War and Peace

Hawk or Dove? State you preference

  • Cry HAVOC! and loose the dogs of war.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Follow the UN, let them lead the way toward peace or war.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Pay more attention to Korea

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Pay more attention to Bin Laden

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Find peaceful means, somehow, somewhere

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
288
10
Joined May 14, 2001
I am very curious about the opinions of my fellow cooks on the prospects of war. I'd like to discuss both the overarching reasons for and against war, as well as the very specific impact that war has, not on the economy in general, but on our industry's economy.

All of us felt the massive collapse in business that coincided with the massive collapse in our hearts after 9/11. How much impact to you think we are still feeling in our business from the so-called "War on Terror"? What about Iraq and North Korea? Are these having an impact on business in your restaurants? Are people staying home and guarding their money or going out and drowning their sorrows?

And what about war itself? Will Attacking Iraq solve our problems? Is it all about oil? Are we reliving Citizen Kane with Rupert Murdoch's Fox News in place of Kane's New York newsaper? Kane said "You provide the pictures and I'll provide the war." Are those who do not study history condemned to repeat it?

Or is Saddam really the root of much of the evil in this world? Does his pursuit of power through ruthless means constitute a "clear and present danger" to the U.S. and its allies? Will defeating Saddam give the US a base of power from which to mold a freer, more democratic middle-east?

So have at thee! What does the single largest industry in America (that's you, food service workers!) think of the current state of international affairs?

PS: Fear not, my own opinions (if not already clear as grappa) are forthcoming. I just thought I'd get the ball rolling.
 

phatch

Moderator
Staff member
9,351
954
Joined Mar 29, 2002
My opinion is not reflected in any of your choices. I believe that Saddam has violated his own treaty that "ended" the Gulf War, not that it is technically ended even yet. That requires behaviors of many people who now have different opinions. Reneging interational treaties that have been ratified by the signatory nations is not the trivial behavior all the other parties are displaying. Even the UN's behavior is hypocritcal and further eroding it's credibility.

I don't believe there is a peaceful resolution to the situation. Saddam isn't interested in what the world thinks of him. He hates Jews and America and will work to cause the damage he can. I don't believe there is a military solution either. Nevertheless, I am sure that military action will occur and that is more right than wrong in this case. It won't solve the problem, merely decrease the current behavior of a central state in the issue. There will likely be an increase in other acts in other areas against Jews and what is commonly called the Free World by one side and Crusading Infidels by the other.

What will it do the food service world? Prices will rise on the raw food products. Casual transportation will decrease. Casual dining will diminish as people's budgets adapt to the new reality. I think there will be a reduction in the labor market both for the pricing and business reasons, but also from military call-up and immigration hassles.

If your clientele is largely middle income america and lower, business is likely to stink.

phil
 
288
10
Joined May 14, 2001
But President Bush has backed out of at least 2 international treaties that I know of. And seems unflustered by today's announcement that the North Koreans are backing out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty! That's the one that prevents them from selling nuclear weapons to "rogue" nations and terrorists!

GHW Bush himself said that the Gulf War was to protect the U.S. oil interests, so if we are going back there because of Saddam's treaty violations, then it's still about oil. Look out Venezuela, your next.
 

phatch

Moderator
Staff member
9,351
954
Joined Mar 29, 2002
The two you are thinking of were never ratified. In fact, Clinton knew the Kyoto treaty would never be ratified when he signed it and therefore never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. It was his way of looking Green but leaving the dirty work for someone else to look foolish.

Phil
 
288
10
Joined May 14, 2001
True enough that Kyoto wasn't ratified by the U.S. (though it was by some 150+ other nations). However I guess that one is not really gremaine to this discussion. The ABM treaty was ratified by the US Senate in 1972. Mr Bush dismissed it as if it were simply not important, a treaty that stood fairly effectively for 30 years!

While I would never stand in defense of North Korea's actions, it is easy to understand why they are doing what they are doing. When an animal feels cornered it lashes out. It doesn't matter whether the animal got himself into the mess or was put there, he'll lash out. North Korea is a failing nation, and therefore feels like the whole world is against it. Which, not coincidentally, the whole world is.

How is it that we were able to deter the threat of the far larger and more powerful Soviet Union for 50 years but can't contain Saddam's 4th rate military ambitions for 10? Meanwhile the Bush administration feels that it can easily contain another member of the "Axis of Evil" that already has nuclear weapons without even talking to it, while it completely ignores the 3rd nation in that Axis.

Remember, whenever anyone says it's not about the oil, it's about the oil.
 
9,209
68
Joined Aug 29, 2000
This is about four things: oil, power, money and revenge. If you don't believe me, think about this:

W's tax plans will benefit not only wealthy people themselves, but their businesses. Reaganomics proved the trickle down theory doesn't work and produces huge deficits. The "war on terror", which is as effective as firing a shotgun to kill a swarm of gnats, will beef up revenues for his buddies' businesses- not create jobs or real wealth for the economy.

The revenge part? W said so himself: "He tried to kill my dad!"

Not that simple, you say? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

My middle school students are starting to worry about their older siblings going off to war. One eighth grader even expressed fear of his being sent off to fight.

Phil, I think you're right: people will stay home in droves. Good time to start that hamburger delivery business after all?
 

pete

Moderator
Staff member
4,509
998
Joined Oct 7, 2001
I agree Mezz, this is about power, oil, money and revenge. We are trying to hide it behind Iraq's disregard of the UN's resolutions, but there are many other countries that are in violation of 1 or more UN resolutions, including Israel, China, Iran, Bosnia, and many others. You don't see us gearing up to go to war with them.

I think that the US would do well in taking a second or third look at some of the motivations of George W. especially in light of what is now happening with N. Korea. I think a lot of this situation is directly related to the loose mouth of our President and some of the derogitory comments he has made about N. Korea and it's leader. I truly think that George W. has his own agenda which he will further at any cost. Unfortunately, I think most of that agenda has to with pride and power.
 

phatch

Moderator
Staff member
9,351
954
Joined Mar 29, 2002
The other signatory party to the ABM treaty no longer exists. Yes, Russia has said they would keep it in effect, but a change in the one party requires reratification on our part. Never happened.

Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like Bush. I didn't vote for him. War on Terror has lots of problems, primarily Homeland Securty and its corrolaries.

The statement, "He tried to kill my Dad, " is out of context for what the reasons for an Iraq war would be. It shows lots about how Saddam views others though. I believe Bush II has shown plenty of ability to keep emotion out of this issue and work it on its merits. As nothing happened to his dad, there is nothing to actually avenge.

So Bush WAS an oil man. He hasn't been for many years. He was a lousy oil man. Every oil company of significance is hugely multinational. You can't say this about the oil and mean US business. Oil business doesn't work that way. Why did we defend Kuwait? Oil was the subtext of that, but it was primarily Saudi Arabia who needed Saddam put down. Why does the UK care? Go do a boolean search on Wahabbi and British Petroleum. The reading is pretty scary and it explains lots about Iraq.

W's tax plan. Well, considering that people earning over 50K pay over 80% of the taxes;a family of four earning 30K or less gets more money in the tax refund than they paid in taxes. Further considering Clinton viewed the middle class as earning less than 30K, this tells us something about the term "wealthy" and it's use by the government and the press. The median salary of the US is over 50K. Of course a tax cut is going to benefit the "wealthy"; anyone earning over 30K. They're the only ones paying any net taxes.

The list of "oil, power, money and revenge" is pretty much the description of modern politics. Sad but true.

The aggressor just wants to conquer. The people who don't want this then defend themselves. If there is no defense, there is no war. Iraq aggressed against Kuwait. Kuwait defended itself with help. That war isn't over. Saddam hasn't fulfilled the terms of his armistice. Iraq has been shooting at OUR military men ever since, practically every day. I can think of no moral reason to let him get away with it. The UN doesn't want to let him get away with it.

How is it the soviets were deterred and Saddam isn't? Soviets feared MAD and eventually lost the arms race economically. Saddam and his ilk believe their acts will earn them paradise complete with ever virginal houris. They have no fear of destruction. Their belief negates rationality, MAD is their heart's dream. This is not to paint Islam broadly, rather to paint specifically radical Islam.

North Korea is failing I agree. The only reasoning I can see is that the leader needs to distract his populace with "victorious" military posturing in hopes of extorting more money from the west.

As I said, I don't want war, but peace with Saddam is not possible. I want rational co-existence. Even that is not possible with Saddam.

Phil
 
846
11
Joined Nov 29, 2001
For me, 9/11 was personal. I spent the first 39 years of my life in New York City and clocked many hours in the towers. It's a good thing I didn't have access to a nuclear bomb on 9/12.

If someone can find a peaceful way to stop the hearts of Hussein and Bin Laden, I'm all for it. Lethal injection would be fine. It doesn't matter that neither of them would suffer much - just so they were gone.

The Maniacal Muslim factions (not real Muslims) are taught from infanthood that dying in the name of Allah is to die with glory. Their children are not taught that human life is to be held in great santity as the gift it is - to them, it's a weapon - and a point of vulnerability. Frankly, until that mentality changes, these people will be nothing but a problem haunting us and spreading like a gangrenous toe. To hope the foot falls off on its own might be a bit optimistic.
 
618
11
Joined Jul 18, 2000
ahh, the problem is the disenfrachisement of people - vis a vis: northern ireland during the troubles had its fair share of what one could call fanatics. Not muslim but protestant and catholic. All these things aside, the point that i am making, is that al queeda, is in itself an organisation or a society. Given that the leader is disposed of so to speak, what happens then?. What happened after kennedy was assasinated?

Easy, another figure rose up from the ranks to take his place.

Both Iraq and the Al queeda networks would function in such way, just like any other country, society or even business.

I cant give an answer as to what to do, but discretion is the key to the answer.
 

phatch

Moderator
Staff member
9,351
954
Joined Mar 29, 2002
Not saying this is the case Isa, but by your post you would endorse life with no rights under a total dictatorial regime in exchange for peace?
 
618
11
Joined Jul 18, 2000
now, we are entering the sphere of black ops. Better done quiet than not at all.

Also, the message sent is that "it doesnt matter, we will get you, and you wont even know it".

And it doesnt take a mass deployment of troops.

Or is this going to be a drawn out show of strength/economic panacea/recovery etc.

Not that im against the concept, it seems inherently flawed.

What has been actually achieved since 9/11, realistically, disregarding an atmosphere of distrust.?
 
818
16
Joined Oct 13, 2001
Remember these famouse words written by Master Sun Tzu over 2,000 years ago in his great book " The Art of War " .
" Military action is important to the nation - it is the ground of death and life , the path of survival and destruction , so it is imperative to examine it " .
I think we need to examine it and our motives before we risk one more of our boys in another altercation or war . Of course thats just my opinion .................. Doug
 

pete

Moderator
Staff member
4,509
998
Joined Oct 7, 2001
Well, it looks like war is inevitable. Though I am not really for the war, I can't be totally against it either. I just want to see the US make it's case to the UN and recieve their support. If not we just look like the big bully on the block.

One thing I know for sure though, whether I am for or against the war, I will support our troops overseas. I hope that the people of the US have learned their lesson since Vietnam. Our vets coming back from there didn't recieve a hero's welcome, often times they were cursed or shunned by the public. For what, doing what they were sent to do. Soliders don't make policy, they just follow orders, whether they agree with the war or not. They don't have the privlege of choosing if they will fight a war or not. So protest the war all you want, if you so desire, but don't let your attitudes towards the war affect how you look at the soliders over there fighting it.
 
618
11
Joined Jul 18, 2000
for what its worth, a very good friend of mine went to the first gulf conflict, he was several years younger than i. Has 2 kids as well.

However, iam 33, and he is dead. For my country,? i dont think so -

The hardest thing was, getting the news over the phone, with the kids in the background saying "whens daddy coming home".

Despite all of your wildest revenge thoughts, bear the above in mind, because it has the same impact in any language and country, policies aside.

dont even try to tell me overwise.
 

phatch

Moderator
Staff member
9,351
954
Joined Mar 29, 2002
Just a couple of notes about the UN and their validity. The next leader of the disarmament commitee is?

Iraq!

The next leader of the human rights commitee is?

Libya!

This is how you make good decisions on leading the world to be a better place?

Phil
 
618
11
Joined Jul 18, 2000
oops, now im getting on my high horse.

Can i ask you guys a question? Are you guys comfortable with going to war against Iraq, and if so, what is it that you guys would know that we dont (in AU) that is so convincing?

(This is a political question) Iam trying to convince myself that the leader that i didnt vote for (and many others apparently didnt either) is wise and sending us to war for a just and reasonable cause(snort, laugh). (sorry)
 

phatch

Moderator
Staff member
9,351
954
Joined Mar 29, 2002
Nick, can you tell us how you feel about about Iraq invading Kuwait and the armistice that ended that invasion?

Phil
 
618
11
Joined Jul 18, 2000
err, didnt feel comfortable about that at all. However, overt threats are another thing. What im actually talking about, is that there is no clear case for such action, if so, the information that would generate popular support is has not been made available.

Im not saying saddam isnt a thorn in the side of humanity.

What i am saying is, do we need to annihilate whatever amount of civilians who are trying to eke out a relatively miserable existence just to make a point.

Because the purported 800 cruise missiles that will hit baghdad prior to the start seems to be a wee bit of overkill.

P.S, we here are still paying stoopid petrol prices that apparently would recede after the first gulf action. Now they have risen again - because action is imminent (not that it has started, but imminent)

DUH!
 
Top Bottom