 3 blocks from where I live in Midland, TX)...

I really don't believe that this is an Oil War, although there is no disputing that oil trading will be affected...just as international import/exports, technology exchanges, financial institutions, and everything else will be affected. Let's not look for just the lowest common denominator and use that as an easy excuse to explain everything...I think the issues are far more complex than that. If this were JUST about oil, it would be a whole lot easier to invade Venezuala.

FWIW: Taking easy pot shots and judging someone based on totally misguided reports of substance abuse...is just not fair to the accused nor the accusor...turning a blind eye to indisputable events and any abilities to address them because the man drank alcohol 27 years ago is really pretty silly, don't you think?

Having been a property victim of terrorists does put a different perspective on things (a cell of German terrorists blew up a part of a US Military installation while I was stationed there...I could have just as easily been IN my car that was destroyed by a bomber as not...)...

As pointed out by some (Brian T, et al) the issue is really more about sustaining a relatively safe culture than 'imperialistic ideals' suggested by some...things are not going to get better because we ask them to stop threatening our very existance...just as a murderer is going to stop his actions because you reason with him...

A smoking gun only smokes when fired...by then its usually too late..the best way to handle a smoking gun is to make sure it doesn't smoke in the first place...However it gets done, lets hope it works for good this time.

Peace, y'all
Old 9th February 2003
  #51
Mindreader
 
BevvyB's Avatar
 

The terrorists of 9/11 wanted to create global tension between many different countries and beliefs.

And we're giving it to them. They won.
Old 10th February 2003
  #52
urumita
 
7rojo7's Avatar
 

If anyone thinks Bush is responsable for this "War" or that he's even the president is sadly mistaken.
Oil is not the reason, I don't believe that OPEC openly supports the government of Iraq, even though Iraq produces oil.
Besides the awfully obvious reason, there may be other financial political reasons, but none of them beneficial to the US.
The awfully obvious reason is that the production and stockpiling of certain types of weapons is against international treaties, signed by Iraq's neighbors, including Iran that suffered huge losses against Iraq by the use of poison and nerve gasses etc... Iraq supports anti-American (anti-NATO, anti-Russian, anti-Cinese etc...) terrorism and supplies terrorists with training, weapons and logistics. Sadaam Hussein has a worse reputation than Phil Spector (GS tie-in).
Basically, the US, big, mean and manipulative as it is, is taking on the UN's responsability. Who asked them? Do you think that Syria and Jordan want Iraqi Tanks storming their countries with a madman with his fingers on the poison gas button, and the missles? An Army recruited from the Funamentalist Islamic world full of heroes dying for Allah? What would the EC do if he attacked Turkey? Russia is a little apprehensive too. Not to mention Iran who wouldn't want to be bothered anymore. Everybody wants this guy to go away, he wants to rule the world.
Sadaam is clearly a madman who would use the excuse of religion to become a conquerer in the classic sense. If you remember clearly he has thus only waged war against his islamic neighbors and in the end he would come looking for your ass too.
I don't want a war. I surely don't want any tanks or planes or missles captured in any country to my east (I'm in Italy) to be falling on me and mine's head either.
So, what's it going to be? Occupation, install a new government, chase those crazy bald-heads outta town? Arrest the old government? Confiscate the nasty weapons? Insurrection? etc...
I believe that peace is a fundamental pricipal of Islam. Why are so many of these countries making violence to their "enemies" but also to their neighbors? Obviously not for Allah. I have many Muslim friends who live here in peace, in refuge from unbearable social, political, economic and religious conditions. If they could go back to their countries, some would. Think of how many people in these countries want to get out.
Old 10th February 2003
  #53
Lives for gear
 

Whatever your take may be on the current situation vis-a-vis Iraq, just hang on because the world is not going to settle down and behave anytime soon. Now we have Iran activating a more ambitious nuclear program. But only for "peaceful" purposes. Right.

I have a question. Why does a country that has vastly more oil and natural gas than it could ever hope to use need nuclear energy? Iran exports over 250%as much oil as it consumes for it's own energy needs. Does anybody in their right mind believe Iran is spending a fortune on it's nuclear program to meet it's energy needs? I don't think so.

So where does that put us in a year, five years, ten years as countries like North Korea and Iran gain nuclear weapons? There is a great deal of controversy about Iraq right now, but IMO, a reasoning person should come to the conclusion that some consistent rationale for dealing with dictatorships and their pursuit of devastating weapons has to be developed. It may not be the course the US is currently choosing, but I'm fairly certain it's not the beauracratic inaction that seems to possess the UN either.

Keep in mind that 9/11 in the US caused more deaths than all other "official" terrorist attacks combined. More deaths than the attack on Pearl Harbor, one of the pivotal events of the 20th century. Three times more deaths in a single day than all the combined terrorist attacks in Israel over the last decade. Obviously, the stakes have risen greatly, and will continue to do so, IMO. Germany, France, the USA and various other countries all persuing their own arbitrary policies in opposition to one another will eventually get millions of people killed, IMO.

There is a saying that applies, IMO : "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way".


Regards,
Brian T
Old 11th February 2003
  #54
Lives for gear
 
catfish11's Avatar
 

a short history

pro active neo-consevatist forgien policy under ronald reagan
ended the cold war and brought down the iron curtain
enabling the 2 germanys to reunite

shortly thereafter the degeneration of the USSR began and w/ it the dissolution of the largest most deadly offensive military machine ever created

western europe was the potential war ground for the gathering of the largest and deadlist forces ever assembled on earth
this country risked nuclear holocost to stand w/ the europeons
and protect them after world war two, allowing them to rebuild
secure viable nations, the richest and freest in the world

in 1936 and prior 1914 europeon nations entered a period of conflict that probably led to the direct death of a quater of a billion souls

these conflicts were a continuation, robed in toltalitarian garb, rather than royalist, of a few utilizing the many to play out their little world power games, colonial white racist, religious, idololgical, whatever- that has been the overall thrust of europeon historical movement for the last 1000 years

at the advent of world war two this country, the US, had a standing army smaller than romanias of the same period

it was europeon political drivel and idology that plunged the world into the holocost that was the 20th century
not america.

i believe that again we are seeing such political alignments taking place to satisfy short term franco-germanic desire to assert their will ala the power games that played out thru the 17th- 19th centuries culminating in holocost of the 20th

it is funny that that these nations take some moral high ground about iraq and terrorist regimes in general but found it impossible to act as milisovec made the former yugoslavia into an ethnic killing fields

historically the german nation is the most criminal on earth and their leaders ought really think twice before pointing the moral finger at anyone

france will take any side that allows them to feel like they are some kind of superpower, regardless of how short term the effects and what the consequence

if knee-jerk psuedo liberal chic policies had been followed in post war europe the russian people would still live in an armed gulag threatening the world

here at the advent of the 21st century the world has an open door before it that offers a possibility of a disarmed, less deadly more humanitarian future
bush is right- it is mainly small toltolitarian dictators utilizing the terror weapons that our unfortunate competition with the USSR
created

what stands in the way of real world change of a light at the end of a very dark tunnel
who opposes feerdom for the many to support the status quo
of the few for their own political, egocentric goals
rumsfeld is right- old europe
the french, the germans- how pathetic.
Old 11th February 2003
  #55
urumita
 
7rojo7's Avatar
 

I would personally choose the get the hell out of the way choice. Unfortunately many don't have a choice. Yesterday was a day of commemoration for the victims, their families and friends of the "Foibie" which in the dialect of Veneto-Friulia means ditches or pits. At the end of WWII in Yugoslavia, ex-Italy, hundreds of thousands of people were shot to death or close to it and shoved into pits and covered with lime. Their crime? They were ex-Italians who owned property, had businesses and/or knew strategic information about the then ex-Italy, ex Yugoslavia now Slovenia (ancient Illiria and Dalmazia). This is part of the 13 million non jewish deaths that was part of the total holocaust, which included turks, curds, blacks, gypsies, kazaks catholics etc...
As of recent? This has been happening in southeast asia, in the Balkans, in southcentral Russia, Afghanastan and in Iraq. The majority of the populations of these countries are praying every night of their lives that something would happen to free them from their nightmares. They wave flags with their leaders faces on them because they have guns pointed at their heads.
The idea is to stop the snowball from rolling before it gains so much momentum that it becomes impossible to stop it.
You can't fight for peace.
Therefore peace is unobtainable.
The best option is to try to first stop the injustice, then stop fighting then maybe peace will have a chance.
Armchair, TV watching, flag waving politics won't change anything. They recently offered SH an exile, he'd be able to keep his fortune, he did not accept. If someone wants to do something for peace, they can invite a 13 member Iraqui family to stay in their home or even in their yard untill they find somewhere else to go. This would include clothing, feeding, sanitary and medical care. Because they all want to leave. This would leave only the soldiers there.
Iraq is the home of the most ancient cultures on this planet and it's being held hostage.
Enough ranting, I really support peace but I see this as an operation that must be accomplished.
Does anyone play chess?
Old 11th February 2003
  #56
Bush junior has been itching to finish the job his Daddy never finished back during the Gulf war ever since he got in.

Colin Powels cel phone wire tap recordings & little slide show to the UN didn't seem to make much impact at all.

Big march in London Saturday , main reasons folks object to an attack on Iraq as I see it.

1) The continued 'trust us, there is **** we cant tell you about' line from Bush & Blair & co isn't popular. Their word alone is not good enough reason for massive civilian deaths from bombing.

2) A pervading feeling that if Bush, Blair, the UN and a team of scientists CANT get it together to prove Iraq actually has these weapons, folks aren't minded to back them in their plans to start world war 3.

3) Film footage of stategic high altitude bombing gone wrong in Iraq showing a bundle of bloody rags that was once a baby along with continued buldozing of Palastinian property by Isreal will inflame radical muslims the world over to REALLY get vengefull on our western ass's.
Old 11th February 2003
  #57
Jax
Lives for gear
 

No war.
Old 11th February 2003
  #58
Lives for gear
 
Tim L's Avatar
 

I don't know who wrote this but it sure is clever.

Sung to the tune of.... well, you'll figure it out.

"If You're Happy And You Know It, Bomb Iraq"

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's pre-emptive non-aggression, bomb Iraq.
To prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's all the proof we need,
If they're not there, they must be,
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
And he tried to kill your dad,
Bomb Iraq.

If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.


I'll probably get "Blacklisted" for this. fuuck fuuck fuuck
Old 11th February 2003
  #59
Sence of humour keeps you going!

heh

YOUR'E BANNED!

heh
Old 12th February 2003
  #60
Here for the gear
 

Sorry for the long post...my perspective on this may be different than other people in the US, then again, maybe not.

I moved from the US to Europe in 1957 with my parents as part of a humanitarian effort to build secondary educational/training schools. I lived there for 7 years.

I remember Europeans from many countries literally grabbing and hugging my parents and me with tears in their eyes thanking us for our country's commitment to help liberate their countries just 12 years earlier. Those tears were coming from eyes that had personally seen what evil can do. These were the people who had lined the streets when Allied troops drove into their home towns.

More than once I've walked through the cemeteries in Europe filled with tens of thousancs of simple white crosses with the names of US soldiers who lay beneath the grass, including graves of my uncles who paid the ultimate sacrifice so another generation of children might enjoy freedom.

It's easy for any of us to believe we know what's right or what's wrong about waging war. I doubt any of us have ever actually served in an army, carried a weapon for our country, or had to consider whether or not they should pull a trigger and end the life of another man who was taking orders just like we are.

Before we make up our minds and consider ourselves enlightened with some divine knowledge about whether we're right or wrong about waging war in Iraq, PLEASE find and talk to someone who's lived through a real war, who lived under tyranny, who fought for freedom, or had to make a choice to fight... or NOT fight.

Yeah, it's a bit harder to do than posting our opinions on a forum, carrying a sign in a peace march, or talking about it in a bar or office. But you might surprise yourself with what you find out.... and that's on BOTH sides of the issue.

For each of us there's probably only one more generation that's left in our communities that have experienced this personally. Take a chance to find out what THEY think before making up your mind.

Ask yourself this question. UN Resolution 1441 is the 18th UN resolution passed in an attempt to force Hussein to comply with the terms of his surrender in the Gulf War. Has anyone here even read it? Do you think this one contains any words or the will to make him comply? If not, what does the 19th or 20th resolution need to say?

And finally, if you don't believe his non-compliance warrants military action, what evidence or actions by Iraq would cause you to change your mind about GOING to war or NOT going to war? "Find(ing) the cost of freedom" is no easier now than it was 30 years ago.

I did learn this some time ago.... In the late 70's and early 1980's when the "official" US position on the USSR seemed to take a really tough stand. It was a bit hard to not get caught up in that mind set when you were encouraged to think that nuclear was was nearly imminent. I remember at that time surveys of US children revealed their greatest fear was nuclear attack from the USSR. There were mini-series on the television about nuclear winter.

One day I spoke with a neighbor of mine who had relatives in the Soviet Union. He had just returned from his first trip to see his cousins, aunts, and uncles he had never met before. I asked him what they thought of Americans, and if they saw us as enemies. I remember him saying he had thought of the same questions, and asked them himself. I remember his answer, "Hell no! NONE of them wants to die anymore than we do, and NONE of them wants to fight to take over the US any more than we've ever thought of fighting to take over Russia!"

From that day on, I knew the USSR had none of the political will to finish a war, even if was started by a lunatic pushing a button. And I slept better that night. Those kinds of messages started to creep into the US media. Artists and musicians from the west started to make trips into the USSR to perform, and came back with the same message. It was a bit harder to ever imagine joining an army to kill someone who loved the same music you did.

So regardless of the talk in the media about whether or not the US can remain "friends" with any other country, I know I'll lift no hand to strike, speak no words to criticize, or harbor ill will to anyone that loves music as much as I do.

I've still got more questions than answers on this for myself at this point. I've lurked here for months, made few posts but learned much from each of you willing to share what you know.

Peace to each of you, and thanks for making this little part of the world a peaceful, civil place.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
mastermix / Mastering forum
5
Nick A. / So much gear, so little time
9
Nu-tra / So much gear, so little time
40

Forum Jump
Forum Jump