Attack Iraq?

**Kaiddin** · 08-21-2002, 03:52 PM

Is an US citizen or a German citizen really worth more than an English citizen or a Chinese citizen or Iraqi?

If a German citizen is being threatened by an American, Englishman, Chinese or Iraqi I know what your answer would be. It all depends if you really want to admit it.

**Surak** · 08-21-2002, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Kaiddin

If a German citizen is being threatened by an American, Englishman, Chinese or Iraqi I know what your answer would be. It all depends if you really want to admit it.

Perhaps thats just the difference between US an Europe. We would say no. There is nothing to admit.

Don`t get me wrong. I have many friends in the US. It`s not that i don`t like you or your country.

To Kerlof: Imperialistic means by definition, a way to conquer other nations by trying to give them your culture,belief,moral etc.
Your post is interesting though. I totally agree on your isolationist opinion. But this is something we should remedy. US has many allies after all, including Germany. So why isolate?

To Calguard: I know these facts, perhaps I expressed myself not very well ( noticed that afterwards), but this is an agreement where the US should have belonged according to my opinion.

To Kaidin: Hmm to mention the WWs is a bit different. Germany was certainly not the same those days as it is now. And I`am concerned with the CURRENT US.
The point about the coverage: Ok Bush stated its not an anti arabic war, but people running into a muslim shop owner with guns trying to kill him is normal? Bush may have stated it, but the anti-muslim mood, if not that extreme as mentioned above is existant, no doubt in that. Talked to some, read the newspapers. Its a fact.
And I`am not implying that an US citizen is worthless. I`am just implying they are not better than others, thats a difference. There is no better....

AS I mentioned before. IMHO the Afghanistan war was neccessary. Dont get me wrong there. I just said, before shouting so loud about 5000 Americans, think about all the people all over the Globe who get killed every day.

**Kerlof** · 08-21-2002, 09:18 PM

To Kerlof: Imperialistic means by definition, a way to conquer other nations by trying to give them your culture,belief,moral etc.

Not in in the english definaiton.....

Your post is interesting though. I totally agree on your isolationist opinion. But this is something we should remedy. US has many allies after all, including Germany. So why isolate?

Not trying to isolate but any attempt at imposing a remedy will result in it I'm afraid. That fact remains though that court is flawed and we wont join it.

**Capt.Hunter** · 08-22-2002, 01:47 AM

On the Kyoto issue, America got slapped with the biggest restrictions because it is the worst polluter. Other countries agreed to drop their emissions to the same percentage level, it's just that America would have to work the hardest to do it. But hey, what the heck, we don't really need a planet to live on do we?

**Evan van Eyk** · 08-22-2002, 02:00 AM

the point is, it was already agreed upon even by the US and they now simply say, no we no longer want to do it.

**Dan Stack** · 08-22-2002, 05:25 AM

Way off track here, but a treaty in the United States only has the force of law should it be ratified by the Senate. A presidential signing is symbolic.

**Capt.Hunter** · 08-22-2002, 06:04 AM

Understood. Therefore it really shouldn't be allowed for the President to sign something before he has Senate approval, as all it seems to do is create "false hope" situations like this or the ICC. It also allows Presidents to get in cheap approval boosters by signing treaties that are popular with the voters but that the Senate will never ratify in a million years.

**Kaiddin** · 08-22-2002, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Surak
Don`t get me wrong. I have many friends in the US. It`s not that i don`t like you or your country.

Not my country either. Your phrasing has certain ring here that I hope is a result of translation. I will admit that my German would not be as good.

To Kaidin: Hmm to mention the WWs is a bit different. Germany was certainly not the same those days as it is now. And I`am concerned with the CURRENT US.[/B]

It is exactly the same. Were I to be of that mind set, I could say that the Germans fought two wars of aggression then, they could do another now. Way else are they campaigning against American actions. Is the currant leadership looking to reclaim the lands lost after WWI?

Easy to do with any nation.

Another example: USSR/Russia. Can you say that they are any less to fear . What was that trade package to Iraq?

The point about the coverage: Ok Bush stated its not an anti arabic war, but people running into a muslim shop owner with guns trying to kill him is normal? Bush may have stated it, but the anti-muslim mood, if not that extreme as mentioned above is existant, no doubt in that. Talked to some, read the newspapers. Its a fact.
And I`am not implying that an US citizen is worthless. I`am just implying they are not better than others, thats a difference. There is no better....[/B]

Ah, stereotyping based on one or two examples. I've seen video, recent, of neo-nazis in marching in some German cities. Should I accept this as normal for Germany? qerlin had a link where people in Scotland were rallying in favour of al-Qaeda and killing Americans should I assume that is normal?

AS I mentioned before. IMHO the Afghanistan war was neccessary. Dont get me wrong there. I just said, before shouting so loud about 5000 Americans, think about all the people all over the Globe who get killed every day. [/B]

I wish I could find the quote but I'm sure someone will. It has been said that people have a better understanding with smaller numbers of deaths because they can identify. However as the number increases the harder it is for the average person grasp the idea. It is therefore easy to try and reduce the impact of terrorist action like this by trying to dilute the loss.

Am I saddened by the murder of someone in Africa, Asia, or Europe? Yes. Does that reduce the loss of the people in the WTC? No. If I ruled the world would I allow war, mass murder, pedophilia or WMD? No, but then I would be a benevolent dictator right?

**calguard66** · 08-22-2002, 01:28 PM

If that was the case, I fail to see why that would be a problem.

However, if you look closely, I think you will find that the US agreed IN PRINCIPLE to the IDEA, but disliked the details enough when it was all worked out to withdraw.

If I go down to the car dealer and tell him I want to buy a car... and then find out that he isn't willing to give me the car I want for the price I want, and I still bound to buy the car?

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
the point is, it was already agreed upon even by the US and they now simply say, no we no longer want to do it.

**First of Two** · 08-22-2002, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
On the Kyoto issue, America got slapped with the biggest restrictions because it is the worst polluter. Other countries agreed to drop their emissions to the same percentage level, it's just that America would have to work the hardest to do it. But hey, what the heck, we don't really need a planet to live on do we?

To say America is the worst polluter is a grotesque distortion of the facts.

The US does release the most pollutants overall.

BUT...

Our pollution, measured versus the incredibly important characteristic of production, is among the lowest in the world. Visit a steel mill in Pittsburgh, then go to one in China or Romania or India. THEN try and tell me the US is the biggest polluter.

If our pollution to production ratio was as bad as, China's, we'd all be breathing sludge and there would be actual cause to change the US's methods.

The only way to "fairly" cut emissions is to make all countries follow the same emissions standards, as it relates to production/pollution ratios, rather than limiting the 'amount' of pollutants. That would place the burden on those most responsible for high emissions.

**Avatar CO** · 08-22-2002, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by First of Two
The only way to "fairly" cut emissions is to make all countries follow the same emissions standards, as it relates to production/pollution ratios, rather than limiting the 'amount' of pollutants. That would place the burden on those most responsible for high emissions.

Ratios are less important than volume. I'd rather have a single Chinese man dumping 100 units of carcinogens into my drinking water than have 100 US citizens dumping 50 units into it. Despite the fact that we have a better ratio, we make up for it in volume.

**First of Two** · 08-22-2002, 03:29 PM

It would be more accurate to say 1 Chinese man dumping 100, or 100 Americans dumping one each.

But then multiply that by 300 million Americans, vs a billion Chinese.

Put it this way...

You've got 2 factories, producing the identical form of widgets.

Factory 1 produces 100 widgets, and generates 1 unit of waste per widget. (The US)

Factory 2 produces 50 widgets, and generates 2 units of waste per widget. (China)

Which factory needs to be fixed?

And if 1 unit of waste is already the minimum amount of waste that making a widget generates? Isn't then the only way to reduce units from factory 1 by making less widgets? Won't that destroy the productivity of factory 1?

**Surak** · 08-23-2002, 02:33 AM

Ok I´d like to have this thread running and you can open a new one if you like of course, but this one is closed because of the Page count.

Thread: Attack Iraq?

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions