1. Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

An Open Letter to Dubyah from Michael Moore

Discussion in 'Politics (deprecated)' started by KickIT, Mar 18, 2003.

  1. Magnolia Fan

    Magnolia Fan TRIBE Member

    I'm not going to say I've really studied it, but from what I have read, there were UN peacekeepers and dutch soldiers who were there during the masacre, who just stood by and watched. They weren't allowed to engage because it was "tribal warfare" or something. I don't know either way if the US had anything to do with that, but I really don't think they had negative effects, they just didn't try to do anything positive, because there was no interest there.

    i've yet to see any actual proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Again, I'm not claiming to be fully informed on this, but the US made it illegal to take food into the country, they also target power stations (so fridge's wouldn't work to keep food). Alot of the starvation was because of UN sanctions, yes, but if you do something, and notice that hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people are dying, you have to change your policy. Right?

    I think you missed my point. I wasn't talking about 9-11, I was talking about this war on Iraq now. Its not a war. A war is a fight, its two sided, this is not. Despite what the media tells us about the great force Iraq has.

    I know how to spell... I was trying to be funny. As for the other point, I guess thats really the issue isn't it. What justifies a war? for me, nothing.

    thats how the press made him out to be. Thats what his popularity ratings seemed to show. He was such a great leader after that incident.

    haha... I'm laughing

    that doesn't mean they're going to come after the US does it? My point was that if the US doesn't cause harm, they won't be targeted by angry people. Your point didn't counter mine.

    hello? it was in the quote you had! redirected military spending. its actually pretty simple. Military spending effects employment, causes inflation, creates deficits, affects positive productivity, and most of doesn't help any of the unmet social needs.

    an example of the latter, one half of 1% of one year's world military budget would purchase enough farm equipment to permit the world's low income countries to reach food sufficiency within a decade (according to the Brandt Commission on North/South Issues).

    in 1987, a UN conference on the relationship between military spending and economic development was attended by 128 countries, but wonder of wonders, was boycotted by the US who claimed that disarmament and development are separate issues.


    I hope you don't feel that way... it'd be pretty sad.
  2. simple10

    simple10 TRIBE Member

    from this site: PBS on Rwandaa

    that is completely and utterly wrong. (i'm not addressing WMD as that had nothing to do with what i was talking about.) resolution 661 was upheld by the UN and many nations of the world because Iraq was not in compliance with the UN's demands.

    UN Resolutions on Iraq

    9/11 had nothing to do with what i was talking about. i was talking about the genocide of Kurds and Shiites by the Iraqi regime, hence why he shouldn't be in power.

    nothing justifies a war for you? nothing? Hilter exterminating the Jews wasn't reason enough to go to war, for example? i'm not a big fan of war, but i do think there are some times it is justified. however, i don't think this should be acheived by bombing. ground war, hand to hand (so to speak) combat. many more troops will die, but i'd rather the volunteers in a war die than civilians.

    you may want to take another look at the statistics. people are supportive of a quick war because they realize he was going in regardless and they want their men and women back home quickly. there aren't many Americans that supported a unilateral invasion.

    i completely agree that the US should spend less on military and more on humnitarian aid. military spending does not cause such a horrible economic crisis as you think. factories, steel mills, weapons factories, are now in business again and hiring. but this still will not solve the "world's issues" as you call them because there are diplomatic issues that money will never resolve.

    feel what way? the US has done a lot of good in the world. we just need to know when to step back. but it also seems that as soon as someone has an issue they call on the US to help out. the US gov't has been trying to keep peace in some regions while causing severe instablilty in others (South America for example). it seems a no-win situation in so many ways.

Share This Page