» »

35 razlogov v premislek...

35 razlogov v premislek...

Vanich ::

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those
who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to
invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US-
and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an
army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up
dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who
overthrew a democratically-elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of

burekar ::

It is true...
"The last 29 days of the month are the hardest."
- Nikola Tesla

Thomas ::

To verjamejo samo naivci in podporniki Sadama Huseina.

Totalen Bull.

> Is it not true that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

A to vi ne poslušate poročil?

Bedno lezenje nekam Huseinu.


Binji ::

A ce ti reces pa da majo Americani cisto prav, da napadejo pa ti ni lezenje nekam Bushu? Je vsaj podal argumente, kaj pa ti?
In ko smo ze pri napadu ZDA na Irak..kaj se kdo spominja s cim je Hitler na zacetku 2. sv. vojne upravicil napad na Poljsko? Nekaj svojih vojakov je oblekel v poljske uniforme in jih poslal pozgat svojo lastno radijsko postajo blizu meje. Kar se je zgodilo pozneje je zgodovina; totalna zasedba Poljske, pozneje se cele Evrope (z izvzetjem Velike Britanije seveda).
Samo nakljucje? Mogoce. Ste pripravljeni riskirat? Mogoce. Ne pozabite, da je Hitler v tistem casu povsod po svetu veljal za vizionarskega vodjo in ekonomskega genija. Za pobijanje Zidov pa tako ni skoraj nihce vedel, vsaj ne tega, da za tem stoji vlada.

Sicer sploh ne vem, zakaj to pisem, saj Thomas tako noce poslusati nikogar, ki se ne strinja z njim, ampak vseeno... Upam, da je vsaj kdo pripravljen razmisliti o tem.

Pa se posebej za Thomasa. Vprasal si me, ce res ne morem brez politike. Odgovor je, da politko sovrazim, a jo obenem predobro razumem, da bi jo ignoriral, se posebej v povezavi z zgodovino.
Pa se moje vprasanje njemu: Ali si edinec?
Kdor ne navija ni Slovenc, hej, hej, hej!

Thomas ::

> Za pobijanje Zidov pa tako ni skoraj nihce vedel, vsaj ne tega, da za tem stoji vlada.

Vidiš Binji, kako se nič ne spoznaš.

"Vsi" so vedeli, kaj se dogaja Židom. Samo da je bilo to "acceptable" v tistih časih.

Kdor "ni vedel", ni vedel, ker ni hotel vedeti. Vendar je bila ta bolezen - antisemitizem - tako razširjena po celem Zahodu, da se zaradi milijonov Židov ni nihče pretirano razburjal.

Antisemitizem ni bil omejen samo na Nemčijo, pač razširjen na večino Evropejcev (in mnogo) Američanov prav tako.

Kdor tega ne ve - težko reče, da se spozna na politiko.

Man muss immer generalisieren - Carl Jacobi

Binji ::

Prav, zaradi enga stavka zavrzi cel post. Sej sm vedu da bo tko.
Kdor ne navija ni Slovenc, hej, hej, hej!

Thomas ::

Ja ... priznaš, da je ta stavek trhel.

No pa razsujmo še enega:

> Je vsaj podal argumente, kaj pa ti?

Kot naprimer "argument" da se Iračani strinjajo s prihodom inšpektorjev? Kakšen "dokaz" je ta notorična laž?

Man muss immer generalisieren - Carl Jacobi

Binji ::

Zato pa ta:
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those
who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to
invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

ni tko slab
Kdor ne navija ni Slovenc, hej, hej, hej!

Thomas ::

Povsem trhel je. Aliansa med Iraškim režimom in islamskimi teroristi je stara stvar.

Povsem trhel "argument" si spet navedel Binji.

Man muss immer generalisieren - Carl Jacobi

Balandeque ::

Binji: Nasprotno, situacija je zelo podobna tisti v zgodnjih tridesetih porejšnjega stoletja. Po WWI. je Versajski sporazum poleg razorožitve nemčije predvideval tudi postopno razoroževanje velesil. V kvotah za ladje, letala in oklepništvo. Tako kot danes, so tudi takrat o Hitlerju samo ljudske množice mislile, da je nedolžen in zatiran genij in da je nacizem ureditev prihodnosti. Drugi so opozarjali. Med drugim predvsem britanski socialisti. Glej ga, spet kot danes. In Hitler je tačas skrivaj izdeloval traktorje za hitro predelavo v tanke, pa bojne ladje, ki so močno presegale takrat dovoljeno tonažo in seveda podmornice. Tako, kot to verjetno počne Husein.In če pomislim, da tudi pri nas javno mnenje večinoma diktirajo kvazi novinarke, ki nimajo dunsta o vojni, strateških pozicijah in interesih, potem me tvoje mirovništvo niti tako zelo ne čudi. Ne, Sadam ne more vrniti udarca ZDA. Ga bo pač primazal komu v bližnji okolici. In na ta način vzdrževal ponižnost državljanov, zaradi "zarote celega sveta" Zato se mi zdi, da je za protiamerikanizem potrebno kaj več, kot pa diletantski razlogi v nekaj točkah. In ljudje, za vraga ne pozabite, kdo je tam pred desetimi leti prvi z vojsko šel čez meje svoje države..
Involvement and commitment is like an eggs-and-ham:
the chicken was involved - the pig was committed.

CCD ::

Res da so tiste točke precej trhlene, kažejo eno težnjo po kvantiteti ne kvaliteti. Na Irak/ZDA stvar se ne sme gledat črnobelo (spet), ker iz tega samo konflikti nastajajo. Sprijaznit se je treba, da glavni motiv ameriški za napad ni orožje, ampak tudi to je treba priznat, da je bolje, da se WMD uniči, pa če je jedrsko, biološko ali kemično. Ker naj**** bodo civilisti, to je jasno.

Alec999 ::

Mene pa samo neki zanima .. k mi ni cist jasn..

1. Irak nj bi napadl zato, ker sumijo, da ima orozje za mnozicno unicenje in/ali pa ga izdeluje?

2. Med orozja za mnozicno unicenja spada med drugim atomska bomba... vodikova ... biolosko orozje.. right?

3. Ce je odgovor, da .. zakaj ga potem Rusiija,ZDA,Indija ... lahko imajo?

Upam, da me boste razsvetlili o tem uprasanju :)

||_^_|| ::

In zakaj ga ma Izrael pa se noben ne buni..

Brane2 ::

Glede atomskega in ostalega WMD orožja, bi rekel, da tu verjetno gostilniško pojmovanje pravice ne igra vloge. Ameri imajo moč in odgovornost njihovih politikov je, da skrbijo za davkoplačevalce.

Imajo precej dobro idejo zakaj bi Saddam rabil tako orožje in vedo, da predstavlja nevarnost za Amere. Torej bi bla neumnost čakati na to, da si Saddam izdela orožja v imenu gentlemanstva.

Poleg tega ima bolj malo držav zadosti resursov za zagotovitev varnega hranjenja, vzdrževanja in nadzor tega orožja. Pomaga, če si površinsko velika in gospodarsko močna država, čeprav stvari lahko kadarkoli uidejo kontroli. Najlepši primer za to je Rusija.
Orožja ko blata, celo toliko, da odteka na vse strani in mori ljudi daleč izven dežele kateri je bilo namenjeno, Rusi so pa lačni.

Kolikor sem spremljal stvari (bolj malo) je videt, da Ameri ZN ne šmirglajo prav preveč, a tu bi jih človek razumel. ZN so skrajno neučinkoviti, kar je v ameriških očeh zločin. Edino zaradi tradicije in imena so zraven, pa še to bolj preko volje.
Mam občutek da ZN upoštevajo argumente Amerov samo zaradi članarine, ki jo slednji plačujejo, še posebej potem, ko so zatrokirali kar nekaj obrokov in ZNu tako pokazali, da ga mogoče niti ne rabijo v vsakdanjem življenju...

Aja, kar se vojne z Irakom tiče, bi blo to IMHO mogoče dobro, čeprav iz gostilniške perspektive krivično.
Obstaja dobra možnost, da bi solidno prevetrilo ljudi in pogoje, odstranilo ali bistveno oslabilo cel sloj Saddamovih sorodnikov in ritoliznikov, ki sedaj vladajo in nasploh na daljši rok premaknilo stvari naprej.

Kar se Afganistana tiče in slabih razmer v njem, kot vem primarni ameriški cilj nikoli ni bil izboljšati življenje v Afganistanu ampak uničiti Al Quaedo, prirediti predstavo moči v opomin ostalim in prebuditi zaveznike.
Koliko im je to uspelo bomo še videli. Glede Al Quaede sem skeptičen, vendar je to kar so naredili kljub vsemu veliko bolje kot da bi ves čas debatirali z ZN.
Poleg tega tudi ostalim gospodarsko močnim državam počasi kaplja, da bo treba obrniti list glede tega. Uštimati zakonodajo, zadihtati meje, po potrebi poslati kdaj kako divizijo na sovražna gostovanja itd.
Angleži so dojeli, Francozi se delajo blesave, Nemce žuli zgodovina a počasi se ža vidi kam gredo stvari.
Pravzaprav bi sedaj verjetno kak uspešen napad Al Quaede (kot je bil recimo lanski) samo pospešil stvari.

Zgodovina sprememb…

  • spremenil: Brane2 ()

Balandeque ::

Alec999: Razlika med ZDA, Rusijo, Indijo, Izraelom in državami, ki si jih potem naštel je, da si v prvih prebivalstvo samo izvoli šefe države in jih potem prek boljšin in slabših instrumentov tudi nadzira. To je sicer samo presumpcija, vendar velja, dokler je ne prekršijo. Problematičen je Pakistan, ki ima neke vrste vojaško diktaturo (vendar bo na pritiske ZDA prej ali slej moral izpeljati volitve), a tega zaradi zglednega sodelovanja puščajo na miru. In Ukrajina, ki pa jo tudi s korenčki in palicami nekako kulirajo in postopoma odkupujejo njene jedrske kapacitete..
Involvement and commitment is like an eggs-and-ham:
the chicken was involved - the pig was committed.

Thomas ::


> Res da so tiste točke precej trhlene, kažejo eno težnjo po kvantiteti ne kvaliteti.

Tiste točke so zahodni "levičarski" bluz. Ne vem kako bi lahko s kupom zmešanim iz direktnih laži in splošne yade lahko dobil karkoli koristnega.

Man muss immer generalisieren - Carl Jacobi

Vanich ::

spisek vprašanj je sestavil:

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

Balandeque ::

Pa kljub temu javno kaže svoje nepoznavanje faktov. Pač onkrajlužni Jožef Jerovšek.:D
Involvement and commitment is like an eggs-and-ham:
the chicken was involved - the pig was committed.

Zgodovina sprememb…

Vredno ogleda ...

TemaSporočilaOglediZadnje sporočilo
TemaSporočilaOglediZadnje sporočilo

John Bolton - nov svetovalec za nacionalno varnost

Oddelek: Problemi človeštva
8784 (720) zee

Se bližamo WW3? (strani: 1 2 )

Oddelek: Problemi človeštva
7213278 (11349) ahac

"samostojna država" Irak (strani: 1 2 )

Oddelek: Problemi človeštva
574986 (3818) Hayabusa

Več podobnih tem