A historical mistake will be made

[hrn]

A historical mistake will be made as it seems. If the US , England and Spain will go into war without the United Nations good will then maybe it's time to leave the UN. Noone will trust these countries after this. And, who would like to discuss matters if some just don't care about what the mayority is saying. In a band they would be kicked out very soon. Is there anyone who really think this will solve anything? The outcome will be even more terror and hate against the western cultures for a very long time. And more disagreements in a lot more discussions. The winner of this war is already Usama bin Ladin. Iraq will fall and a lot of people will die, that's for sure, the modern war machine will blow every resistance to a meltdown of sand, concrete and blood. But, what will happen after this? I think this is a short-witted decision from a bunch of people running on adrenaline...and who put them selfs in a corner with no way back. Hans, [url=http://www.hagen.nu]www.hagen.nu[/url]

[patrick_dont_fret]

I agree with you. Like I've said before, every kingdom (or whatever you call it) has a beginning and an end. The US has been around for 200 some odd years...we've lasted a while, but I think it's about time for it to be over. Someone will move in to replace it with something better, cleaner, and safer, I'm sure.

[hrn]

I still hope it will be the United Nations! It's the best way to have peace on earth so far. Hans

[patrick_dont_fret]

[quote]Originally posted by hrn: [b]I still hope it will be the United Nations! It's the best way to have peace on earth so far. Hans[/b][/quote]Eh, the UN hasn't been around too long...and they are the ones that want peace. The US is the one with the death wish.

[Nawor]

[quote]Originally posted by hrn: [b]A historical mistake will be made as it seems. If the US , England and Spain will go into war without the United Nations good will then maybe it's time to leave the UN. Noone will trust these countries after this. And, who would like to discuss matters if some just don't care about what the mayority is saying. In a band they would be kicked out very soon. Is there anyone who really think this will solve anything? The outcome will be even more terror and hate against the western cultures for a very long time. And more disagreements in a lot more discussions. The winner of this war is already Usama bin Ladin. Iraq will fall and a lot of people will die, that's for sure, the modern war machine will blow every resistance to a meltdown of sand, concrete and blood. But, what will happen after this? I think this is a short-witted decision from a bunch of people running on adrenaline...and who put them selfs in a corner with no way back. Hans, [url=http://www.hagen.nu]www.hagen.nu[/url] [/b][/quote]Er... you forgot the other 'A' in the sheeps 'BAA'. That's [b]B[/b]ritain, [b]A[/b]merica AND [b]A[/b]ustralia. I'm not sure if Spain is putting troops in on the ground but we certainly are. Bush rang our Prime Minister John Howard this morning and formally requested our troops involment. Howard has given Bush the nod and we, Australia, are going into Iraq along with the U.S. and Britain. Polls conducted here have shown that between 85% and 90% of Australians are AGAINST going to war with Iraq without UN support. :( It's interesting that at the moment a delegation of forty U.S. trade officials are in Australia discussing trade agreements between our two countries. There is little doubt that our acceptance of being part of the COTW (Coalition of the Willing) will be advantagious during these discussions. :rolleyes: The 'carrot and the stick' strikes again! :(

[Gtoledo3]

Is Australia still supporting the U.S.A, even though we ignored the U.N? I thought that our support consists of the United Kingdom, Spain, and Bulgaria.

[nursers]

Nope - only three countries invading are US, Britain and Australia. Others are supplying bases, flyover permission etc, but only three countries are putting in troops. Huge coalition isn't it....

[hrn]

I guess the agents buying delegates for the Olympic Game....sorry...I ment the war is on their way back home now. Looks like Turkey was bought in the end. Turkey wants to be a part of EU....US now or? Hans

[michael saulnier]

[quote]Originally posted by nursers: [b]Nope - only three countries invading are US, Britain and Australia. Others are supplying bases, flyover permission etc, but only three countries are putting in troops. Huge coalition isn't it....[/b][/quote]Yeah, in the original Gulf War the US and British forces were nearly lost except for the mightly fighting power of... Ummmm. Who were the military allies in the Gulf War again? And WHICH battles did they have... let alone have decisive victories in? Oh yeah. None. Well, we let the Saudi's roll into Kuwait City. And they tried to take back Kafghi (sorry bad spelling). But. Right or Wrong. It's soon to be in the hands of the professionals. And the military forces from the US, Britain, and Australia will certainly uphold their end of the bargain. Good luck. guitplayer

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by hrn: [b]I still hope it will be the United Nations! It's the best way to have peace on earth so far. Hans[/b][/quote]The UN is dead. The US, NOT the French, killed it. Tony Blair killed it, Aznar killed it. The evolution of the human race has been set back some one hundred years. I felt immense sorrow when I watched those planes fly into the World Trade Centre. Now I feel immense anger. This is not how you solve this.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

I really have been staying out of the political fracas here at our "Sound Studio Stage" forum. The title of this thread, though, kept reminding me of something. In fact, whenever I've seen the words "historical mistake", I think back to my history classes and the tale of Neville Chamerberlain, once Prime Minister of England. I'm sure you're aware of that particular mistake, but here's a little detailed info that I liberally copy/pasted from an educational site: [i]When Chamberlain replaced Stanley Baldwin as prime minister he continued the policy of nonintervention. At the end of 1937 he took the controversial decision to send Sir Robert Hodgson to Burgos to be the British government's link with the Nationalist government. On 13th March 1938 Leon Blum returned to office in France. When he began to argue for an end to the country's nonintervention policy, Chamberlain and the Foreign Office joined with the right-wing press in France and political figures such as Henri-Philippe Petain and Maurice Gamelin to bring him down. On 10th April 1938, Blum was replaced by Edouard Daladier, a politician who agreed not only with Chamberlain's Spanish strategy but his foreign policy that later became known as appeasement. Chamberlain believed that Germany had been badly treated by the Allies after it was defeated in the First World War. He therefore thought that the German government had genuine grievances and that these needed to be addressed. He also thought that by agreeing to some of the demands being made by Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy, he could avoid a European war. Anthony Eden, Chamberlain's foreign secretary, did not agree with the policy of appeasement and resigned in February, 1938. Eden was replaced by Lord Halifax who fully supported this policy. In February, 1938, Adolf Hitler invited Kurt von Schuschnigg, the Austrian Chancellor, to meet him at Berchtesgarden. Hitler demanded concessions for the Austrian Nazi Party. Schuschnigg refused and after resigning was replaced by Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the leader of the Austrian Nazi Party. On 13th March, Seyss-Inquart invited the German Army to occupy Austria and proclaimed union with Germany. The union of Germany and Austria (Anschluss) had been specifically forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles. Some members of the House of Commons, including Anthony Eden and Winston Churchill, now called on Chamberlain to take action against Adolf Hitler and his Nazi government. International tension increased when Adolf Hitler began demanding that the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia should be under the control of the German government. In an attempt to to solve the crisis, the heads of the governments of Germany, Britain, France and Italy met in Munich in September, 1938. On 29th September, 1938, Chamberlain, Adolf Hitler, Edouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini signed the Munich Agreement which transferred to Germany the Sudetenland, a fortified frontier region that contained a large German-speaking population. When Eduard Benes, Czechoslovakia's head of state, who had not been invited to Munich, protested at this decision, Neville Chamberlain told him that Britain would be unwilling to go to war over the issue of the Sudetenland. The Munich Agreement was popular with most people in Britain because it appeared to have prevented a war with Nazi Germany. However, some politicians, including Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden, attacked the agreement. These critics pointed out that not only had the British government behaved dishonorably, but it had lost the support of Czech Army, one of the best in Europe. In March, 1939, the German Army seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. In taking this action Adolf Hitler had broken the Munich Agreement. Chamberlain now realized that Hitler could not be trusted and his appeasement policy now came to an end. After the invasion of Poland, Chamberlain was forced to declare war on Germany. Considered an uninspiring war leader, members of the Labour Party and Liberal Party refused to serve in his proposed National Government. Chamberlain resigned and was replaced by Winston Churchill. He was appointed as Lord President of the Council in Churchill's government but ill health forced him to leave office in October 1940, and he died soon afterwards on 9th November, 1940.[/i] I'm not denying that future generations may view the United States' actions in the upcoming conflict as a mistake, and a big one at that. But there are undeniable parallels with Chamberlain's situation and his desire to keep Europe out of a war that would have been much more easily contained had he taken action sooner, with many less lives being lost. In any case, Chamberlain's appeasement policy has been taught as "how not to handle a country in time of conflict" ever since. I'll tell you this: I'm glad I'm not a leader of a nation. Thanks, but no thanks. And good luck to all of you, around the world, regardless of your personal opinions in this matter. May the war affect you as little as possible. - Jeff

[Rog]

The policy of appeasement has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening now.

[Wow]

[quote]The UN is dead. The US, NOT the French, killed it. Tony Blair killed it, Aznar killed it. The evolution of the human race has been set back some one hundred years. I felt immense sorrow when I watched those planes fly into the World Trade Centre. Now I feel immense anger. This is not how you solve this [/quote]WELL, hang on to your seat, because the US will do something about these crazy ass dictators around the world if other spineless countries will not. :wave:

[Salyphus]

I don't see how the situation in Iraq can be seriously compared to Nazi Germany. Where are the paralells?

[whitefang]

Saddam and Hitler both relied on military power to keep them in control. Saddam's treatment of the Kurds can be compared to Hitler's "Final Solution". Even though Hitler was freely elected, both have taken steps to make sure they couldn't be voted out. Much of the economy of Nazi Germany was based on the construction of military equipment and weaponry. Sound familiar? Saddam and Hitler are megolamaniacs. Moustaches! Whitefang

[Wow]

[quote] I don't see how the situation in Iraq can be seriously compared to Nazi Germany. Where are the paralells? [/quote]Is this a trick question? Wake up. :idea:

[Gtoledo3]

[quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b] [quote] I don't see how the situation in Iraq can be seriously compared to Nazi Germany. Where are the paralells? [/quote]Is this a trick question? Wake up. :idea: [/b][/quote]The rest of the world is seeing parallels between us and Nazi Germany. Why, I wonder? "Wake up!" :idea:

[Salyphus]

Haven't heard anything compelling yet, sorry. If the evidence given so far is all there is, there sure are a LOT of Hitler's walking around :freak:

[Wow]

Win some , lose some. The next week will be very interesting.

[Salyphus]

Seriously, where is the Iraqi invasion of other countries? Other than Kuwait, which was how long ago, there is nothing? And the Turks have treated the Kurds as bad or worse than Saddam has, yet they are our allies? Sorry, I don't think this argument holds any water.

[Wow]

Sorry Sal, I gave up on trying to convince you. :( Drop your cocks and grab your socks, here we go.

[alcohol]

Who can argue with this kind of logic? Rumsfeld : "the fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation. "

[michael saulnier]

[quote]Originally posted by Sal O'lando: [b]Seriously, where is the Iraqi invasion of other countries? Other than Kuwait, which was how long ago, there is nothing? And the Turks have treated the Kurds as bad or worse than Saddam has, yet they are our allies? Sorry, I don't think this argument holds any water.[/b][/quote]Ummmm. What about the Iran - Iraq war. It only lasted 10 years. Cost millions of lives. Oh, and Saddam got to use chemical weapons for the first time. Nice. :eek: guitplayer

[Philip OKeefe]

Yes, historical mistakes have been made - Saddam is notorious for making such mistakes.

[Salyphus]

When was the Iran-Iraq war? Which side did the US support? If that's the best you can come up with, doesn't that only help my point? Seriously, regardless of whether you feel war is justified, the comparison to Nazi germany is wholly unfounded...

[michael saulnier]

Sal, I thought you were "cynical". Aren't you "cynical" about Saddam's dictatorship? Are you saying that the "side" we took in the Iran - Iraq war has anything to do with the FACT that Saddam has launched TWO invasions against his neighbors? And you think, he's ready to "calm down" now? Aren't you "cynical" about his claims to have destroyed his WMD's, or his desire for peace? BTW, Jeff wasn't making a direct connection between Saddam and Hitler. He was talking about the idea of "appeasement" and the fact that modern post WWII political thinking doesn't favor it very highly as a tactic. France seems to favor "appeasement"... by saying it would veto ANY resolution which has military force as its outcome. Aren't you "cynical" about how well that would work? The Bush administration has decided to end "appeasement". I KNOW you're "cynical" about that! guitplayer

[joegerardi]

Well, I had promised myself that I wasn't going to post in any more political threads because I felt it was more or less a waste of time. But this one last time, I need to express myself on 2 very specific points: 1- There is an incredibly strong probability that Iraqi civilians will die if we go to war. I'll freely admit that. However, There is also an absolute CERTAINTY that Iraqi civilians [b]WILL[/b] die should Saddam stay in power. The score is over 2 million and counting... 2- I simply don't get everyone's willingness and desire for UN supervision. I would really like someone to explain it to me. Please bear in mind these facts as you answer: The UN is NOT a government. They are NOT a governing body. They have NO authority. They are an advisory committee, nothing more. No country is obligated to follow the edicts of the UN unless it agrees to. The United States has bent over backwards to seek UN [i]agreement[/i] (NOT permission. No country requires UN permission for anything) and has tired of the UN's inability to do anything. Saddam AGREED to the UN resolution to disarm 12 years ago. Since he has refused to do so, and the UN will NOT enforce its own resolution(s) (all 17 of them over the past 12 years) the US has decided to take matters into its own hands. So why do you think they are capable of sorting this out. Remember, these are the same people that appointed Iraq as Chairman of the Disarmament Committee, and and Iran as the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee. In my mind, that's like making Dr. Josef Mengele the head of the Jewish Defense League. (Or, to keep a musical theme, it would be similar to making Lemme the new Solo Tenor with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.) Lastly, where is it written anywhere that we MUST trade with another country? I read in a post on this board that the sanctions must be lifted. Why? That would be like saying that you MUST provide me with songs that I can record, whether you want to or not, simply because [i]I[/i] say so. If the US doesn't want to trade with a country, then that's our sovereign right, and no one, no government, and certainly no advisory committee can force us to do so. Granted, you might say that because we are the only remaining superpower, that we throw our weight around and demand unfair concessions from other countries. You know what? They can say no. They can tell the US to take a running leap at itself, and refuse to do business with us. The reason they don't is because they want our money, they want our goods, and they want our protection. I'm not naive- I realize that of the 40 countries that are aligning themselves with us, probably 95% will be expecting a [i]quid pro quo[/i] down the line, be it admission to NATO, MFN status, or something else. So please, tell me what the benefit of leaving Saddam in power is. Tell me how - by doing that - it will bring peace and justice to the region, and please explain to me why you want to drop trou, bend over, and let a committee dictate the future of the United States and its citizens. Thanks for letting me rant, ..Joe

[Skip_dup1]

U.N.-the Untied Nations? We`re gonna get rid of all the dictators wherever they are-and everybody else (China, for example) is going to get a bowl of popcorn and watch? not...

[Skip_dup1]

Hey Joe Where you goin with that attitude in yo head? Sorry, it was too tempting... Yes, the U.N. is not, and if the U.S. has its way, will never be a governing body, nor will anything that comes along to replace it. The whole concept of an `international community` has been shown for the sham and the pipe dream it is. Whatever else happens, the next time Bush talks about what the `international community demands`, I`m going to visualize a boot right in his mouth. The closest thing to a true governing body, the International Criminal Court, is being vehemently opposed by the U.S. If this whole thing is about a ruthless dictator being in power and oppressing his people, it`s going to be a long century. There`s a gallery of goons in power right this minute. Hussein`s nothing special, except that the U.S. gave the guy`s military the keys to the armory and now we want them back. If it`s about weapons of mass destruction, it`s going to be a long century. Nobody`s talking about getting in North Korea`s face. If a hostile regime comes to power in India, no one`s going to want to get in their face either. Reading off the litany of abuses in Iraq misses the point. No one would argue that Hussein`s a misunderstood guy with a bad publicist. But when government people talk about `we made a mistake arming this guy before-we know better now` bullSHIT. This same game has happened in Panama, Iran, the Phillipines, Cuba and a bunch of other places. Yeah, he`s an asshole, but he`s our asshole-until he`s not. If someone outlives their usefulness and then they need to get snuffed, fine-that used to be called a `covert operation`. Now it`s pretty much out in the open, and it`s ridiculous to expect public support for that kind of hypocrasy. So we zap Hussein. Ya know what? three to five years from now we`re going to be right back in the same shitwagon, unless there`s a fundamental change in thinking from Washington. That`s the problem.

[Salyphus]

[quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b]Sal, I thought you were "cynical". [/b][/quote]I am many things my friend, some of them are even contradictory. That's the price we pay for not being simpletons, right? ;) [quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b] Aren't you "cynical" about Saddam's dictatorship? [/b][/quote]No need for cynicism there, it is clear he is a horrible megalomaniac despot. Though I don't agree that he is the only or most important one around.... [quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b] Are you saying that the "side" we took in the Iran - Iraq war has anything to do with the FACT that Saddam has launched TWO invasions against his neighbors? [/b][/quote]Frankly, the fact that he is a US sponsored dictator, IMO casts serious doubts about any hope for the Iraqi people about the quality of the next regime the US will install. Certainly the time frame is the most relevant aspect to me, and you seem to be ignoring it. Why are the examples of Iraqi aggression all at least 11 years old? And if the Kurds are so important to the US, why wasn't something done when it could have made a difference? Personally, I call that 'rationalization'. [quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b] And you think, he's ready to "calm down" now? Aren't you "cynical" about his claims to have destroyed his WMD's, or his desire for peace? [/b][/quote]I think he's playing this for all it's worth. Frankly, I don't think he's worth the energy (if you'll pardon the pun :eek: ). I'm sure he is savoring the fact that the world is paying so much attention to him, and we all know that if he happened to be the ruler of, say, Rwanda, nobody would give a damn about him. [quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b] BTW, Jeff wasn't making a direct connection between Saddam and Hitler. [/b][/quote]I wasn't really addressing my points to Jeff per se, but to the general idea of the comparison. This isn't the first time I've heard it. [quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b] He was talking about the idea of "appeasement" and the fact that modern post WWII political thinking doesn't favor it very highly as a tactic. France seems to favor "appeasement"... by saying it would veto ANY resolution which has military force as its outcome. [/b][/quote]That fact that we aren't dealing with any time pressure means we can afford to take the diplomatic route. Saddam is contained and unable to threaten anyone at the moment. The only 'rush' has come from the Bush administation, and they have utterly failed to justify it. [quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b] Aren't you "cynical" about how well that would work? [/b][/quote]I'm cynical about any situation which involves politicians or warmongers and vast amounts of money/power. [quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b] The Bush administration has decided to end "appeasement". [/b][/quote]Doublespeak as far as I'm concerned. [quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b] I KNOW you're "cynical" about that![/b][/quote]Heh. Believe it or not, in general I'm not a cynical person. Maybe someday we'll sit down for a beer and you'll see that ;)