PDA

View Full Version : GOT HIM! O.T [iraq]



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

cresshead
12-14-2003, 04:03 AM
just heard they they have captured saddam hussain...was found in a hole in the ground with a false beard in tecreate.

excellent news for our troops [uk and usa] in iraq.

going to be a good xmas pressy for them and the world at large!


steve g

retinajoy
12-14-2003, 04:39 AM
Excellent!!!!!!!!

TyVole
12-14-2003, 04:57 AM
Good news . . . until the next Saddam takes power . . . which should happen about a day after we leave.

MrWyatt
12-14-2003, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by TyVole
Good news . . . until the next Saddam takes power . . . which should happen about a day after we leave.

So please don´t tell me you think that the troups should stay for ever, that would be a pretty lousy liberation wouldn´t it? A dictator only gets so powerfull like Saddam after the western world helps him. If former US presidents had not funded him in the first place we wouldn´t even know his name.

but after all, if they got him, cool. lock him away and loose the key.

Beamtracer
12-14-2003, 05:31 AM
Pity the United States hasn't signed up to the international war crimes court in The Hague, where a fair trial could be held.

US military courts are kangaroo courts.

cresshead
12-14-2003, 05:46 AM
from the news so far it look likley that saddam will be either have a trial in iraq or possibly a war crimes style trial in somewhere like the hague....the usa and the new iraq ideally want to be seen as giving him a "fair trial", something that under his rule of the past 25 years was never offered to anyone...

i love the way the american person opened up the press conference..........."we've got him".........stunning.


steve g

badllarma
12-14-2003, 05:50 AM
It's funny I was just doing a bit of Christmas shopping and thought they must have some sort of deal on on those TV's in Selfridges. :D
Massive crowds watching it across about 20 screens all with Sky news on.
Really glad have a few friends over there morking hopefully they will be back soon :)

Ade
12-14-2003, 05:56 AM
1. Its Tikrit
2. Sadam had nothing to do with sep 11
3. Anyone for a falafel Mc Cheese?

Beamtracer
12-14-2003, 05:58 AM
In a vein attempt to bring this vaguely on-topic again, here's a lesson in color grading.


US Military photo ........................... after I color graded it.

Ade
12-14-2003, 06:00 AM
Now a lightwave render please Beam...hehe

Dick Ma
12-14-2003, 06:13 AM
I don't know how good or bad is Saddam got by the US. All I know is that there will World Peace if the US has no more war actions.

papou
12-14-2003, 06:40 AM
...hmm ok maybe good news if they got him...
but show him like in a zoo is not a good idea.
It's better to not talk too much about the victory of usa.
Saddam or not, it's good to quickly make a gouvernement in Irak (democratik vote) and the army need to left Irak quickly, the problem not over.
I hope to see peace shortly. But i'm desesperate about how Bush is going to show himself like the hero of the war, in a bad movie.
hmm, maybe i say too much, it's just my opinion.

T-Light
12-14-2003, 07:02 AM
Well, Bush hasn't been on TV yet, probably still bouncing around the oval office. We're sure to see a more sedate/sedated version of him later today.

Congratulations to everybody involved. Here's to a better future for all.

T-Light
12-14-2003, 07:04 AM
On another note,

Beamtracer,
Which software did you use for the colour correction? was it a video or an art package?

jr_sunshine
12-14-2003, 07:21 AM
:D for the Iraqi people and the troops who liberated them.

:mad: for the ignorance of some.

TyVole
12-14-2003, 07:35 AM
"Ignorance," unfortunately, is a very subjective term.

Rich
12-14-2003, 07:38 AM
Now maybe we can get a solid governemnt in Iraq. More Iraqis will be willing to come forward to help without fear of Saddam returning.

Beamtracer
12-14-2003, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by T-Light
Beamtracer,
Which software did you use for the colour correction? was it a video or an art package? Just Photoshop. A one minute job.


Originally posted by T-Light
Bush hasn't been on TV yet, probably still bouncing around the oval office. We're sure to see a more sedate/sedated version of him later today. I wonder if this warrants another appearance carrying a plastic turkey?

Beamtracer
12-14-2003, 07:51 AM
`

TyVole
12-14-2003, 07:52 AM
Maybe you could use that Saddam picture to demonstrate to us the banding that occurs when color-grading with a 8-bit compositing app.

Beamtracer
12-14-2003, 07:54 AM
I thought about that. If they'd used 16bpc it would have been easier to grade.


You can get some good hair and beard textures of this image (below), to use in future 3D projects.

CB_3D
12-14-2003, 07:57 AM
For me as a world-citizen it is very satisfying to see dictators and their regimes go.

Congratulations to all of us. The world is a better place now. Not much better, but a little :-) Let´s hope it lasts.

anieves
12-14-2003, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by jr_sunshine
:D for the Iraqi people and the troops who liberated them.

:mad: for the ignorance of some.

DITTO!!!!
well said.

Myko
12-14-2003, 09:18 AM
CNN is reporting Sadam Hussein's legel defense team will be headed by Attorney Johnnie Cochran.:(

cresshead
12-14-2003, 09:37 AM
let's hope that saddam didn't wear gloves all the way thru his reign of terror.....


steve g

Myko
12-14-2003, 09:42 AM
I think that's Michael Jackson your thinking of. Right?

cresshead
12-14-2003, 09:51 AM
no, the o.j trial where jonny came out with the phrase "if the glove dosn't fit you must aquit"

..oj was found not guilty.

Myko
12-14-2003, 10:29 AM
Correction...
"..oj was found not guilty."


you meant...
..oj was found ["]not guilty["].

(you for got the the quotation marks.):D


Anyways... Hi-fives all around. Especially for the troops!

DigiLusionist
12-14-2003, 11:46 AM
Got him? Good!!!!

Now stop firing those damned weapons in the air like that, THE BULLETS COME DOWN!

sheesh...

LNT
12-14-2003, 01:02 PM
yanks have no more business arresting saddam than iraqis would have arresting that dumbo bush,it's a direct interference in another state's internal matters....as sad as they are on both sides

jr_sunshine
12-14-2003, 01:11 PM
yanks have no more business arresting saddam than iraqis would have arresting that dumbo bush,it's a direct interference in another state's internal matters....as sad as they are on both sides

:rolleyes:

What were we thinking. Let's come to our senses here. Sadam cant be all that bad a guy. I'm sure he didn't know all those Iraqi people who opposed his government were killed using those horrendous weapons I am sure he had no idea were in his country. I'm sure it was his subordinates who have failed and caused his people to live in poverty. Cmon... let's give this guy another chance....

Are you kidding me? What fantasy do you live in?

papou
12-14-2003, 01:17 PM
God bless America.

DigiLusionist
12-14-2003, 01:28 PM
Which country are you from, LNT?

wacom
12-14-2003, 01:39 PM
Is this good news? HELL YES!

Does it mean that everything the US has done in Iraq is justified. NO. Does this mean that US and Brit troops are any safer- I doubt it.

When will the US be tried for the economic war it imposed on the people of Iraq for the last 10+ years. Sanctions killed quite a few people too folks. This goes beyond Bush Co.


Well I'm off to walmart to buy my gifts in my Hum-V running on gas supplied from middle east oil. I'm glad I'll be able to sleep well Christamas eve with Sa-dam gone.

Well now that one last power against "AL-quda" is gone I guess we're all safe...

The people who are calling others ingnorat are looking at this with 1bit color depth. If you could only run a gama filter on what is really out there...

Rich
12-14-2003, 01:43 PM
Here is an interesting read on more reason for us to go into Iraq.\
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html)

This monster is responsible for the deaths over 300,000 of his own people.

DigiLusionist
12-14-2003, 01:58 PM
Love how many expert polisci guys there are who are moonlighting as 3D artists...

Matt
12-14-2003, 01:58 PM
That's not Saddam, it's Tom Hanks from the film Cast Away!

:D

wacom
12-14-2003, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Rich
Here is an interesting read on more reason for us to go into Iraq.\
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html)

This monster is responsible for the deaths over 300,000 of his own people.

The headline is a little misleading- but you've gott'a do what you must to sell papers. Thanks for the link though. I don't what to make of this report though as its subject hasn't been verified by any secondary party.

Look, nobody is saying that this is a bad thing (the capture of Sa-dam), just that I can't begin to celebrate while US troops are still over there, Bush Co. is president, and there iare still a huge coflicts in Palistine and Israel as well as many other American intrest points etc etc etc. Fix these things and I'll gladly give thanks and throw a party.

wacom
12-14-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
Love how many expert polisci guys there are who are moonlighting as 3D artists...

It's funny how many "3D artists" have a 2D outlook on the world beyond their monitor.

DigiLusionist
12-14-2003, 02:18 PM
Such things don't get fix without action. Historical fact. I guess when 9-11 happened, we should have just shrugged it off, and continued to bury our heads in the sand with everybody else. Of course, much worse things would only have continued to happen sooner than later.

Had the same thing happened in Australia, Canada, Britain, France, or Germany, the U.S. wouldn't have chicken****ted out of helping.

But it DID happened to us, and because we decided not to take it up the butt, we're being called imperialistic aggressors.

Hey, that works for me...

DigiLusionist
12-14-2003, 02:19 PM
You're right, Wacom. Forget the Himalayas. I want to travel to Oregon and study under your enlightened tutelage.

jr_sunshine
12-14-2003, 02:21 PM
When will the US be tried for the economic war it imposed on the people of Iraq for the last 10+ years. Sanctions killed quite a few people too folks. This goes beyond Bush Co.

Well I'm off to walmart to buy my gifts in my Hum-V running on gas supplied from middle east oil. I'm glad I'll be able to sleep well Christamas eve with Sa-dam gone.

Well now that one last power against "AL-quda" is gone I guess we're all safe...

The people who are calling others ingnorat are looking at this with 1bit color depth. If you could only run a gama filter on what is really out there...

Talk about 1bit color depth.

This is the pot calling the kettle black. I am so happy to see we have a true moralist here whose hands are clean of sin. Blame America all you want, but you are doing so without taking the whole of ALL that America does good for the world into account. We all have our world, political, and religious views... but I believe this thread was praising the fact that Sa-dam was captured and the people under his tyranical rule can now rejoice without retribution.

Oh, and BTW... I don't have a hum-V and would hasen to guess most Americans don't. Quite Narrow of you. I work hard for what I have made of myself and am proud of that and the country I live in. If you have such a tough time here, there are quite a few countries out there with less freedom but maybe more akin to your politics.

Grrrrr.

wacom
12-14-2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
Such things don't get fix without action. Historical fact. I guess when 9-11 happened, we should have just shrugged it off, and continued to bury our heads in the sand with everybody else. Of course, much worse things would only have continued to happen sooner than later.

Had the same thing happened in Australia, Canada, Britain, France, or Germany, the U.S. wouldn't have chicken****ted out of helping.

But it DID happened to us, and because we decided not to take it up the butt, we're being called imperialistic aggressors.

Hey, that works for me...

The reason they didn't help out wasn't because they are chicken ****, it was because the US didn't and still wont share contracts for contractors with them. No country is a saint. Follow the money trail my friend. Give France back some of the oil contracts they had in Iraq BEFORE the war and they'll send troops ASAP.

"Hall-a-lula for Hall-a-burton!"

I never said the US should have stuck it's head in the sand, or not taken action, just that I don't agree this is the most effetive form of using our military. Besides even under the current use of the military they still don't have enough people over there to control the borders where more and more arms and troops sneak across each day- ready to attack US troops.

I'm just saying that things are 100times more complicated that any of us understand- and far too complicated to begin a celebration.

wacom
12-14-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by jr_sunshine
If you have such a tough time here, there are quite a few countries out there with less freedom but maybe more akin to your politics.

Grrrrr.

Sorry I guess freedom of speach and the ability to talk out against my own government was something that made me an American living in America. I love this country- and hate the government. How anti American is that?

Every country has done some terrible things during it's history. I'm just not going to lie to myself about ours.

wacom
12-14-2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
You're right, Wacom. Forget the Himalayas. I want to travel to Oregon and study under your enlightened tutelage.

You and Arnie should go on a trip to the Himalayas. Austrians are good hikers and love mountains!

jr_sunshine
12-14-2003, 02:48 PM
If there wasn't an absolute here you would not have posted and I would not have replied. I am not against free speech either. You guys really need to get some new material. How can I be against free speech when I am happy that the Iraqi people now have their freedom? Freedom to speek out. The reason i said go find aonther country is I get tired of our citizens bad mouthing our soldiers. They protect your right to free speech and the right to petition your government. This thread was simply praising the capture of an evil tyrant. Nothing more nothing less. Its not a thread which was saying America is a saint. We are not. But... at least we did something. The wonderful and moral UN has had plenty of opportunities to use those "other means" you spoke of and nothing has been done for years. Finally an American President willing to put his presidency on the line did something. You may hate him, but at least he did something. Yes, of couse, it is about money. Is there anything in the world not? You act like that is a suprise. What about the money the UN was getting? How about some criticism of them? I am sure you give them the benefit of the doubt. WHat about other countries which more closely share your views? How about some criticism of them? The fact is you probably have hated Mr. Bush from the beginnning. Anyway, this is an argument which we will never finish. Its an argument which has gone on through history.

Best to you and your freedom which our government and troops uphold.

TyVole
12-14-2003, 02:58 PM
How do the Iraqi people have "their freedom" when they're occupied by a foreign power -- one that has no intention of leaving in the near future?

How do the Iraqi people have "their freedom" when Donald Rumsfield tells them that they will only be able to vote for someone whom the US finds acceptable?

If you're so in favor of ridding the world of tyrants, how about N. Korea, Congo, and the Sudan? Could it be because they have no oil?

If this all about revenge for 9-11 and fighting terrorism, how come we're not bombing Saudi Arabia, who financed both 9-11 and much of the terrorism plaguing the world?

jr_sunshine
12-14-2003, 03:03 PM
You guys have all the answers. How come we haven't fixed all these problems by now?

I soooo tired of political banter.

(Toungue in cheek) -- I hope they don't ship LW with that terrible interface.

:D

TSpyrison
12-14-2003, 03:34 PM
I Avoid these types of converstations with my friends. It can ruin friendships.

I wish i didn't have to come across them here. All it does is stir up crap that has nothing to do with Lightwave.


:(

JDaniel
12-14-2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by TSpyrison
I Avoid these types of converstations with my friends. It can ruin friendships.

I wish i didn't have to come across them here. All it does is stir up crap that has nothing to do with Lightwave.


:(
I agree. If I said what I wanted to I'd get banned probably. I am happy about finding Saddam though. He is the true WMD as far as I'm concerned.

cresshead
12-14-2003, 04:31 PM
there's been a few people in the thread with differing views on the news of saddam's capture and the war etc.

if you take a small step back to see "the picture" you can realise that if he were still in power and you were in his country you'd find no conversations like these taking place...you'd be too scared that you'll find yourself in the hands of a torture chamber "specialist" or face down in a shallow grave for your opinions.

this is a good day for everyone, whatever their beliefs if they are wanting a better world to live in.

BTW...if his beard was any whiter he's make a great super store "santa"....

think about it!

stone
12-14-2003, 04:32 PM
there is a few facts you've missed jr_sunshine.

first it was america who provided sadam with weapons in the late 80's to fight iran. in return for fighting the war he was promissed kuwait.

also dont forget that being at war is the only way bush can win another election. americans and their patroismn ensures they support their president when at war.

how come america have the right to bomb other contries, but when terroists bomb america its all terrible and unfair? isnt it the exact same thing?

how come america have the right to determine the goverment of other independent nations? america doesn't even have a working democracy.

how come so many tousands of mexicans and black people live without any rights within america?

how about enforcing human rights for all of the american people, and not just the wealthy ones?

not to mention human rights for prisoners of war, like those on the guantanamo base?

i realise america cant be perfect being such a large contry. what is a problem though, is the american who belive they are better than others or right in their actions, when they are blind to reality.

that kind of nationalism is dangerous.

now, getting rid of sadam is a good thing, and giving the iraq people their freedom is fabolous, but the means and capitalsim drivin the whole thing is dangerous for the world peace, human rights and freedom.

so to close off with a little rage against the machine quote "what the land of the free? whoever told you that is your enemy"

/stone

cresshead
12-14-2003, 04:37 PM
QUOTE:
how come america have the right to bomb other contries, but when terroists bomb america its all terrible and unfair? isnt it the exact same thing?

end quote.


...by gingo you have not a single clue about this world...

no, it is not the same...

where's the similarity to taking hostage 4 commercial airplanes and crashing them into 3 major buildings killing over 3,000 innocent lives

to america and england going to the U.N and getting a resolution to disarm iraq?

and put the lives of the iraqi people first by removing a dictator that has killed over 400,000 of it's own citisens?

you really need a reality check.

stone
12-14-2003, 04:43 PM
hey i dont mind you are a blind to it being the same difference. opposed to you, i respect other people views.

i dont like when innocent people are killed, and i sure as hell dont like when terrorist bomb civilians - no matter if those terriorsts are called osama bin laden or the american army.

however i doubt im the one needing the reality check. even though you are an american, try to look past your own nose.

the terrorists are bombing because they belive their belief and ways of life are the right ones, and they would like to see their ways being enforced in the rest of the world, so the they bomb and stuff.

america does the exact same thing. they belive their ways of life and belives are the right ones, and enforce them around the world by bombing and military power.

wake up?

/stone

Original1
12-14-2003, 04:59 PM
I cant believe that Newtek got the US Govt to capture Saddam to cover for Lightwave being late:p



The Launch of Lightwave 8 is far more significant than the capture of a mass murderer

Before that starts a flame war its a joke, I know, <shrug> but its late here I'm tired and thats in very bad taste. Must be getting grumpy, I have a bug in my Flash Code and Im fed up of waiting for LW8:D

jr_sunshine
12-14-2003, 05:04 PM
stone,

I will simply quote from my own post to answer you...

"This thread was simply praising the capture of an evil tyrant. Nothing more nothing less. Its not a thread which was saying America is a saint. We are not. But... at least we did something. The wonderful and moral UN has had plenty of opportunities to use those "other means" you spoke of and nothing has been done for years."

I understand. You guys hate America. Ok. Got it. Message understood. No need to dance around it. Please be direct. Just say you hate America. At least I know it is you just hate us. I hope you care for the Iraqi people as much as you hate us. Did I mention I get the distinct feeling you hate america?

So many comments about human rights and compassion and in the same post such hate for a different people. I cannot believe I hear so much hate.

cresshead
12-14-2003, 05:05 PM
QUOTE:

however i doubt im the one needing the reality check. even though you are an american, try to look past your own nose.


end quote:


that's the trouble with most people and why we lead into conficts with others..."we assume too much"


and to correct you on the point above, i am english...and live in england [u.k], have never been out of england except for a trip or two to wales!....and it rained there!

as the story goes:
"love & peace"
if only it could be that simple!

3DBob
12-14-2003, 05:58 PM
I cant help think that the hundred billion dollars we (the UK and US+others ) spent/allocated so far on this adventure (IRAQ) could have been spent in productive positive action.

Rather I would have prefered that we had used half the money to produce 50 power stations across Africa like this one

http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2003/01/01072003/reu_49293.asp

They are building in Australia ( prototype had been running in Spain for 6 years )

that's 200X50 megawatts = 10,000 megawatts or equivalent (enough electricity for 10,000,000 euro style homes )

24 hour clean electricity could then allow massive desalination projects like those they have in Saudi ( oh we just happen to have $50bn dollars left in the budget for that ).

Clean water - deforestation free energy - maybe the odd irrigation project ( hell you can employ labourers for the contracting work in many African countries for less than a dollar a day! - 10 $bn would give you, oh about 100,000,000 labourers for 100years! )

The bonus is that deforestation would be reduced. Benefitting the planet.

This action would GUARANTEE friends around the world. Dissaffected peoples would rise up against their disfunctional governments for this kind of treatment - rather than exaserbating and inciting hatred for us.

OK so it doesn't secure the second largest oil reserves in the world from a region that has over 63% of all oil for a nation that uses 26 billion barrells a day out of a total world daily capacity of 72 billion.

So what if over 1/3 of oil is used by 4/100 of the worlds population - we've only used 900bn barrels since 1930s out of a total expected reserve of 2trillion barrels. We are very nearly on the second half though - and as anyone who has worked in the oil industry will tell you - the first barrell from a field is the easiest to remove.

Personally I think oil should be reserved for Plastics (what would our computers be without these), Pharmaceuticals and Aviation.

If we should remove a head of state - it should be that of Zimbabwe - I went there 12 years and 2 years ago - I have never seen such a beautiful and prosperous country destroyed so quickly by the actions of one man. Oh - but then one can't drive a car on diamonds.

Bob

wacom
12-14-2003, 06:03 PM
For the record I'd like for people to read my posts and realize:

"The reason i said go find aonther country is I get tired of our citizens bad mouthing our soldiers."

1) In no way did I say I didn't support our troops. I may have said I wouldn't use the military in this way. I also said that under the current plan there are not ENOUGH troops there to insure it is safer for them. The borders aren't secure- and a reduction in military personal isn't going to make things better.

"You guys have all the answers. How come we haven't fixed all these problems by now? "

2) Just because someone realizes there is something wrong with current event doesn't mean to say they have answers. Still it's a start. Why haven't all the problems been fixed? Thats a question way to complicated for just about anyone human to answer. I don't agree with the idea that the US should have burried it's head in the sand when it comes to the 9-11 terroist acts. Nor should people burry their heads in the sand of popular, spoon fed beliefs because it's the easy thing to do.

"I understand. You guys hate America. Ok. Got it. Message understood. No need to dance around it. Please be direct. Just say you hate America. At least I know it is you just hate us. I hope you care for the Iraqi people as much as you hate us. Did I mention I get the distinct feeling you hate america? "

3) How in the hell did I say I hate "America". America is way to complex a mix of things, people and places to simply "hate it". Can I hate what the administration is doing with the military right now and still love "America". Hell yes my friend. Can I dislike Bush, Clinton, Maya, Britniy Spears, and Donald Duck and still love America? Again: Hell Yes! Please, tell me where the fine line is when and where someone becomes "un-American".

"This thread was simply praising the capture of an evil tyrant. Nothing more nothing less. Its not a thread which was saying America is a saint. We are not. But... at least we did something. The wonderful and moral UN has had plenty of opportunities to use those "other means" you spoke of and nothing has been done for years."

4) Yes this thread was really about the capture of "Sa-dam". I said that it's a little too soon to celibrate. Yes it's a good thing, but we won a battle folks, not a war. If it helps you feel better to forget about everything else going on in the world and through a super bowl size party over this then go ahead and spike a touch down for me.

I personally wont rest until our troops are back on American soil and Iraq is rulled by it's people. That ain't gonna happen any time soon folks. So dig in and get ready to hear the body count add up.

Did I say that the UN was doing anything good? That France, and Germany were? NO. All I said is that they aren't envolved because they aren't going to get any spoils from this war. Hell even Britain isn't going to get hardly jack. Why should the French and Germans spill blood for nothing? Let's not put the cart before the horse folks. This war is about US intrests in the Middle East first- and happy people in Iraq just happens to be a part of their economic pie.

So yeah team! We got Sa-dam. I love America- but the smell of burning flesh just can't be masked by a health dose of Patriotism and a dash of Us vs. Them.

We're coming to take you out of your mental spider hole!

TSpyrison
12-14-2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by wacom

So dig in and get ready to hear the body count add up.

....

So yeah team! We got Sa-dam. I love America- but the smell of burning flesh just can't be masked by a health dose of Patriotism and a dash of Us vs. Them.

We're coming to take you out of your mental spider hole!


What was it at last count? 280 mass graves?

Can we let this damn topic die? all its gonna do it piss everyone off..

TyVole
12-14-2003, 06:39 PM
There are mass graves all over world -- some probably being dug this moment -- why do we only care about the Iraqi ones?

jr_sunshine
12-14-2003, 06:40 PM
Wacom,

Just needed to hear you say it. Well said.

Let's agree to disagree. We are all wavers and I respect you and your opinion.

Roy

Freak
12-14-2003, 06:52 PM
Yes what an achievement for mankind.

It took 100,000's troops, the most modern military equipment the world has ever seen, mutiple countries, 1000s of bombs, 1000's of man hours, 1000's of military and civilian lives lost, Billions of dollars.

All to catch, a weak and powerless man with a beard, hiding in a hidey hole, on a farm in the desert.

Who didn't actually have any weapons of mass destruction at all,
(Unless you count all the ones that the USA dropped on em)

Let's also forget that it was the USA that appointed Saddam to Iraq in the first place....

And it was Amercia that left Iraq's to die (that other Bush)
who let Saddam slaughter his own people (different religious faction anyway) and let him do it for 8 years before the search for Oil led us back to Iraq, to ahem, free the people.....

Alas, the USA did not find any WMD, (however in an amazing coincedence) we found massive amounts of Oil..... Imagine that!!!! WOW!! How did our oil, get under their sand?

And in another coincedence, the economy is recovering
the government is handing out all these contracts to repair a country, they just blew up....... And an election is coming up...

If the USA was serious about getting rid of power hungry, Dictators, it wouldn't vote in dumbass country bumpkin presidents, that can't tell their left hand from their right (literally)
who have never held a real job and who have no realworld experience in handling matters of any importance.

Personally I find this, and everything else in life, freakin hillarious!!

TSpyrison
12-14-2003, 06:55 PM
Im done reading this thread.
It has no business being here in the Lightwave community

Ya'll argue till you drop.

hrgiger
12-14-2003, 07:15 PM
It's the war in Iraq thread all over again....

Moderators can we move this to general discussion please?

eacide
12-14-2003, 07:40 PM
wow I could read here the international press.

What did the troops do. Grab a man from a nasty hole in a reclude farm in Iraq. Okay.
What did they show? An old dirty man opening his mouth to a doctor.
Is he really Saddam? I hope so.
What is the symbol? Saddam has no more potential influence on his mindless worshipers. Good deal. Let us go and find Usama now and his friend in Iraq... Ouch pain in the ***.

What is foreseen? Bombings and terrorism... Poor young American, English, Polish troopers... Some of them will die there....
What is foreseen (bis)? The Sunnits have lost all credibility, USA brought Kurd troups to get Saddam. Cool, there seems to be a counter-power to the allmighty Chiits... We raise a population agains the other...

This will change NOTHING in Iraq. Iraq is going straight to chaos and despair. Hopefully, for the next couple of years USA will put in place a "democratic" regim. But unavoidable Mollahs and extremism will be the next force there. After Iran, Afghanistan, now Iraq. This poor lovely people is swinging between Charybd and Sylla :(

The only thing that comes to my mind is that this takes place 2 days after the contractual frame for reconstruction has been revealed :rolleyes: . Be happy my American friends, your troops are back soon :) (there is no irony here).

I am French. I refused to participate to this war because it set on the premises of an enormous lie. I did not want that my fellows and Iraqi's die because a man lied to the world.

Xacto
12-14-2003, 07:42 PM
Freak... grow up.

cresshead
12-14-2003, 08:19 PM
quote:
There are mass graves all over world -- some probably being dug this moment -- why do we only care about the Iraqi ones?

end quote.


you presume too much of everyone.


who said we didn't care about mass graves around the world?
i'm sure when your cooking a roast you are totally not interested in the veg you need to cook to go with it or the drinks and desert to follow...yet for that moment you concentrate on the roast and make sure it's prepared and set cooking correctly with temp etc.

we are talking about saddam being caught today..it's the news of today...tomorrow there will be other news and yesterday and the months before we had other news which we now call history...

so today's topic is saddam...and we generally feel that the world is a better place to bring more humans into this world without him [saddam] being either on the run or in charge of a country like iraq.

we do not shirk from other things such as attricities in other parts of the globe..we can deal with one situation at a time but we are fully aware that there is much work to do on this planet to make it a fun place to spend 70-80 years learning how humans can be either nice or not so nice to each other..

i feel we need a "group hug" round about now...

let's end the topic as this good news is not to everyones taste.

Beamtracer
12-14-2003, 08:28 PM
Saddam was a tyrant. Not many people argue with that.

However, it's really scary that so many people believe that Saddam was responsible for 9-11.

The rise of patriotic news services (such as FOX) must be responsible for this attitude.

TyVole
12-14-2003, 08:41 PM
The problem lies not with you, cresshead, but with our leaders.

You may very well care about other tyrants and the attrocities they inflict, but our leaders don't.

I don't necessarily have a problem with this, as we shouldn't be responsible for solving all the world's evils.

But don't selectively use moral outrage over the deeds of despots only when it meets your needs.

The powers that be wanted Saddam removed for very practical geopolitical reasons. His attrocities were just a way of justifiying their actions for public consumption.

jr_sunshine
12-14-2003, 08:59 PM
FOX? Don't you mean Bagdad TV?

cresshead
12-14-2003, 09:05 PM
yes i do concur on some of your points you raised, though it is very easy to mis direct a statement about world leaders and have it look as though everyone on the planet thinks as they do...which we don't.

even by this small thread i can see where conflicts arise from mere differences of opinion about a news story of know tyrant thousands of miles away...

do we as the human race have much to look forward to?

have we learnt that much over the thousands of years and hundreads of wars?

i think somtimes we are doomed to a terrible end...you know the sort of thing that terminator serise of films predict...

we've had the capability of wiping out the world for around 50years and i'm somewhat amazed we havn't as yet..

though if people such as saddam and terrorists such as binladen ever got a hold of such weapons...we'll i'm positive they wouldn't wait 50 years to use them in the name of whatever cause they were promoting.

it's quite interesting to think how we [past humans] decided that a certain man with a beard was such a threat that we placed him on a cross to die for his ideas that others thought were dangerous to promote and not their way of life...they felt threatened so they thought that his ideas would end with his life...

i'm not a religous person but sometimes i do wonder why people insist on ramming their way down your throat as "the only way"

...can't wait till aliens land and throw the world a huge curve ball...
..they's probably kill the alien as they would see it as a threat not as a great historical event.

cresshead
12-14-2003, 09:15 PM
my way at looking at the world?

quite simplistic really...

we're the animals that walk upright and have populated nealy all the dry bits of this mostly wet bit biased planet...

i really don't think much of countries/nations/ types of people...
we're all humans and that's about it.

just think what we could do if we all "got on"...

having said that the major leaps of mankind are nearly always pushed forward by wars...so are wars a nessesity for humankind to progress?

...tanks, planes,ships,rockets,spacecraft,computers,medical breakthrus, email/internet.mobile phones...microwave ovens...!
....all were born out of conflicts or cold wars.

so are wars needed for progress?

i hope not.

DigiLusionist
12-14-2003, 09:38 PM
cresshead, it's a damned good thing we're animals with opposable thumbs. It would've made Waving a heck of a lot harder than it is...

NOW, the day I read the headline "We've Got LW" now THAT'S the day I'll reeeeealy be cheering.

Beamtracer
12-14-2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by jr_sunshine
FOX? Don't you mean Bagdad TV? No I mean FOX. They run a patriotic pro-government news service. You may like their product, but it's still pro-government.

The owner of FOX, media magnate Rupert Murdoch, owns media outlets around the world that tend to take a pro-government stance. It wins him favors.

It's no coincidence that FOX was the only network allowed to show live coverage of US tanks entering Baghdad after its fall. It's no coincidence that FOX was the only network invited to join Bush's recent trip to Baghdad and show him carrying the plastic Christmas turkey in front of troops. These are some of the return favors.

I don't believe that Iraq had any "weapons of mass distruction" since 1991. However, it's strange that pressure over WMD is only applied to foes of the US, while allies of the US are allowed to develop some of the world's biggest arsenals of WMD.

If we were really serious about WMD we'd pressure all countries in the Middle East to give them up. If one country is allowed to keep them (and encouraged to keep them) it will automatically encourage other countries to develop similar weaponry, and an arms race begins.

Apply the rules to the whole Middle East. No WMD. No exceptions. No friends of the US allowed to keep WMD.

lonestar1
12-14-2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by MrWyatt
So please don´t tell me you think that the troups should stay for ever, that would be a pretty lousy liberation wouldn´t it?

How long did do you think US troops stayed in Germany and Japan?


Originally posted by MrWyatt
A dictator only gets so powerfull like Saddam after the western world helps him. If former US presidents had not funded him in the first place we wouldn´t even know his name.

Sigh. More America-bashing. Do you think Hitler and Tojo became so powerful because FDR was helping them? Do you think the ruler of a country sitting on the second-largest oil reserves in the Middle East can't survive without a US President funding him? Have you forgotten how eager France and Germany were to keep Saddam in power, to avoid disrupting their lucrative Iraqi oil contracts?

But, of course, the United States is the only nation to blame for everything.

lonestar1
12-14-2003, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer However, it's strange that pressure over WMD is only applied to foes of the US, while allies of the US are allowed to develop some of the world's biggest arsenals of WMD.

Not strange at all. US allies never used their weapons of mass destruction to blow up the World Trade Center. It's as simple as that. Anyone but an intellectual can understand it. :)

jr_sunshine
12-14-2003, 10:49 PM
Wow. Some of my one line responses get tomes for answers.... musta hita nerve.

:)

Freak
12-14-2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Xacto
Freak... grow up.

Grow Up? I already have twice the mental capacity as George .W
How grown do i have to become?

Yeah you're right Xacto, i could just post useless remarks
to useless people's posts, to useless threads, but then you would have nothing to do.... :)

I gave my opinion, in a rather comical way (i thought)
If ya don't like it, then you already know what ya can do... :)

If ya would like to resort to personal attacks, make a new thread..
and i will join in and make you look stupid on that thread.....

But likely you are just one of those people, err frogs...
that can't actually provide a well thought out, (or even crap thought-out opinion on subjects of world interest.....

More than likely, you're one of the oh so smart people that decided to vote the useless country bumpkin (George .W) To power.... (congrats!) and took offence cause ya know i'm right!
To which is say........ Hah haha............... Haha Ha Hah... Ha..

PS. The world is still an hillarious place!
And getting funnier every second.... :)

frufru
12-14-2003, 11:32 PM
lonestar1 said:

Not strange at all. US allies never used their weapons of mass destruction to blow up the World Trade Center. It's as simple as that. Anyone but an intellectual can understand it.

One and only country used WMD were USA, if my memory dont fail, ask people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so I realy cannot understand why USA should decide who could keep WMD or not.

Ad WTC: Do you know who financed Al-Kaida for many years? Do you know who sent money to Bin-laden to financing his fighters in war against UdSSR? USA mostly, I am not sure that Al-kaida is not one big "US gov inscenation", they just founded "reason" for attack other country. And WTC and Pentagon were not "victimed". Small example, why US air fighters -at air base beside Pentagon- dint shoot down civil airplane -been in air for some minutes and broke out of normal way- flyed against pentagon?

Ad Saddam, Ask you Donald Rumsfeld where he been 20th December 1983, If his phone will be untouchable, then be sure he been kissed by Saddam in Bagdad for friendly contractships. Someone lies you America, but I am not.

And finally Saddam and your president. Dont said Mr. Bush he wanted attack and attacked Iraq becouse there could be WMD, found any of them? Why he could have "rights" attacks any other country, if there is something "bad" it is almost always trouble of that state itself.



personaly i "wave" for remove this political ***** out of LW forums, and LWers please keep your power to talk about LW8 December is here...

Thank you for patience and sorry for my terrible english

MrWyatt
12-15-2003, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by lonestar1
How long did do you think US troops stayed in Germany and Japan?

about 40 years in germany, and that was in fact a tad bit long, allthough the reason for that was the cold war and germany´s near location to the former soviet union, and had nothing to do with nazis or Hitler, as he killed himself.
I don´t have enough facts about japan though.



Originally posted by lonestar1

Sigh. More America-bashing. Do you think Hitler and Tojo became so powerful because FDR was helping them? Do you think the ruler of a country sitting on the second-largest oil reserves in the Middle East can't survive without a US President funding him?

first of all. guess what I am american. O.K. I live in germany but I´m american none the less. And since when it is Anti-American to tell the naked facts. I am just tired of all the so called patriots who praise all good that america has done and denies all the mistakes america has done. Face the facts man even America can do bad things, I know i will get burned alive for saying that, but it´s the truth. Who ever neglects that could even go that far to say americans are god in person. who do you think you are folks. let´s be objective and not praise USA to heaven as long as America has millions of dead body´s under it´s backyard. I am absolutely happy over the fact that Saddam got cought, but it is a fact that he only became the man he is after the US funded him to attac iran. We (USA) even supplied him with all material needed to build the weapons of mass destruction, we accused him to posess.
isn´t that ironic. are we in the right spot to point the finger at him?.
Read a little history and don´t expect to find it in FOX news. I suggest to read a little Michael Moore, I read all of his books. Clean facts that you can read all over the place, if you don´t believe in what he writes, double check it, he provides all the sources of his information.

I am so tired of beeing called anti-american. I am absolutelly pro-american, but I don´t close my eyes to the fact that it´s not perfect, like so many others seem to do. do us all a favour and do your homework, read some books and get more information than just looking cnn and fox. and you will see that america is still a great country, it just hasn´t such a white west as you would like it to have.



Originally posted by lonestar1

Have you forgotten how eager France and Germany were to keep Saddam in power, to avoid disrupting their lucrative Iraqi oil contracts?

But, of course, the United States is the only nation to blame for everything.

No i haven´t, but it´s not like a lot of fellow americans think. Germany and France didn´t agree because the american government lied to force the allied to go to war. they lied about the weapons: blix said they had looked everywhere and had not found any weapons, bush kept repeating he had evidence but didn´t want to show them an finally as he did they got quickly reviewed as decades old and not relevant anymore, bush repeated this lie even more often in the hope that telling a lie often enough would turn it into the truth. then came the war. the american and british troops won the war and guess what, no weapons. even the cia took distance from bush and told the press that it wasn´t the truth. how much more does it need to understand why germany and france where not pro-war.

all of what i write was in the news and is provable. theese are known facts. so don´t denie them.

again.

I AM AMERICAN AND PRO AMERICA. I´M JUST NOT SO DUMB TO NEGLECT THE FACT THAT AMERICA IS NOT PERFECT. WHO EVER DOES THAT LIES NOT ONLY TO THE WORLD BUT LIES TO HIMSELF. PERIOD.


This thread is really getting ugly, i allways thought artist would not be so narrowminded, but i was obviouslly mistaken.

my 2 cents

peace to the world.
merry X-mas

toby
12-15-2003, 02:03 AM
aw, missed most of this thread - a little more fuel?

All the top 100 Officials in the Bush administration have the majority of their investments in Natural Energy resources - like Oil. Bush family has been in oil for generations - Secretary of Commerce is a friend of GWB, a Texas Oil Baron. Condeleesa Rice has a Chevron Oil tanker named after her - she sat on their board of Directors. Cheney and GWB both sat at the helm of a major energy company.

And Iraq has the second largest deposits of Oil in the world.

You'd have to have your 'head in the sand' (or worse) to think it's a coincidence.

The US has also supported Dictators in the Middle East who oppress and murder their own people, if they favor the US with oil contracts - which is one reason these terrorists hate the US money machine, symbolized by the World Trade Center - almost all the major US banks were headquartered there, 9/11 was their second attempt to destroy it.

Now please don't try to dismiss what I've said with 'oh you know everything don't you' or 'just say you hate America' - if you can dismiss it with even a logical opinion we might get somewhere.

"And since when it is Anti-American to tell the naked facts. I am just tired of all the so called patriots who praise all good that america has done and denies all the mistakes america has done."

THANK you. The 'anti american' argument is just a cheap tactic to win arguments and justify plunder.

MrWyatt
12-15-2003, 02:03 AM
bwt. saddam wasn´t behind 9-11 it was bin laden. they had nothing to do with each other. saddam tried to collaborate with bin laden once but they didn´t come along well. in fact bin laden hates saddam, because of his massacres against his own folks ( they were muslims you know and it´s a sin for a muslim to kill other muslims). and he hated him for the fact that saddam tollerated christian churches in iraq and helped the rights of women, they even where allowed to studie. bin laden would have more likely killed saddam himself than let him help al quaida. theese are tha facts. don´t believe everything bush says only because he is president. the fact that he is head of the country doesn´t make him imune to ignorance and bad attitude.

btw. i still love america and americans ( as i´m one ot them), but i don´t like the leader. and yes i am intellectual enough to read books and to gain knowledge otherwise than from the televisionstations that are ruled by the government (likr fox and cnn, ect.)

MrWyatt
12-15-2003, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by toby

THANK you. The 'anti american' argument is just a cheap tactic to win arguments and justify plunder.

you are wellcome my friend.

as long anyone can give me facts that come from indepentant (not owned by the government) sources. i will believe them, but when all you peoples have is what the bush controlled media broadcasts and what george, dick, donald and collin says, then i will most likelly take the right to doubt.

TyVole
12-15-2003, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by lonestar1
Not strange at all. US allies never used their weapons of mass destruction to blow up the World Trade Center. It's as simple as that. Anyone but an intellectual can understand it. :)

Just to be clear, the WTC was not destroyed by weapons of mass destruction -- but by a bunch of guys with boxcutters, funded by one of our allies.

JohnD
12-15-2003, 07:52 AM
There are going to be those that bash American no matter what the hell we do. This is a great event...period.
Hehe, he didn't even have the courage to off himself before the troops nabbed him.

TheAlienGus
12-15-2003, 07:59 AM
Bush, first i'll say, he is a moron (in my opinion).
Enron? I mean come on . . . WTC, they highjackers were funded by our allies. At on time us (openly?). Ever notice how, in his little cute statements, goes on about "this" is the right path, and "that" is the wrong path? I do not know, what i would like to see, is something change. Dennis Leary for president as i say.
Anyone who knows Dennis Leary is probably laughing, right
about now.

http://www.kmfdm.net/news_archives/82903.html

Someone made a Resume for Bush.

LNT
12-15-2003, 09:24 AM
I wonder why shallow mindedness seems to emerge as a dominant feature in american reason

and how come most of the people seem to be content simply repeating the words the bush monkey serves them every couple of months

you've havent had UN Security Council backing in the last three wars you launched more or less unilatelarly...for balkans and afganistan you managed to get NATO support,for this last one you were lucky to have just blair side with you - and now here you are sending your diplomats begging everyone for military support in men and money just so the iraqy guerillas wouldnt kick your *** out of iraq in the end

but europe seems to turn their back on you boys,going the way you're going you're gonna have europe make an alliance with russia just to get your paranioa of their backs

rabid pitbull
12-15-2003, 09:34 AM
Boy I wonder how many of these comments would emerge if Clinton was still in power. :rolleyes:

Lightwolf
12-15-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by hrgiger
It's the war in Iraq thread all over again....

Moderators can we move this to general discussion please?
Well, why don't all of you come over, read and comment on "the war in Iraq is over thread"? If you make it though those posts, you'll make it anywhere ;)
Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
12-15-2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by MrWyatt
...as long anyone can give me facts that come from indepentant (not owned by the government) sources. i will believe them, ...
Just my 2 cents, since you live in Germany. I guess you've noticed that even state (not government owned!) media sources can provide independant coverage, unlike private sources, which are in many ways even more government dependant (Berlusconi / Italy anyone? Or Mr. Murdoch, playing political KingPin in Australia, the U.K. (Maggie Thatcher) as well as now the U.S.)...
Very O.T., I agree, but we're O.T. anyhow ;)
Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
12-15-2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by rabid pitbull
Boy I wonder how many of these comments would emerge if Clinton was still in power. :rolleyes:
Well, in the U.S. he'd get just as much Flak from the right... Abroad he'd probably get just as much as well...
Then again, I think he'd have an adventure like the Iraq war planned a bit more professionally...
Cheers,
Mike

wacom
12-15-2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by lonestar1
Not strange at all. US allies never used their weapons of mass destruction to blow up the World Trade Center. It's as simple as that. Anyone but an intellectual can understand it. :)

First off "intellectual" bashing is what Stalin, Hitler, the Khmer Rouge, al-Queada and others did to eliminate one of the greatest threats to their power. Now I don't think you'd kill anyone over it...but governments and groups have. Be a little more careful to join in on that band wagon even in the most subtle cheer. Besides- being intellectual doesn't mean elitist- but eliminating other groups and saying you’re superior is.

No- America and its allies haven’t used their power to blow up the world trade center.
You are right there- not since the war with the British for our independence has the United States used “terrorist tactics” in warfare. You see, when you’re an actual power- you can claim a formal war. When the other side can beat you into the ground by sheer might, why then you have to resort to other tactics. Like dumping good tea in a harbor, or attacking troops on a known holiday. What’s bravery and valor to one is retched disobedient behavior to the next.

So no- in recent history, to the best of my knowledge we haven’t done anything like that…
But they did fire bomb the hell out of some “free” German cities during WWII- destroying many cultural landmarks including important Cathedrals and Libraries and killing millions of civilians. Ever read “Slaughter House Five”? They did use an atomic bomb (which wasn’t as bad as fire bombing in terms of actual devastation) on a bunch of people who were going to give up anyway. But hey- how better to test your weapons?

Need a more current example? Look to the Falkland Is. War where the British nuked many Argentine ships that were highly dated and almost incapable of causing harm. They also used nuclear depth charges! Talk about over kill!

Can many of these things be justified from a military standpoint? Absolutely. From a political or a moral stand point? Well that’s what we’re talking about here. Call a spade a spade is my moto.

I do believe all is fair in love and war- but it just doesn’t feel right.

Rich
12-15-2003, 10:37 AM
" Need a more current example? Look to the Falkland Is. War where the British nuked many Argentine ships that were highly dated and almost incapable of causing harm. They also used nuclear depth charges! Talk about over kill! "

So the British used Nuke Depth Charges? Well I found a news story that disputes that claim.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031205/325/egden.html

According to this report they had them but didn't use them. There is a big difference between having them and using them.

wacom
12-15-2003, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by rabid pitbull
Boy I wonder how many of these comments would emerge if Clinton was still in power. :rolleyes:

Hey- a lot of us know that this stuff goes beyond who is prez and is more about just US international policy. Clinton supported huge economic sanctions that basically killed thousands and thousands of innocent people. The only thing about Clinton when it came to many things was that he's a better liar than Bush Jr. Bush Jr. is just too stupid to get it right when he's fudge'n it.

We are only now beginning to understand what Carter and Regan did...I can only guess how long it will be until we find out what the other administrations have done.

kief
12-15-2003, 11:11 AM
This is the Newtek Forum????? Woa, it thought I wondered over to the state-your-political-view forum. Maybe just mentioning Sadam's capture in another forum would have been more appropriate

kief

badllarma
12-15-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by kief
This is the Newtek Forum????? Woa, it thought I wondered over to the state-your-political-view forum. Maybe just mentioning Sadam's capture in another forum would have been more appropriate

kief
notice Kief the subject of this thread is posted O.T (Off Topic) [iraq] from that every one should know what it is about and decide wether they want to join in or not.
As with all threads on this forum it is upto Newtek who own these boards what and what not is aceptable at present it seems this is. It's across every other medium on the planet after all.

No dout as soon as Lightwave 8 is released we will ALL be back on subject :D

ted
12-15-2003, 01:09 PM
The US can't solve every problem so get off the "Why didn't they fix the problem in XXX first".

The countries that chose to "Watch" were the ones who had private deals with Iraq AGAINST UN SANCTIONS, so I could care less about their Bashing. They should also be tried.

Yes we supported Sadam over 20 years ago. That doesn't give him a free ride for life. Again, stupid argument.

Taking out Sadam has been a good thing.

You who want to bash Bush and or the US have proven you'll slide from argument to argument taking little issues and trying to make them bigger then the big picture.
You may be right on some littles issues here and there, no doubt. But you'll never let facts demonstrate that the US did a great service to the world.

It's simple...
Sadam was an evil person to his own people and a threat to everyone around him.
We took care of that. Thanks God.

God Bless America and those who joined forces to rid the Middle East of Sadam.

Now let's clean up and go home.

Jockomo
12-15-2003, 01:26 PM
At a cost of 530 coalition lives and 87 billion dollars...
was it worth it?

papou
12-15-2003, 01:58 PM
woa

TyVole
12-15-2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Jockomo
At a cost of 530 coalition lives and 87 billion dollars

And still counting . . .

Hiraghm
12-15-2003, 02:45 PM
Okay...

No, it wasn't worth even one American life to liberate Iraq...

So everybody vote for me for President.

Okay, now that I'm elected, it's my job to deal with Hussein.

Now that there are 25 MILLION DEAD IRAQIS.... you wanna keep griping about the terrible cost of their liberation?

Because that's my cure to the problem Iraq represented to the U.S. Now we have the oil, we have no more loudmouth dictator in Iraq, no more rewards for Palestinian terrorists, and message to the world not to seriously annoy the U.S... Without using a single one of the 14,000 nukes in our arsenal.

Now that we haven't lost any troops, and they're not tired from a long occupation, and are already assembled... Hello Somalia, remember us? Time for urban renewal... no more Mogadishu.

Oh, Viet nam, yes, I haven't forgotten you. Say bye-bye. You I just might use a few of the nukes on.

North Korea making man-like noises? No problem, first we bomb the crap out of your forward military positions along the DMZ, then we bomb your factories and means of making nukes, put an embargo in place, and let the news crews in to film your suffering and starvation.

Communist China, there's only one China, and its name is "Taiwan". Keep your mouth shut. No, go ahead and talk, I've just placed an embargo. No Chinese made goods come to the U.S. enjoy your half billion dollar trade deficit.

Iran, look left. Now look right. Any questions? Cough up bin Laden and/or any of his henchmen you're protecting, blow up your entire nuclear program and allow international inspectors into every nook and cranny of your little country without obstruction. Did I mention look left? That's where Iraq's 25 million used to be. Care to join them in hell?

Syria.... you're next. Better clean out the Bekka valley before we decide to do it for you. And remember, the U.S. doesn't risk its precious soldiers just to avoid committing genocide.

I hope you left wing and foreign... individuals begin to gather just what an actual right-wing imperialist would do with the power of the U.S., and stop pretending that Bush is some kind of right-wing extremist. I don't think people quite realise the true power disparity between the U.S. and any other force in the world.

And no, I'm not kidding.

Geee whiz... 530 dead! Gosh, the humanity! the wholesale slaughter! Why, if it keeps up at this rate, it might come to match the death toll on American highways this year!

Gettysburg.... 50,000 dead in 3 days. That same war claimed 600,000 dead total. Our losses are miraculously small.

DigiLusionist
12-15-2003, 02:47 PM
Apparently the value of Iraqi life isn't worth that?

TyVole
12-15-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Hiraghm
Our losses are miraculously small.

Just as long as you're not one of them.

Jockomo
12-15-2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by DigiLusionist
Apparently the value of Iraqi life isn't worth that?

How many Iraqi lives did we save?
Are you suggesting that Saddam would have killed as many Iraqis as we did?

Hiraghm
12-15-2003, 03:10 PM
I wasn't one of the 50,000 at Gettysburg either. So we should give the slaveowners their slaves back, rather than pay 600,000 lives and equivalent billions of dollars of losses in order to free them? Yes, terrible if you're one of the 530 who signed up for a job that involved risking your life. More terrible is if you happen to be one of the hapless Iraqis subject to Hussein's cruel tyrrany. Or do you really believe that 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves is just a matter of traffic accidents?

Speaking of which, you're just as dead if you're killed by a terrorist in Iraq or a housewife on a cell phone in Indiana.
I respect our military, and based on what I've read and seen of their opinions, they agree with me.

In fact, there's a young man in a suburb near here, who's wishing he could go back. The dirty s.o.b.s won't let him, just because he was paralyzed from the waist down in an explosion. If he doesn't bemoan his loss, I won't insult him by bemoaning the miraculously few American lives lost.

And no, Digillusion, trading 25 million Iraqi lives for one American life is a flat out loss, to me. Our military doesn't exist for the welfare of Iraqis. It exists to protect the U.S., and enforce our will in the world. I have sympathy for the Iraqis, and if you really do read American Conservative (do an EZ board search, people, if you want to find it,) you know I almost envy them their brave new world. I'm happy for them. But not willing to pay the price. Again, as you must have read, I've seen the U.S. bend over backward and spread our collective butcheeks to get the world to like us, and the world continues to use, abuse and belittle us. They want our money, our creativity and our industry, and for us to resolve their petty squabbles, but nothing else to do with us. So my philosophy will always be, "To hell with them, the faster, the better."

Original1
12-15-2003, 03:19 PM
The coalition effort in Iraq is entirely justified on the grounds of Human rights alone.

Have we forgotten the Holocust? Or do deaths not matter when its some faceless unknown arab?

It is to our eternal shame as human beings thata we took so long to do something about Saddam's inhumanity to his own people.

TyVole
12-15-2003, 03:30 PM
If it is justified on human rights alone, why are we not saving the people of the Congo, the Sudan, and North Korea? They've murdered (and still are murdering) far more people than those who died in Iraq.

Why? Because they have no oil. Because they never embarassed the President's father. Because they're not such easy targets.

DigiLusionist
12-15-2003, 03:47 PM
Gee, I don't know, Jockomo? Is even one worth it? Care to state an exact number of lives that have to be saved in order to satisfy your point?

DigiLusionist
12-15-2003, 03:52 PM
I agree, Ty. We should go in there and stop them. But then, bleeding hearts would decry that as cultural arrogance on our part, wouldn't they?


If the U.N. acted aggressively on these crimes and situations, things might be different. As it is, they're all talk. And therefore, not a viable force for justice in this screwed up world.

Personally, I'd like the U.S. to have nothing to do with trashtalkers for a while. Let them handle their own affairs. The day will come when extremists with attack them and then we'll see what tune they sing...

ted
12-15-2003, 04:18 PM
Ty, like I said, ya gotta start somewhere and this was an obvious choice. At least we did something. What have the other countries who are bashing the US done for all these countries you and others speak of?

And for goodness sake, YES the oil IS a consideration. If you don't stabilize the Middle East, EVERYONE suffers. That should be obvious and praised. Not a negative.

Add the oil issue, the human rights issues, the safety of the regions issues, "potential" collaboration with the terrorists issues, the answer was to start with Iraq right after Afghanistan.

The USA is doing more then most to correct what many of you are pi**ing and moaning about. So what's the beef?

TyVole
12-15-2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by ted
What have the other countries who are bashing the US done for all these countries you and others speak of?

Nothing.

But they are also not invading and occupying other countries, justifying it with the cry of human rights abuses.

We should simply state that we are acting purely out of economic and geopolitical self-interest. Then we wouldn't be hypocrites.

Jockomo
12-15-2003, 04:29 PM
Just remember, we didn't go there to save lives…
we went there to disarm Iraq from weapons of mass destruction.
Liberating Iraq happened as a result, but Bush did not say, "Let's liberate Iraq", he said we have to attack Iraq now because it poses an immediate threat to the United States, which clearly it didn't.
I would feel differently about this if we had found weapons that could harm the United States, but they haven't and they probably never will, because chances are they don't exist. Iraq was not a threat to us.
Just remember this war was not sold as a human rights issue, it was bait and switch. As Hiraghm and TyVole both point out, there are a lot of fights out there worth fighting. But the reason for fighting them needs to be presented to the people footing the bill in an honest and straightforward fashion.
But see it is my opinion that Bush needed to rush into this war, not because there was an imminent threat, but because he needed to finish this war before the elections. For this reason I feel we have paid the price in blood and not time.

ted
12-15-2003, 04:33 PM
Joko, Sadam killed more Iraq citizens in one day then we killed in the entire war.
Crews of men are working 8-5 daily unearthing mass graves.
So what is your point. We should have done nothing to save a few hundred lives while letting thousands die?:confused:

And for goodness sake, Sadam DID have and USED WMD several times. THAT'S A FACT!!!
We asked for 10 years to show he destroyed them.
He didn't. We showed we were not kidding. End of story.

ted
12-15-2003, 04:37 PM
Ty, "Nothing".
Thanks for proving our point.

TyVole
12-15-2003, 04:45 PM
Dude, you didn't read the rest of my post.

Jockomo
12-15-2003, 04:46 PM
ted... DID... as in past tense right, as in not since GWbush has been in office right?

Your missing my point, my point is we were lied to. Our own people have died because we rushed into this. If you can explain why we could not wait to go into Iraq, why we couldn't continue to pressure Saddam, why we couldn't have liberated Iraq one section at a time, training their own people to defend themselves and let them handle Saddam.

I don't debate that Saddam needed to go, I debate weather our president really did it out of compassion or out of greed and want of power.

Tell me, why is it that inspectors were looking for WMDs and not mass graves?

DigiLusionist
12-15-2003, 05:19 PM
:rolleyes: hopeless

ted
12-15-2003, 05:39 PM
DigiLusionist Ditto!:rolleyes:

Little smokescreens avoiding the issue.
Sadam needed to be taken out, we did it after too many years of threats.

How many times do you tell someone, stop killing people?
Nuff said.

Good night Gracie!:cool:

archiea
12-15-2003, 06:42 PM
You know, it scares me that there are so many people who think that by crying "peace, peace" that all of the sudden all of the a$$holes in the world will go away. That diplomacy is the answer when dealing with a ruthless dictator....

And I can't stand people who think that ANY country would engage in such an expensive mission w/o seeing the economic benefit (i.e reconstruction of Iraq, stabilization of the middle eastern power in relation to oil) that is possible.

Its the reality of the world. Thats how it works. Name any "conquerer" in human history that "invades" a country, dust's it off, slaps it back on its feet and forgives billions in aid loans, and restores its sovereignty.

As much as I dislike bush, name me any democrat that would have bulldosed over public and internation opinion and unseated a leader. It left alot of collateral damage as far as foreign policy, but thats part of the price.

And then look at how quickly france and germany and all of europe swoops in for a part in the deal when the dirty work is done...

Yeah, I wish it was out of sheer Freedom and Liberty that we did this but its not. its entangled in coorporate deal making, corrupt politicians, a burdened beareaucratic government and alot of lies... yeah, Saddam may have known of 911.. thats as much of a relevation as Harry Knowles knowing the ending of Star Wars. Fact is how much of a tangable threat was Saddam to americans... not much compared to others..

However, strategically speaking, having a foothold of the middle east by having a dictator out of Iraq is good. He has so pimped himself as a baddie, he has few sympathisers anywhere in the western world.

Remember, this is a clash of cultures... east and west.. Its Allah against capitolism as some see it. The reality is that in some middle eastern countries, they are taught hate, and thats a fact. when you have no problem dying for Allah, then we are talking about a very difficult conflict to grasp. How do you "win" if the "other side" has nothing to lose?


..and when the fawk is LW8 coming out!!!!

lonestar1
12-15-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by wacom
First off "intellectual" bashing is what Stalin, Hitler, the Khmer Rouge, al-Queada and others did to eliminate one of the greatest threats to their power. Now I don't think you'd kill anyone over it...but governments and groups have.

So, you lump me with Stalin, Hitler, the Khmer Rouge, etc. just because I criticize with your views? Demonizing dissenters was also something Stalin, Hitler, the Khmer Rouge, etc. did.


You are right there- not since the war with the British for our independence has the United States used “terrorist tactics” in warfare.

No, I am not "right there" or wrong there, because *I didn't say that* -- you did! In rhetoric, that's called "lying by implication."

You may not know the difference between terrorism and shooting British soldiers, but I do. You may call anything you don't like "terrorism," but that doesn't make it so. As Abraham Lincoln said, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.


You see, when you’re an actual power- you can claim a formal war. When the other side can beat you into the ground by sheer might, why then you have to resort to other tactics.

Your history is faulty. The United States of America *did* formally declare war on Great Britain. What do you think the Declaration of Independence was? And do you know how the British responded? They sent troops, shot American soldiers, and attacked American ships! So even if you accept the (absurd) premise that Islamic terrorists are equivalent to the 13 Colonies, the US is doing no more than what Great Britain did. So, what's your problem -- is the United States the only nation that doesn't have a right to defend its interests?

As for those poor, oppressed underdogs in the Middle East -- don't they claim God is on their side? How can you be the underdog when the Supreme Being is behind you? By the way, you do know the Koran explicitly prohibits the use of terrorist tactics against women and children, don't you?


But they did fire bomb the hell out of some “free” German cities during WWII- destroying many cultural landmarks including important Cathedrals and Libraries and killing millions of civilians. Ever read “Slaughter House Five”?

"Free" German cities??? Do you believe there were German cities Hitler didn't control during World War II, or that Nazi rule could somehow be described as "freedom"? Yeah, I had to read Slaughterhouse Five in high school. As I recall, it was "science fiction" (and not very good science fiction at that), but even Vonnegut didn't claim Dresden was a free city.

The bombing of cities during World War II is a difficult moral question, which is still debated today. However, there can be no doubt about one thing -- the United States bombed German and Japanese cities in order to *end* a war, while Al-Queda bombed the World Trade Center in order to start one. Again, there's a difference there that's plain as night and day, except to those who see everything in "shades of gray" and cannot tell night from day.

There's another thing of which there can be no doubt -- if Hitler and Tojo had won the Second World War, you would not have the right to publicly bash your government as you do today. You owe that freedom to the fact that the US did *not* follow pacifist policies as preached in Slaughterhouse Five. Ask women or minorities or political dissenters how they were treated in Iraq and Afghanistan under Saddam and the Taliban and how they feel about the men and women who took up arms to liberate them. You will find they suffered much worse than merely living in a country where people disagreed with their political opinions.


Need a more current example? Look to the Falkland Is. War where the British nuked many Argentine ships that were highly dated and almost incapable of causing harm. They also used nuclear depth charges! Talk about over kill!

Wrong -- there was not a single nuclear weapon used in the Falklands. Even the British torpedoes were mostly old, outdated models. Calling something a nuke doesn't make it a nuke any more than calling something terrorism makes it terrorism. I have frequently criticized the British in the Falklands War, but I do so on the basis of facts, not miscalling their actions "terrorism" or their weapons "nukes."


I do believe all is fair in love and war- but it just doesn’t feel right.

I'd hate to be your girlfriend, if you really believe that. As for war, fortunately, the civilized world has progressed beyond that stage. The United States abides by the Laws of War, wherever possible. If that doesn't feel right to you, too bad -- I'm sure the people whose lives, families, homes, and properties were spared, because US forces went out of their way to respect those Laws, feel differently. The US invasion of Iraq killed fewer people than were being killed by the Hussein regime every week while it remained in power. It doesn't matter whether you understand the difference between that and blowing up the World Trade Center. This is a free country and you're entitled to hold any views you want, even foolish ones. And like it or not, the people you have to thank for that are the military you despise. :)

LNT
12-15-2003, 07:58 PM
the United States bombed German and Japanese cities in order to *end* a war, while Al-Queda bombed the World Trade Center in order to start one.

wrong. whoever bombed you it was not to start a war but to give you a bloody nose in response to the military world oppression campaign your country's been leading for a decade or even longer

american also bombed the japanese cities more in order to test the Hbomb than to end the war

you also give the US way too much credit in defeating Hitler,it was russians who did most of the work and the hardest one at that,americans only got involved towards the end of the war and only in certain parts ot north/west europe playing it more or less safe




The United States abides by the Laws of War, wherever possible. If that doesn't feel right to you, too bad

now that's a typical yankie butthole attitude we've all grown used to hate,hope they bomb you in return as often as poss...I mean by the "Laws of War" :D


The US invasion of Iraq killed fewer people than were being killed by the Hussein regime every week while it remained in power.

yeah sure you have the stats,where did you hear them...on a US propaganda network station?

the simple truth is that no one asks you to go around the world bombing counties as you see fit behind feeble excuses you fabricate....they're so silly those excuses that you can fool no one but your fellow americans

lonestar1
12-15-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by frufru
lOne and only country used WMD were USA, if my memory dont fail, ask people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so I realy cannot understand why USA should decide who could keep WMD or not.

Your memory does fail. The United States is certainly not the only country that has used weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein used poison gas on his own people, Al-Queda used weapons of mass destruction called "airliners" against the World Trade Center, parties still unknown used anthrax against US citizens -- and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

As for why the United States should get to decide who has weapons and is allowed to threaten us -- what nation does *not* claim that power? Why is the United States the only nation on Earth that doesn't have the right to defend itself?

Perhaps it's because the United States is the only power that routinely conquers other nations, not to rule them but to give them back to the local people to rule themselves? As we did with Cuba, the Phillipines, Japan, France, Germany, and (God willing, someday soon) Iraq?


Ad WTC: Do you know who financed Al-Kaida for many years? Do you know who sent money to Bin-laden to financing his fighters in war against UdSSR? USA mostly,

No, it was not "USA mostly." Why do so many people on this board post "facts" that are just made up? Bin Laden was self financed. He comes from a very wealthy Saudi family. That's why the US was willing to work with him in Afghanistan, because he brought his own money to the table. That was a long time ago, and the US hasn't been involved with him since. Even critics of US policy in Afghanistan admit that. The criticism is usually that the US *should* have been more involved in Afghanistan.

Now, you could question whether the United States should have accepted bin Laden's forces as allies, just as you could question whether the United States should have accepted Stalin's forces as allies against Hitler. The United States is not omnipotent, however, and in wartime, even the United States is often forced to deal with the lesser of two evils to fight the greater.


USA mostly, I am not sure that Al-kaida is not one big "US gov inscenation", they just founded "reason" for attack other country. And WTC and Pentagon were not "victimed". Small example, why US air fighters -at air base beside Pentagon- dint shoot down civil airplane -been in air for some minutes and broke out of normal way- flyed against pentagon?

You mean besides the obvious laws of physics, and the fact that there is no air base beside the Pentagon? Anyone who has driven past the Pentagon knows that.

The "air base" next to the Pentagon is actually Ronald Reagan National Airport, which is a civilian airport and has no fighters. Nor would have made any difference if Reagan Airport were a fighter base, since the US military was not expecting an attack using civilian airliners.

End of conspiracy theory.

"Never attribute to evil what can be explained by stupidity."

ted
12-15-2003, 08:17 PM
Obviously we are all passionate about our views.
Take a good look at what everyone's saying, try and see their point of view, then blast the heck out of them for being so wrong!;)
I'll check in later.

TyVole
12-15-2003, 08:21 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lonestar1
You may not know the difference between terrorism and shooting British soldiers, but I do. You may call anything you don't like "terrorism," but that doesn't make it so.

Well, the Boston Tea Party certainly might be considered an act of terrorism. And the American soldiers certainly did not follow the rules of war, as defined by the period.


Your history is faulty. The United States of America *did* formally declare war on Great Britain. What do you think the Declaration of Independence was? And do you know how the British responded? They sent troops, shot American soldiers, and attacked American ships! So even if you accept the (absurd) premise that Islamic terrorists are equivalent to the 13 Colonies, the US is doing no more than what Great Britain did. So, what's your problem -- is the United States the only nation that doesn't have a right to defend its interests?

Your history is faulty too. The Declaration of Indenpendence was not a declaration of war -- it was a declaration of independence. It was signed in 1776, while the war started in 1775 at Lexington and Concord.


You owe that freedom to the fact that the US did *not* follow pacifist policies as preached in Slaughterhouse Five.

I think perhaps you should re-read this book. High-school-age students are way too young to appreciate it. It doesn't preach pacifism, only satirizes the heroizing of war.


Ask women or minorities or political dissenters how they were treated in Iraq and Afghanistan under Saddam and the Taliban and how they feel about the men and women who took up arms to liberate them. You will find they suffered much worse than merely living in a country where people disagreed with their political opinions.

I will keep asking this -- why do you only care about these people and not the millions of others who are suffering right now -- who have no oil -- and who will never be "freed" by us.

This is just an excuse.

lonestar1
12-15-2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by MrWyatt
about 40 years in germany, and that was in fact a tad bit long, allthough the reason for that was the cold war and germany´s near location to the former soviet union, and had nothing to do with nazis or Hitler, as he killed himself.
I don´t have enough facts about japan though.

You don't have enough facts about Germany, either, if you think US troops pulled out 40 years after World War II (1985). How can you be an American in Germany and unaware that there are still US troops there? In fact, when it was suggested that the US might shift troops from Germany to friendlier European countries, the Germans screamed bloody murder, because US troops help prop up the local economy.


first of all. guess what I am american. O.K. I live in germany but I´m american none the less.

Irrelevant. You could be a Martian, and it wouldn't make your arguments any less falacious or your facts less inaccurate.


And since when it is Anti-American to tell the naked facts. I am just tired of all the so called patriots who praise all good that america has done and denies all the mistakes america has done.

That's a strawman argument -- no one has denied that America has made mistakes. Not stopping Bin Laden before 9/11 was a mistake, for example. That does not mean that that *everything* America does is a mistake or that you are right merely because you rail against America.

Your "facts" are not facts. Michael Moore is a filmmaker, not a historian, and his books are not history. He shades the truth when it serves his purpose, and sometimes he flat-out lies.


it is a fact that he only became the man he is after the US funded him to attac iran.

No, it is not. A little research would show that Saddam got far more support from Germany and France than he did from the United States. Just because Mr. Moore said something doesn't mean it's true.


how much more does it need to understand why germany and france where not pro-war.

Very little, given the huge quantity of arms France and Germany sold to Saddam. France, in particular, is notorious for selling weapons to just about anyone. They might be anti-US but are not, by any means, "anti-war." (And when they are over-run by Germany, the French aren't even anti-American. That seems to happen about twice a Century, so they may be overdue.)

TyVole
12-15-2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by lonestar1
France, in particular, is notorious for selling weapons to just about anyone. They might be anti-US but are not, by any means, "anti-war." (And when they are over-run by Germany, the French aren't even anti-American. That seems to happen about twice a Century, so they may be overdue.)

Again, your history is a little off. In the 19th century, it was the French that overran the German states a number of times.

Also, they were only overrun once in the 20th century. They held their own in WWI.

And before you start an anti-French tirade, please do not forget that it was the French that are largely credited with winning the Revolutionary War for us. In fact, if you take a look at a US map, you'll see a number of cities named "LaFayette." There's a reason for this.

It was also French philosophers -- most notably Rousseau -- who laid the intellectual foundations of our country.

toby
12-15-2003, 11:16 PM
"Your "facts" are not facts. Michael Moore is a filmmaker, not a historian, and his books are not history. He shades the truth when it serves his purpose"

What purpose? Billions of $ in oil? Record number of fund-raising campiagns?

"and sometimes he flat-out lies."

And Bush tells the truth? WMD's? hello? The non-existant Uranium deal in Africa (convieniently believed BI over the CIA)?

wacom
12-15-2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by lonestar1
And like it or not, the people you have to thank for that are the military you despise. :)

I never ONCE said that I depise the military. Not once. If you can find a quote of me saying that EVER or ANYWHERE, then please post it. If you would read my posts I said that under the current plan for Iraq we don't have enough troops there for the saftey of the operation.

toby
12-15-2003, 11:44 PM
"And like it or not, the people you have to thank for that are the military you despise."

This is disgusting BS and I'm completely sick of it.

For one thing not one of us has said anything to this effect, this is just an attempt to dismiss our opinions, and an insult to our intelligence which you seem Dumb enough to think we'll believe.

Secondly it implies that just because the military is used, that it is to our good. I certainly hope you're not stupid enough to believe that, if there are enough of you that are, we are in for another, bloodier century, for Profit.

The Right-wing was opposed to helping NATO in Serbia, "our military is not a police force", and supported Saddam and the Shah of Iran while they were torturing and murdering their own citizens, we shelled Iraqi towns with Depleted Uranium (highly toxic as well as Radioactive for centuries) so let's have an END to the other BS excuse about Humanitarianism.

I've had it with all of your thin-air accusations and cheap-shot excuses, if you can't make a point without them you obviously have nothing, and 'winning' is more important than the truth.

MrWyatt
12-16-2003, 12:45 AM
wow, so much ignorance ans selfishness on one spot and all of them call themself artist. wow, what is this world coming to.

over ´n´out
:rolleyes:

Lightwolf
12-16-2003, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by lonestar1
In fact, when it was suggested that the US might shift troops from Germany to friendlier European countries, the Germans screamed bloody murder, because US troops help prop up the local economy.
Actually, they currently seem to be more of a danger to our country than anything else. If we had the choice, most of us would rather see the troops go.

Your "facts" are not facts. Michael Moore is a filmmaker, not a historian, and his books are not history. He shades the truth when it serves his purpose, and sometimes he flat-out lies.

Full ack. This just shows the thin line between a politician and a filmmaker, if there is one... ;)

No, it is not. A little research would show that Saddam got far more support from Germany and France than he did from the United States.
The level of support varied from each country varied greatly during his reign. However, he got most political backing from both Russia and the U.S.

Very little, given the huge quantity of arms France and Germany sold to Saddam. France, in particular, is notorious for selling weapons to just about anyone.
As is just about any country in the world. Hey, right now the U.S. are lowering trade sanctions towards Serbia so that the U.S. military can buy some decent sniper rifles.
Don't forget, arms trade is the number one commercial factor on this planet.

They might be anti-US but are not, by any means, "anti-war." (And when they are over-run by Germany, the French aren't even anti-American. That seems to happen about twice a Century, so they may be overdue.)
Actually, they're not even anti-US, but they are just as "patriotic" as the US. It just looks that way from the other side of the fence (which should tell you a lot about how most ogf the rest of the world perceives the US at the moment, if you care...).
Cheers,
Mike

stone
12-16-2003, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by lonestar1
You may not know the difference between terrorism and shooting British soldiers, but I do.

both sides are killing innocent people. both sides do it due to beliving their way of life is the right one. but, the terroists have yet to occupy an independent nation based on propaganda, lies and lousy excueses, which is more than can be said for usa.



Originally posted by lonestar1
is the United States the only nation that doesn't have a right to defend its interests?

isn't the terrorists defending their interest? why are your view upon life better and worth more than theirs?

usa is the only nation who disagrees to bring the number of mass destructive weapons down, when russia and europe are.

usa is the only nation who holds the right to do preemptive strikes. thanks to it, russia now wants to hold the same right.


Originally posted by lonestar1
By the way, you do know the Koran explicitly prohibits the use of terrorist tactics against women and children, don't you?

so does the bible, and yet so does neither as both can be read and citet to fit your point of view.



Originally posted by lonestar1
However, there can be no doubt about one thing -- the United States bombed German and Japanese cities in order to *end* a war, while Al-Queda bombed the World Trade Center in order to start one. Again, there's a difference there that's plain as night and day, except to those who see everything in "shades of gray" and cannot tell night from day.

you are are fool to think its that simple. usa was the ones providing iraq with their weapons, so they could start a war against iran.

usa was the ones putting taleban in controll in afghanistan, indirectly usa inforced brutal regiemes.

you cant make things only black and white.



Originally posted by lonestar1
There's another thing of which there can be no doubt -- if Hitler and Tojo had won the Second World War, you would not have the right to publicly bash your government as you do today. You owe that freedom to the fact that the US did *not* follow pacifist policies as preached in Slaughterhouse Five.

it wasnt usa who won the war. it would have been won either way. russia would have gotten way stronger and larger though, which also is the reason usa even joined to war, since they were afraid of russia, and since japan was foolish enough to bomb perl harbour.



Originally posted by lonestar1
It doesn't matter whether you understand the difference between that and blowing up the World Trade Center. This is a free country and you're entitled to hold any views you want, even foolish ones. And like it or not, the people you have to thank for that are the military you despise. :)

your points of view isnt only foolish. they are bordering extremism, coupled with a a bit of fox and goverment propaganda thats quite dangerous.

/stone

lonestar1
12-16-2003, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by toby
For one thing not one of us has said anything to this effect,

No? Comparisons to Hitler, Stalin, Al-Queda, etc., calling the US military terrorists, impugning US motives in Iraq and Afghanistan -- those were supposed to be complements, I suppose?

In a pig's eye.


Secondly it implies that just because the military is used, that it is to our good. I certainly hope you're not stupid enough to believe that, if there are enough of you that are, we are in for another, bloodier century, for Profit.

It implies nothing of the sort -- once again, you're creating a strawman. But when the military is used to defend safety and freedom of the United States, that *is* to the good, for every American who values safety and freedom. Trying to denigrate that with false accusations of "profit" does not belittle America, but only the denigrators.


The Right-wing was opposed to helping NATO in Serbia, "our military is not a police force", and supported Saddam and the Shah of Iran while they were torturing and murdering their own citizens, we shelled Iraqi towns with Depleted Uranium (highly toxic as well as Radioactive for centuries) so let's have an END to the other BS excuse about Humanitarianism.

And don't forget the horrible things we did to that poor Mr. Hitler and the German citizens who wanted nothing more than to rule the world and exterminate a few million Jews.

One thing at a time, please. The US military had business being in Serbia because Serbia was never any threat to America. If they had started training terrorists to hijack US airliners or attempting to assassinate US citizens, as Iraq did, that would be another matter. It's a clear, bright line. The United States, in the words of Jefferson, should be "the friend of freedom everywhere, the guardian only of our own." It's funny how the Left is willing to shed the lives of US servicmen for blood for any purpose *except* to defend the United States of America -- the reason the US military was established in the first place.

As far as supporting Saddam, you seem to be confused which side you're arguing. The reason you're mad is because the US military *removed* Saddam. The claim about the US supporting Saddam is a slander I've dealt with before -- his regime got far more aid from Germany and France, whose governments you have yet to blame for anything. For that matter, you don't even blame the Iraqis who supported him. You blame America. But, as Ambassador Kirkpatrick said, the Left always blames America first. :)

lonestar1
12-16-2003, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by stone
both sides are killing innocent people.

Criminals kill innocent people. So do policemen and doctors. That does not mean policemen and doctors are criminals. Criminals kill innocent people by design. Policemen and doctors kill innocent people because it is an unavoidable and accidental consequence of their work. Reasonable people understand the difference.


but, the terroists have yet to occupy an independent nation based on propaganda, lies and lousy excueses, which is more than can be said for usa.


That would come as a big surprise to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Calling wholesale torture, abuse of women, mass murder, and other human rights violations "propaganda" is repugnant. You can afford to believe such repugnant nonsense -- and speak it, and post it on the Internet -- because of the men and women who are laying it on the line in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

If, God forbid, Al Queda were to somehow win, you would soon see first hand how real that "propaganda" really is -- but I'm sure you would not dare to publicly criticize an Al Queda government the way you do the United States. It's easy to be brave when criticizing a government that actually allows criticism.



isn't the terrorists defending their interest? why are your view upon life better and worth more than theirs?

Freedom of speech -- even for those who don't value it. Freedom of the press. Freedom of worship. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The right to a fair trial. Freedom from torture. And a thousand other things.

If you don't value those things, so be it. I won't try to convince you that liberty, justice, and prosperity are better than tyranny and poverty. For those who understand, no proof is necessary. For those who don't understand, no proof is sufficient.


Originally posted by stone
usa is the only nation who disagrees to bring the number of mass destructive weapons down, when russia and europe are.

usa is the only nation who holds the right to do preemptive strikes. thanks to it, russia now wants to hold the same right.


Where do you guys get this stuff? Is this what they teach in schools these days?

The United States has reduced nuclear weapon stockpiles drastically and negotiated treaties with other nations to do the same.

As for the United States being the "only" nation that launches preemptive strikes and Russia following our example -- have you ever heard ot Pearl Harbor? Or the invasion of the Poland by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? For that matter, wasn't 9/11 a preemptive strike? How many buildings do you think we should let terrorists blow up before we strike back?

stone
12-16-2003, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by lonestar1
You can afford to believe such repugnant nonsense -- and speak it, and post it on the Internet -- because of the men and women who are laying it on the line in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

[..] It's easy to be brave when criticizing a government that actually allows criticism.

Freedom of speech -- even for those who don't value it. Freedom of the press. Freedom of worship. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The right to a fair trial. Freedom from torture. And a thousand other things.

If you don't value those things, so be it. I won't try to convince you that liberty, justice, and prosperity are better than tyranny and poverty. For those who understand, no proof is necessary. For those who don't understand, no proof is sufficient.

there is this funny thing, that usa doesnt have freedom of speech. doesnt have what can actual be called a democracy, and surpress human and civil rights for a large part of its population.

remember those people who got fired, threatend to be public executed and even killed when they voiced their opinion against the war right after 9.11.? freedom of speech?

its funny how the motives and the objectives for fighting the wars in both afghanistan and iraq changes as the evidence smolders - and it all ends up being human rights, which is fine and a damn valauble thing, but in neither case was the original objective for starting the wars.



Originally posted by lonestar1
Where do you guys get this stuff? Is this what they teach in schools these days?

The United States has reduced nuclear weapon stockpiles drastically and negotiated treaties with other nations to do the same.

As for the United States being the "only" nation that launches preemptive strikes and Russia following our example -- have you ever heard ot Pearl Harbor? Or the invasion of the Poland by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? For that matter, wasn't 9/11 a preemptive strike? How many buildings do you think we should let terrorists blow up before we strike back?

this is simple facts - but obviously you wont have a chance to know if you only listen to the propaganda. usa have multiply times resigned from signing agreements to remove nuclear arsenal. they even proposed that 'small' nuclear weapons was alright.

comparing present day with ww2 can hardly justify that usa are the only nation who claims the right to do preemptive strikes - and no, al quada isnt a nation.

your patrioism, nationalism and being blind to reality doesnt really do the world any good. you might belive it if fox news tells you, but just because tv says so, doesnt make it right.

/stone

Lightwolf
12-16-2003, 06:44 AM
Hi lonestar1

Originally posted by lonestar1
Criminals kill innocent people. So do policemen and doctors. That does not mean policemen and doctors are criminals. Criminals kill innocent people by design. Policemen and doctors kill innocent people because it is an unavoidable and accidental consequence of their work. Reasonable people understand the difference.
a) Who defines what is reasoneable and what isn't?
b) Soldiers kill innocent people by design as well... Does that make them criminals?


Calling wholesale torture, abuse of women, mass murder, and other human rights violations "propaganda" is repugnant.
I think he was mainly reffering to the Iraqs 9/11 link (->none) and the so far not found WMDs.
As for humans rights violations -> Guantanamo, nuff said. If you believe in all of the freedoms you mention, you should grant them to _anyone_, otherwise they're not freedoms in a universal sense.


The right to a fair trial. Freedom from torture. And a thousand other things.
...which don't exist in your backyard either (at least for citizens of other countries).


If you don't value those things, so be it. I won't try to convince you that liberty, justice, and prosperity are better than tyranny and poverty. For those who understand, no proof is necessary. For those who don't understand, no proof is sufficient.

The question is, how much do you value them, and what priorities do you give them? How many (and I'm not only reffering to the US here) western countries support tyranny and poverty for their own good?


The United States has reduced nuclear weapon stockpiles drastically and negotiated treaties with other nations to do the same.

http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/NuclearArmsTreaty_NL25.htm
Not that the US have retreated from the ABM treaty on December 14 2001 ( http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2001/6859.htm ).
Also, considering that the US has yet to sign treaties banning land mines, is usings ethically questionable (if that actually makes sense in this context) weapons in warfare (MOB).
Heck, even the source of the anhtrax attacks is believed to be domestic...

As for the United States being the "only" nation that launches preemptive strikes and Russia following our example -- have you ever heard ot Pearl Harbor? Or the invasion of the Poland by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? For that matter, wasn't 9/11 a preemptive strike? How many buildings do you think we should let terrorists blow up before we strike back?
The US are of course not the only nation launching one, however, the only nation launching on in the past 100 years. Germany attacking Poland wasn't a pre-emptive strike, since german agents created an incident as an excuse for Germanys attack in 1939.
9/11 wasn't either, or was Al-Quaida attacking the US because otherwise the US would have attacked them? I think the rationale behind 9/11 was a bit different...
The attack on Iraq was neither an pre-emptive strike, nor a strike in search of WMDs. Whatever is left after that is the rationale by which the current military actions by the occupiers should be judged with.
Cheers,
Mike

3DBob
12-16-2003, 07:02 AM
A few points to throw into the mix.

The WMD race in the middle east was started by Israel - they were supplied a reactor in the 50's by the French. From this and subsequent technology they produced and posess over 200 A-boms. In addition they have produced nearly all the chemical weopons IRAQ was accused of having. This information was from a scientist provided to the UK Sunday Times over a decade ago. It resulted in the individual being illegally incarcerated since then by Israel for blowing the whistle on something that supposidly does not exit!

BTW - my brother lives in Israel and has two children by his Israeli wife. I have good perspective on the Israli side of the argument.

Since the 50's, successive american (NOT AMERICANS ) administrations have had a deliberate policy of support and turning a blind eye to this action. No one questioned the need for the west to develop WMD during the cold war - why should one have expected two very different factions living much closer to not have an arms race.

When the British & French broke up the Ottoman empire (following its takeover from Germany after WW1) - we created the artificial state of Kuwait for our own strategic interests ( read Oil ). One must remember that IRAQ was where agriculture was invented and that in Saddams mind he needed more coastline, and he felt jusified in putting straight a euro imposed injustice. Many other countries have seen to put straight euro imposed injustices before.....

BTW - my girlfriend of 4 years is half Lybian - I have good perspective on the arab/muslim side of the argumen.

When Iraq bombed Iran - there were provided Sattelite spotted target information from who? mmmm don't think they have satellites.

When Iraq bombed Halabja - The WMD & Chemical precursors for them were supplied to them by who? mmmm they didn't have the knowhow or requisite chemical industry then.

IRAQ got its planes and tanks from Russia - so the west was bending over backwards to find favour with them by supplying all sorts of arms and knowledge. That was the politics of the time.

A large number of the people buried in mass graves in IRAQ were conventional victims of the Iran/Iraq war. Misrepresentation of facts is rife at the moment - do not be fooled.

*****
No nukes were used in the gulf war - One of my best friends for 18 years, Steve Luxton ( minister for Transport and Prisons in the Falklands ) gives me authority to say this.
*****
During the first world war the American administration allowed american industry to profiteer massively by providing American steel and armaments to all sides during the conflict. One north american steel company saw profit rise 10 times over pre war profit. They were happy to see the war continue as it was VERY profitable for America.

America ONLY got involved in the european First world war AFTER rising american public protest was topped by the German uboat sinking of the Cunard Lucitania in which 128 American lives were lost. ( germany had declared war on US. ) Previously america had been supporting germany with food shipments etc. Also the Germans had sent a telegram offering support to Mexico to reclaim land previouly stolen by America. mmm sounds a bit like Kuwait?

128 lives lost? The American administration (NOT AMERICANS PAR SE) stood by and watched as 60,000 British and French troops died IN A SINGLE DAY in the battle of the Somme! Not to mention German lives.

See

http://brt.uoregon.edu/cyberschool/history/ch22/22answers.pdf

America became powerful through European need.
************
The attack on the WTC was the only way a non military group in the world could, as one contributor put it "give the west a bloody nose". It was an action that was a product of the simmering resentment of a group who's individuals use 200 times the energy of the average Indian/Afghanistani/African/Chinese.

The words "terrorism" and "terrorist" are used by people in comfortable high energy / high world resource abuse lifestyles to avoid them thinking about the real issues that create them through the attribution of a term of villification.

Simply put, it is my oppinion that "terrorists" are born out of a disproportionate standard of life. Be that lack of respect for their way of life, resources, land or net worth as a human being.

If we ( the UK and US et al.) ignore that Iraqs' resources and culture should be respected and given fair price and forum then we should only expect more of what I call "physical protest".

People are not born Physical Protesters, they are forced by circumstance through seeing the absurd inbalance of wealth that we have in the world.

It could be argued that those individuals that flew planes into the WTC were not flying them into your living room - that was not their intention - they were acting out a statement in what I call the "First World ECONOMIC WAR" - they could not place sanctions on the major abusers of our planet - but they could bring down their greatest symbol of the mechanisms of that abuse.

I'm off to India via Syrian airlines (I figure it's the safest carrier to use right now) on the 22nd to do a loop of the country and be humbled by its poverty ( because the money I earn from using lightwave here in the UK allows me to ). I'm then going to stop off in Syria for 4 days on the way back and see if they are the EVIL SATANISTS that some would have us believe - I may even take a day trip accross the boarder into Iraq and say hi and happy new year to some American troops at the boarder.

Bob

ted
12-16-2003, 10:10 AM
140 posts, 2100 views, WOW!
I hope we keep this thread. There really is some good reading between all the propaganda and slants!:)

Don't forget to try and show respect to each other, even to those who are wrong!;)

Lightwolf
12-16-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by ted
140 posts, 2100 views, WOW!
I hope we keep this thread. There really is some good reading between all the propaganda and slants!:)

Well, for starters you could read this:
http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1957
(1368 posts and 17133 views)
A nice follow-up:
http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3391
(235 posts and 3040 views)
And then return and continue ;)
Cheers,
Mike - come in and join the fun :p

TyVole
12-16-2003, 11:03 AM
Lightwolf,

Just to let you know -- I get a 403 error when I click your infiniMap link.

videoguy
12-16-2003, 12:35 PM
many of the people of the united states that complain about us spending billions in iraq dont realize most of that money is dumped right back into the us ecomny so that means more jobs and better business for everyone

TyVole
12-16-2003, 12:52 PM
Actually, most of the money is going into the pocket of Haliburton, Bechtel, and the other friends of Bush & Cheney, who in turn will finance their campaign in 2004 and provide them tidy pensions when they retire.

videoguy
12-16-2003, 01:16 PM
hey guess what thoose companies are american companies that employ thousands of people so i dont find anythign wrong with it also people in the pentagon decide who gets the contracts not the president

prospector
12-16-2003, 02:56 PM
Just an observation..

Isn't it amazing that as soon as we get the big guy in custody, the French and Germans can't fall over themselves fast enough to want to help out???

Could it be that the world will now find out the infractions they committed against the UN embargo????

And a deal is being made to keep it all secret if they join in.??

Day before capture, they wouldn't give the time of day.
Day after, thay wanna cancel debts and send people in to help.

HMMMM

just an observation.

stone
12-16-2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by prospector
Just an observation..

well, your observation is wrong, since they wanted in long before he was captured.

/stone

ted
12-16-2003, 03:24 PM
Ty, Funny how all of Bill Clinton’s contributors got great deals and PARDONS and nobody said squat.
Cheney WAS, (past tense), CEO with a company, that's been getting contracts before he was in office, now it's a scandal???
Little issues to distract from the great success we've had. Not buying it.

Stone, Yes they wanted in before he was caught, but NOT before there was money in it for them...Selfish and embarrassing!

archiea
12-16-2003, 03:32 PM
Really nice post, 3Dbob, I hope you post after your trip to share with us your experience...


the only thing I found omited from your post is how religion is used to reinforce the hate that is taught. How in many of these states there is wide spread ignorance of the world through the oppression of knowlege, schooling and even broadcasting of information.

there is nothing to stop me from going online and reading an arab newspaper. As an american, there is nothing to stop me from opening a website that criticises my country or our leader. There is nothing that stops me from watching political talk shows that openly debates the policies of this country. there's nothing to stop me from having my own opinions and voicing the here or out in the street...

When thats possible all around the world, then we can start talking about peace...

The terrorist attacked the WTC to cause the greatest impact. They see it as a symbol (not a means, or an economic tool) of western power. As they destroyed the budhist statues, they destroyed the symbol of western might.

It was not a direct attact on the cause of their sanctions... if that was their belief, then they are terrible strategist, because their sanctions are still in place.

Also, the architects of the WTC attact could not care the least of their people or their sanctions. Did yous ee how those terrorist were living? With american styled families, houses, even going to stripperbars... this is not the actions of a deep religious cause or political belief.

So what I see omited from your post is the fact that hate is taught. Misinformation is wielded like a sword. Mass ignornace is augmented by the generalising of western culture as some force against Allah. And its all held together by fear.

I mean, you can go to Cairo, talk to some really educated schollars there, students and so forth, and they genuinely hate the US. There's not talk of our diversity, or our vast muslim culture within our boarders. None.

TyVole
12-16-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by ted
Ty, Funny how all of Bill Clinton’s contributors got great deals and PARDONS and nobody said squat.
Cheney WAS, (past tense), CEO with a company, that's been getting contracts before he was in office, now it's a scandal???
Little issues to distract from the great success we've had. Not buying it.

Stone, Yes they wanted in before he was caught, but NOT before there was money in it for them...Selfish and embarrassing!

Dude, don't try making this a Democrat vs. Republican argument -- they're all corrupt. And it's not true that no one said "squat" about Clinton's scandals. You must not listen to talk radio (although I'm sure you do.)

Cheney was way overpaid at Haliburton because of his inside contacts at the Pentagon. And as soon as there was booty to be had, who got billion-dollar contracts without any competition?

[off-topic]
On the subject of scandalous behavior, Cheney is such a scumbag that he actually got his wife pregnant to avoid the draft. A week after they ended the deferment for married man, Mrs. Cheney was pregnant. And all the while, Cheney was supporting the Vietnam War. Of course, this -- just like Haliburton -- is simply another coincidence.

He -- like GW, Tom Delay; and yes, Clinton -- are all chicken hawks, who are all for war, just as long as it's not them be fired at.
[/off-topic]

Success? What success? We defeated a third-world country for no reason and captured a stupid, second-rate dictator at the cost of what will eventually be hundreds of billions of dollars and possibly thousands of American lives.

What do you consider failure?

stone
12-16-2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by archiea
So what I see omited from your post is the fact that hate is taught. Misinformation is wielded like a sword. Mass ignornace is augmented by the generalising of western culture as some force against Allah. And its all held together by fear.

I mean, you can go to Cairo, talk to some really educated schollars there, students and so forth, and they genuinely hate the US. There's not talk of our diversity, or our vast muslim culture within our boarders. None.

missinformation, mass ignorance, religion, fear and nationalism is well alive and kicking within usa as well - just look at some of the propaganda and ignorance that some of the posts in this discussion contains. its blind reciting of what the medias and goverment tells them.

you can go into any american town and find blind hate towards muslims and their culture just as well.

/stone

3DBob
12-16-2003, 06:29 PM
Hi archiea,

I thank you for your points. I'm not just talking about those that have restrictions to information, or even those that have the muslim faith. My girlfriend is a muslim as is her father, I am a christian by education. Her fathers parents died when their house in Lybia was bombed. I have been to Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Zambia, Malawi and sat in internet cafes with full access to all of the web (even done some banking and checked my renderfarm from Africa). I have read free critical press in all of these countries (although since Zimbabwe has stopped their press) but still, Al-queda has recruited in Kenya. What is evident in these countries is the sheer unimaginable state of poverty in which many people live.

Most of the 9/11 bombers came from Saudi where they have web access, though not such a critical press and from Algeria - Now you can go to a dating site like www.meetic.com and chat with many educated and free algerians. The point is in both countries there is a massive devide between the haves and the have nots. It is the have nots that are desperate enough to not care for their lives - why should they care about hell when they die - they live it every day - they may have a religion, but if they had a comfortable life with a family and meaning they would have a lot to lose and a lot to live for - they would be good xxxxx's (insert religion of your choice).

I think it would be safe to say that many people go into the army/navy etc because they can think of nothing better to do with their lives. I think this is true of those that become Physical Protesters. They know that by themselves they will not be able to balance the injustice and over use of resources by a few. They see a leader or network of reactionaries who have the belief that they can achieve something together and so they are sold a purpose to their life and join up. When they carry out action, they are just performing their new life purpose like a soldier in a conventional army must perform his duty.

I knew when I got to use my first copy of Lightwave on the Amiga Video Toaster (with a standards converter - I'm in the UK) that it was my calling and that it would bring meaning to my life. I could create real looking things that did not exist. It has continued to satisfy me since.

But just imagine you are a man that has just turned 18 in Botswana ( my best fiends dad was chief engineer on a water pipline their for 4 years ) - you are living in a country where 1 in 3 already has AIDS and you have an 80% chance of contracting it during your lifetime. Fortunately for us Botswana is very rich and stable and it can afford western drugs because it has the worlds biggest diamond mine ( I worked for GlaxoSmithKline for 3 years before becoming a full time 3D artist - I know how many drugs can be produced for next to nothing ONCE DEVELOPED ). In just decades though the diamonds will "run dry", their great schools and hospitals will still need money. Will they be so friendly then.

The shear fact that so much talk (including on this forum) has occured around the world on rich countries foreign policy since 9/11 is testiment that the action (WTC etc) has created real debate. No Phisical Protester would expect a politition to change their policy - that would be considered submission to the act itself. No, rather the attack is a statement to the authority that makes the electorate think WHY? It was my Arab girlfriends muslim father that I head about the attacks from first - I was in the garden with some friends puting a wood burner together - I got a call from him and he said "bob, oh my god, have you seen the news..., the most terrible thing, just the most awful thing, look" I looked and shortly after I saw the second plane hit live. I said Why? and I bet many people all over the world did - and that is what these people wanted.

As repeated protest by the poor, dissafected and their sympathisers at global economic conferences shows - standard protest achieves nothing. I mean it is considered a menace to the economic goals of the rich nations. IT IS IGNORED. Since 9/11 we are seeing groups of abused nations grouping together and finding new voice inside these governmental meetings - and it has the Rich nations putting up walls. We cannot turn a blind eye to grievance indefinately - It will come back to haunt us in the end.

The only time in my life that I can remember my government changing its policy was on the poll tax - and it was only after the most violent protest I have ever seen in this country. Things were burnt - bricks were thrown and then policy changed. People had a real grievance, and when peaceful protest produced no outcome, then there will be an escalation of activity.

But this was British people protesting about British governmental policy that directly affected them.

In the case of disproportionate economic might, it is a rich nations foreign policy that affects these less fortunate peoples - but as they have no citizenship of the countries purpertraiting the injustice and abuse, they have no legitimate voice to change that policy - they are impotent in global sense. What international protest does, is give them voice - and what Physical Protestation does is gives them a means by which that voice can create debate and thought amonst actual voting members of those administrations.

What we are seeing is a demand by rich nations that the world trade freely, but on our terms. One man one vote goes out of the window when "it threatens our whole way of life". We need to realise as a species that we are all in this together - and just as we realised that a Nuclear war could only have total global distruction as an outcome, we also need to realise that unsustainable use of world resources will have a similar result.

Even the most optimistic say that with the addition of Russia / Iraq and Alaska pumping hard we are going to see global oil production dropping, certainly in respect to its ratio of consumption within 15 years. Couple this with massive water shortages caused by missuse and environmental change and desertification caused by rising temperatures and the future will see a peak in warring and Physical Protest until the wells run dry and we can't fly planes and we can't drive our 1/2 gallon a mile Abrams tanks and there is nothing left to smash and grab. The environment will have been degraded but so will our capacity to degrade it further and the tables will be even once more.

I look forward to a fairer future - but I wish we could think and behave as the collective organism that we ultimately are, rather than variable quantisations levels of competitive resource hoggers. I would like us to agree to a fairer way of coexisting before the ultimate Physical Protester plays her hand - that of Mother Earth snuffing us out like a candle that ran out of wax or air.

3DBob

TyVole
12-16-2003, 07:57 PM
I thought a little humor might lighten things up a bit . . .

Christmas Brought to Iraq by Force (http://www.theonion.com/3949/top_story.html)

videoguy
12-16-2003, 08:46 PM
first of all gloabal warming is a myth. propogated by the leftist tree huggers that destroy personal property i think that greenpeace is one of the most destructive terrorist groups on the planet. who cares if i drive a suv if i paid for it. it is my legal right to do so. also if i wanna carry a gun and am trained to do so i should be able to as well as hunt

klak
12-16-2003, 09:00 PM
hello
just read through the posts in this thread...
and i am still surprised and disappointed about the rather large count of uncritical, over-patriotic, uninformed and one-sided arguments. It reminds me of the time forums were filled with threads wether to attack Iraq or not.
I am glad Saddam Hussein has been found. No doubt about it.
But did the US government help the situation in Iraq in showing the pictures of him the way they did ? What kind of feelings on either side of the warparticipating parties did that create ? I doubt that it has had the effect they were after. On the contrary. I think to the islamic world and to a lot of people in the western world it only added to the fact that President Bush and his advisers dont have great understanding and interest in the isalmic mentality and way of thinking. And its not the first time one gets this impression i might add.

Being a 42 year old German there was a point in my life when I decided to learn as much as I can about things i fear or simply do not understand in the first place before criticising or blaming or even demonizing someone's culture or believe. This has led to a profound distrust and scepticism of power in general, people in power in particular. And as this is a forum which deals and discusses the world of creating pictures, reproducing and manipulating "reality" this is even more to be kept in mind. Always think twice, always try to see things from a different angle, get information, not propaganda. The world is not going to be more peaceful when delivered so called peace and democracy the way it is done now by the fundamentalists of both worlds...
Do not get me wrong: this is not a pledge for either one of the systems and believes we have to deal with nowadays. What I fear most is that the people of the world fall back into the dark ages so to speak. War is NOT a means to do politics. At least it must not be.

****get your a** up - start thinking****

cholo
12-16-2003, 10:38 PM
I don't believe in global warming either and I am glad you drive your SUV and you are able to afford it. I only think it's a shame that sometimes what it takes for most of us to be able to enjoy our creature comforts is for someone else to suffer. Sometimes it takes a minimum wage worker who's never in his entire life going to be able to afford a single car he built for us to enjoy driving them. Sometimes it takes some 3rd world country like Irak to take the bill for making oil cheaper for some of us. It dissappoints me. There should be a better way AND still be beneficial to all parties involved. But there are also intermediate parties too concerned about their profit to give a damn about the world around them crumbling. I just wonder what they think they are really getting out of it?

prospector
12-16-2003, 10:59 PM
Did I miss somethimg somewhere??

The French and Germans WANTED to help BEFORE we got Saddam??

They wouldn't get rid of the loans, they wouldn't send people, they wouldn't send money.

This was BEFORE we got Saddam??
And not WWII??

The ones we are striking against??
The ones who so far have lost over 5 billion in revenue from American buyers?

The France and Germany located in Europe??

Are you SURE they wanted to help??
Or is it they wanted the UN to take over??

toby
12-16-2003, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by videoguy
many of the people of the united states that complain about us spending billions in iraq dont realize most of that money is dumped right back into the us ecomny so that means more jobs and better business for everyone

schoolboy economics at it's best! Rich people love you! Hailliburton is just throwing money at US citizens! Make the rich richer! Give more money to the greediest people on earth! That'll help the economy!

Halliburton, like any other big business, spends huge sums of money trying to keep as much money as possible, in every way. This includes funding political campaigns, like Bush's, paying employees as little as possible (which they've done by hiring south-east asian labor to rebuild Iraq), charging as much money as possible for the absolute least services you can provide (charging the military $100 per gallon of gas). If you can make a buck, do it. No matter what the cost (as long as it's not money)

toby
12-16-2003, 11:27 PM
this is for you 'patriots' out there to think about -

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliment , or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotsim and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country"

Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshal, at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII, describing the exact tactic that the Republican party uses, and Right-wing voters have fallen for and attempt to use on anyone who disagrees.

toby
12-17-2003, 12:00 AM
"For one thing not one of us has said anything to this effect,"

No? Comparisons to Hitler, Stalin, Al-Queda, etc., calling the US military terrorists, impugning US motives in Iraq and Afghanistan -- those were supposed to be complements, I suppose?

In a pig's eye.

It's Bush and his gang of thugs that compare to evil dictators!

Besides the fact that it's completely IRRELEVANT! Trying to dismiss our arguments by accusing us of hating the military is a cheap ploy.

Lightwolf
12-17-2003, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by prospector
Did I miss somethimg somewhere??

The French and Germans WANTED to help BEFORE we got Saddam??

They wouldn't get rid of the loans, they wouldn't send people, they wouldn't send money.
Germany wanted to get rid of some of the loans before Saddam was caught, yes. Check your news. So did France.
Of course, the US excluding german and french companies from re-construction doesn't really help.
There are already quite a few germans in Iraq, but no military troops (most the military that we can send out is in Afghanistan anyhow).
And I'm sure, if the UN get to spend a more important role in Iraq, Germany and France will offer more help. But right now, why should they pay for action they disapprove?


This was BEFORE we got Saddam??
And not WWII??
This might surprise you: Yes !

The ones we are striking against??
The ones who so far have lost over 5 billion in revenue from American buyers?
I think that goes both ways, and as long as the US imports more from Europe than the other way around that's fine with us. There's more European money invested in the US than vice versa, and you definetely don't want that withdrawn...


The France and Germany located in Europe??

Are you SURE they wanted to help??
Or is it they wanted the UN to take over??
Well, they want to help Iraq, and not the US. After all, this is about the Iraqi people, and not about imperialist (which, for a change, is true) american foreign policy in the middle east.
If you want our help, get the UN involved, if you don't, don't complain. Just don't expect any blind "if you're not with us, you're against us" following, that's what you have Tony Blair for (and he's paying the price for it as well....).

Cheers,
Mike

stone
12-17-2003, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by prospector
Did I miss somethimg somewhere??

yes, it seems like you did, and quite a lot too - if you havnt actually got any clue, why post?

no one will bennefit from more made up conspiracy theories.

/stone

3DBob
12-17-2003, 08:20 AM
One may choose to ignore global warming, but one can not deny that oil is a limited resource. Oil should be used with respect and for aviation/pharmaceuticals/plastics.

I do not want to condemn my grandchildren to a world without oil. And i don't want them to look back at me and cuss me for having a head in the sand attitude to the factually obvious.

British society demands that you have a car to play a full role. But it does not demand that you drive a lorry. I am fortunate that I can buy a SMART car here and have been enjoying driving one for nearly 4 years. They achieve 60.1MPG combined cycle and getting towards 80MPG on the motorway. This means one can drive over 5 times the distance of some SUVs on the same gallon of fuel.

One can be irresponsible with resource, it is a human choice - I run a render farm and regularly get sent files with reflection blurring on everything, 16 ray trace bounces, huge image maps for video res renders, objects with 100,000s of polys that render 4 pixels high. It is the choice of the customer - but every cycle is sacred and I try and impress on customers that sqandering them will only cost them more in the long run. Will they listen? Maybe if they can see the cost immediately - but what if they were blissfully unaware of the effects of their actions - well then my profits will soar on their ignorance - but I will be using up a finite resource, and less customers will get their jobs done.

3DBob

Matt
12-17-2003, 08:35 AM
3DBob said "get sent files with reflection blurring on everything"

Hey it was late when I set it up! Gimme a break! ;)

- - - -

And on another note:

Matt
12-17-2003, 08:36 AM
and another!

prospector
12-17-2003, 01:36 PM
schoolboy economics at it's best

This is what is tought in school now by liberal teachers.

Where in reality, just like all the money spent in Europe and Japan to rebuild them after WWII, it has come back to the US a thousand times over, with all sorts of jobs created here to take care of all buisnesses created by that investment.

So that way of thinking is way off base.


(charging the military $100 per gallon of gas).

There is no-one charging $100 per gallon of gas.

So that was just a lie.


Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy

In reality it IS the common people who decide by voting in people who won't bow down to anyone, and who take the Constitution seriously.


Trying to dismiss our arguments by accusing us of hating the military is a cheap ploy.

Actually it IS the liberals who keep cutting the military.


One may choose to ignore global warming

Can't ignore something that isn't there. Because of fossle records from the Northern regions of Canada, Alaska, Russia, we can see that at one time there was warmer weather closer to the poles.
And as humans have been here for such a short time compared to the total time of this planet and records have only been kept for an even shorter time, there is no evidence that anything happining now hasn't happened before in the life of this planet. And that the human is causing anything.
So unless the enviromentalist can prove without a doubt that todays warming is not a natural cycle of the planet and that only humans are causing it, thier views will be suspect.


and not about imperialist (which, for a change, is true)
Actually not true. we are not making it a state of the US, nor are we making it a territory of the US or a colony of the US. Just as we always do, we give the land back to the owners in prewar ownership, because after ya win a war you can claim all the land for yourself, but we have enough people living off the backs of workers now and don't need more.

TyVole
12-17-2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by prospector
This is what is tought in school now by liberal teachers.
Actually, the concept of having the goverment spend large amounts of money to drive economic growth is a form of socialism. I always thought you conservatives were against large government spending.

Where in reality, just like all the money spent in Europe and Japan to rebuild them after WWII, it has come back to the US a thousand times over, with all sorts of jobs created here to take care of all buisnesses created by that investment.

Interesting. The Marshall Plan was actually proposed by a liberal Democrat and bitterly opposed by right-wing Republicans. It can rightfully be considered an offshoot of the New Deal.

There is no-one charging $100 per gallon of gas.
So that was just a lie.

They actually overcharged $1.09 per gallon for 57 million gallons -- an overcharge of over 61 million dollars. And it's not a lie -- GW has publically stated that they will have to pay it back.

Actually not true. we are not making it a state of the US, nor are we making it a territory of the US or a colony of the US. Just as we always do, we give the land back to the owners in prewar ownership

Yeah? What about the Indians?

archiea
12-17-2003, 04:28 PM
3Dbob,

The "danger" in your view is that you are finding ways to explain or justify the attacks.. I've heard this before, especially just after 911. It was similiar to what the Saudi prince said when he gave NY mayor Guiliani a check for 10 million, where he commented that perhaps now the US would reconsider its Foreign policy. Guiliani prompt refused the 10 million, stating that there is no rationale or reason to attack innocent people....

yes, there may be a certain reality to the fact that when people go unheard, that they will go to extreme measures to make their point...

But that is gorssly generalizing.

You have to remember, we have far more in common with the barbarians of germania and the Romans than we do with any sort of notion of peace. When the US was at war with japan, we knew they were going to fight until the last man. We nuked two of their industrial cities to remove their ability to wage war, at the great cost of japanes lives. To the humanitarian, that was a mistake because of the loss of innocent lives. To the tactician, it was the better choice as the goal was to save american lives, not just lives..

But that is what it comes down to... Protecting your way of life... as any nation has done in human history. with the threat of annihilation to keep all parties in check, be it by catapult, sheer numbers , or by a nuclear threat.

And that is what one has to ask, Is it worth the price to keep you way of life. If we didn't in WWII, we would have had a japan occipied US all the way up to the missisippi river.

The current war has no borders, no allegance. Its a war of cultures brought about through an extreme existance. Were there is an Allah there are infidels, and its when the beleif that all infidels must die that our problem is....

Aqnother issue is getting allof these tribes to agree on something... when we were in Somalia, when asked about peace, tirbes individually said yes they wanted it. When ask if they would bury the hatchet with their feuding tribe, they would refuse.. Remember that tribes are the basic and dynamic of human social structures, with successors in place should the leader falls as it so often happens.

You try to unite that. You try to quell that hate. You combine that with the poverty and the ignorance, and the reliance on religion for structure, and take it to the leathal extreme.

As the only super power, its easy to be targeted as the infidel. Couple with that the fact that we, as well as england and russia, have been using these middle eastern countries as pawns in the super power fueds, disrupting their way of life by injecting communism and weopons, you will get a hornets nest.

Its a mess that we have contgributed to, but its also a mess fueled by their own in fighting and by the hate that is taught. Look at how some of these dictators treat their people?

The reality is that it is a war of cultures, and it is one where people are slapping labels of "good" and "evil" with no grey area. I just don't think that we should in any way justify terrorist acts. So often the cause gets muddied and all is left are a desparate people who think that killing innocent people because of their race/religion is the answer.

prospector
12-17-2003, 05:25 PM
I always thought you conservatives were against large government spending.

No..we're against WASTFUL govt spending.

NASA spending is good (we should have claimed the moon for our own tho)
Military spending is good
(as long as it isn't wasted on $800 hammers and toilet bowls)

Paying people to stay home instead of getting jobs isn't good spending (ie; welfare and unimployment)

Transferring wealth to those who don't try isn't good spending
(again welfare and unimployment)

Paying people NOT to grow things is wastfull

Social Security is wastefull.


The Marshall Plan was actually proposed by a liberal Democrat

Didn't mention who did it, just mentioned that its return on investment as compared to money invested in Iraq. I thought it was a good thing.


They actually overcharged $1.09 per gallon for 57 million gallons

I just pointed out that the charge of $100 per gallon was a lie.


And it's not a lie -- GW has publically stated that they will have to pay it back.

No, he said they will have to pay it back IF they find that it wasn't a legal charge. So if they were charged 1.00 per gallon and then sold it to the military for 1.09 then that's a fair markup,
However if they bought it for .50 a gal and sold it for 1.09 then that isn't fair.




Yeah? What about the Indians?

I was replying to the idea that we were making Iraq a part of the US.
As for the indians... I wasn't there to see the treaties or bill of sales for land, so I have no knowledge of those transactions...BUT... I would also not believe any re-written politically corrected history.

BUT I just upgraded to LW8 and should be here next week. And THAT is good spending:D

3DBob
12-17-2003, 05:32 PM
Because of fossle records from the Northern regions of Canada, Alaska, Russia, we can see that at one time there was warmer weather closer to the poles.

Any scientist worth their bursary is aware of this fact. Yes there have been variations in global temperatures, some of which have been greater than that which has occured recently, and yes, there is geological proof of this. The difference is that these temperature variations are due to earths 100,000 year ice age cycle.

In the past, the long term temperature variation has occurred over many many thousands of years. This has alowed the animals and vegitation of this planet to literally creep north or south as required, and to adapt as necesary (think of the woolly mammoth / elephant) therefore the event is less distructive.

There have also been periods of temperature variation on similar timescales that have been due to unusually high volcanic activity.

Also there is also what is termed the The "Little Ice Age" and the "Medieval Warm Period". Whilst not as significant as current changes they were over several decades, but these were due to sun spot activity being abnormally low or high respectively.

In the past 100 years or so, and at an accelerating pace, there has been an indisputable increase in global average temperatures of approximately .5 degrees. There is no abnormal sunspot or volcanic activity and the rate of change is far in excess of that which could be attributed to the earths natural ice age cycle. Global average temperature is expected to rise by 2 degrees if we can keep emmisions at todays level. The UK has temperature records spanning several hundred years and 5 of the warmest years ever have been in the last decade.

I climbed Kilimanjaro in 2001 achieving a childhood dream. I stood on the glacier at the top a little south of the equator. The ice on kilimanjaro has retreated 80% since 1912 and is expected to have dissappeared within 15-20 years, plunging huge communities and ecosystems in to a waterless chaos. And this story is echoed on mountain glaciers globally. Scotlands skiing has been cancelled for the last two years and many classic ski resorts worldwide are being theatened with less and less snow.

Two facts are indisputable, CO2 makes a closed system retain heat and Oil is a limited resource. If one convinces onself that Global Warming is a fallacy and that irresponsible use of oil doesn't matter, then I suppose one could at least absolve themselves of guilt when ones grandchildren suffer.

I personally tend to the cautious approach. I ask myself what could be the future? - do I really need to use so much? - what influence will my generations actions have on my grandchildrens future and quality of life? What is the point of having offspring if one paves the way for the destruction of the thing (the earth) that supports their life?

BTW I am yet to have kids. But I want to.


So unless the enviromentalist can prove without a doubt that todays warming is not a natural cycle of the planet and that only humans are causing it, thier views will be suspect.

Something can be true without a proof - some people require more proof than others - do we need economic desaster before action?

Scientists kept telling the canadian grand banks fisheries that if they continued to fish Cod the way they were, the stock would collapse. They ignored the advice and the the industry collapsed. We are approaching the same state of affairs here in the waters around the UK.

The environment lags our actions by several decades, by the time it gets really bad, it will take two generations to fix.

Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. You don't have a car accident until you do - up until the event, one could argue there is no evidence that ones driving habits will put them at risk.

3DBob

3DBob
12-17-2003, 06:03 PM
Hi archiea,

My discourse is aimed at demonstrating that the act has caused people to think. Just as a 30 year drought or series of weather extremes may cause people to think about global climate change.

Physical Protesters don't act for fun. They do it because they seek to right a percieved injustace. If a foriegn policy like the one I put forward in one of my earlier posts was adopted - these people could only see the rich nations as philanthopic and a force for good in the world.

I would rather see our taxpayers money pre-emptively solving peoples real human needs than interfering like a nuisance do-gooder in a family (read tribe/religoeus group etc.) fued. If we can't by nature of our up-bringing uderstand the dynamics and relationships within a group of people, then we should not presume to know what is best for them. What we can know is that every human group likes water, food, shelter, good health & respect. If our countries can provide these things for other world peoples then great - we will be better off for it.

I hope that between us (the US & UK - and potentially now the UN) we can provide these things for the peoples of Iraq / Afganistan and then get out quick - and let them make something of it in their own way. We must not forget that a lot of blood was shed in the course of the formation of many democracies including our own. These peoples need that muddle through peoriod - security of life's needs will acellerate the process though.

After resolving this - we should extend the same courtesy to other disadvantaged peoples - because thankful people are less likely to slap you in the face.

3DBob

TyVole
12-17-2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by prospector
[B]No..we're against WASTFUL govt spending.

NASA spending is good (we should have claimed the moon for our own tho)
Military spending is good
(as long as it isn't wasted on $800 hammers and toilet bowls)

Paying people to stay home instead of getting jobs isn't good spending (ie; welfare and unimployment)

Transferring wealth to those who don't try isn't good spending
(again welfare and unimployment)

Paying people NOT to grow things is wastfull

Social Security is wastefull.

Didn't mention who did it, just mentioned that its return on investment as compared to money invested in Iraq. I thought it was a good thing.
Regardless whether welfare is given to irresponsible individuals or greedy multinational corporations, it's bad policy and makes no economic sense -- except for those who directly benefit it.


I just pointed out that the charge of $100 per gallon was a lie.

No, he said they will have to pay it back IF they find that it wasn't a legal charge. So if they were charged 1.00 per gallon and then sold it to the military for 1.09 then that's a fair markup,
However if they bought it for .50 a gal and sold it for 1.09 then that isn't fair.

Dude, they 0VERCHARGED by $1.09 per gallon. They OVERCHARGED $61 million dollars on a contract they didn't even have to competitively bid on. You don't consider this wasteful spending?

And spending at least a hundred billion dollars to defeat a third-world nation without any cause whatsoever isn't wasteful?

toby
12-18-2003, 02:10 AM
quote:
"Trying to dismiss our arguments by accusing us of hating the military is a cheap ploy."

"Actually it IS the liberals who keep cutting the military."

What's your point? Liberals cut military spending because we don't need 14 times as many aircraft carriers than the rest of the planet (we have 13 times now). Even if that did 'prove' that we 'hate' the military, it's still irrelevant, and still a cheap ploy.

"Social Security is wastefull."

Better to kick old and crippled people out on the street. People who have paid into SS their whole lives.

TyVole
12-18-2003, 04:22 AM
He probably won't find SS wasteful when becomes old and needy. That is, unless he likes the taste of dog food.

videoguy
12-18-2003, 05:54 AM
its is a commly know fact that jucking japan in ww2 was not a mistake.many tactians had estimated that 10 million japanese would have died becuase they would have armed everyone when they ran out of guns they were going to use swords when they ran out of swords they were going to use rocks and sharpened bamboo sticks. i think that nuking thoose cities and killing a few houndred thousand people instead of 10 million was a good choice. fast forward to today UNICEF said that becuase of saddams polices he killed 36,000 iraqis a year 24,000 of them being children now i personallly think its worth it to do what we did and save thoose lives

TyVole
12-18-2003, 06:40 AM
I agree with you about Japan. I don't know how anyone can accurately estimate theoritical causalties, but certainly millions of Japanese and Americans would've died if we hadn't used the bomb, and Japan would've been completely torched.

But I'm not buying your human rights argument concerning Iraq. We don't give a damn about the millions of people currently suffering human rights abuses. We only care when it gives us an excuse to do what we would have done anyway.

In fact, at outset of the war, no one was justifying it because of human rights violations. It was justified on the grounds of WMD. And when they didn't find any, all of a sudden they came up with this human rights argument, which FOX news, the radio talk shows, and the majority of the American public bought -- hook, line, and sinker.

Lightwolf
12-18-2003, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by TyVole
I agree with you about Japan. I don't know how anyone can accurately estimate theoritical causalties, but certainly millions of Japanese and Americans would've died if we hadn't used the bomb, and Japan would've been completely torched.
Sorry, I don't.

a) One bomb would have been enough, however, the second one followed so shortly after the second that Japan had no time to recover from the shock and react.

b) It is even questionable whether bombing cities was neccessary then, dropping a bomb in the bay of Tokio would have been just has effective from a psychological pov.

They had built it, and they needed it tested in real life.

Cheers,
Mike

TyVole
12-18-2003, 07:42 AM
After we dropped the first bomb, we gave Japan a chance to surrender. They didn't.

It's easy to judge what happened through the eyes of someone living today, but if you were Truman at that moment of time, you would probably have a different perspective.

Tens of millions of people had already died in that war, and Japan had an established a very militaristic society. Also, keep in mind, I don't believe any country in history had ever successfully invaded Japan.

It's easy to say that dropping a bomb in the Bay of Tokyo would've been sufficient, but you really don't know that for sure. If they didn't surrender after Hiroshima, I think it would've been far less likely they would've surrendered under your scenario.

Lightwolf
12-18-2003, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by TyVole
After we dropped the first bomb, we gave Japan a chance to surrender. They didn't.
I believe the second bomb was dropped three days after the first. I'm not sure if that was enough time for the then already demoralized japanese to realize what was going on.

It's easy to judge what happened through the eyes of someone living today, but if you were Truman at that moment of time, you would probably have a different perspective.
That is true, of course, but even then there were plenty of people warning Truman of using the bomb (Einstein comes to mind first).


It's easy to say that dropping a bomb in the Bay of Tokyo would've been sufficient, but you really don't know that for sure. If they didn't surrender after Hiroshima, I think it would've been far less likely they would've surrendered under your scenario.
Well, on the other side it's easy to say that _not_ dropping one wouldn't have worked. However, the (for example bay of Tokio) alternative would have saved lives, and the US would still have had the other options...
http://www.dannen.com/decision/

This however, would get us miles O.T., even though it would be an interesting debate...

Cheers,
Mike

videoguy
12-18-2003, 08:32 AM
tell you what guys i say we close this thread down it has gotten hugely off topic and dosent belong on newteks forums so lets just let this one die ok? even though i was really enjoying it

prospector
12-18-2003, 10:02 AM
Exactly what I was thinking about


(think of the woolly mammoth / elephant)

Because some have been unearthed with fresh clover in thier mouths and stomachs, sometimes the weather can have drastic changes. Not created by humans.

I don't think global warming is a fallacy, just that humans are doing it by themselves. And what would it really harm? wheat fields will move north some, banana plantations will move north some, Middle latitudes will have to use less oil to heat homes, Sweden will have longer growing seasons.

And yes, humans CAN have an impact on small areas (like your fish example) but not on a global scale. I could go out an out a bucket of salt in the little 50 square foot pond by my house and kill everything in it, but then other kinds of life will find it nice to live in and will again grow life in it. But taking out a bucket of salt from the atlantic will have no effect whatsoever.
Being from Calif, there was more smoke from the fires we just had that burned almost a million acres in the air that there has been in years of smoke humans put in the same area.


If enviromentalists so believed in what they say, then why don't they pool all thier money, build a new type of energy source, set up a gas station type delivery system, like the oil companies did, and go into compatition against them???
If they sooo believed in thier mantra, they would be billionaires.

Why do they have to FORCE others to live thier way???


greedy multinational corporations
no such thing as corporate welfare.
They don't get money for doing nothing, they just have less money STOLEN from them in the form of taxes and regulations.
Try running a buisness and see what I mean.


Dude, they 0VERCHARGED by $1.09 per gallon.
I haven't seen any reports on what the initial charge for the fuel was, the cost of delivery,or any other numbers about the costs to the delivering company or the contract details, so how do they KNOW there was a 1.09 overcharge? The investigation just started.


Better to kick old and crippled people out on the street. People who have paid into SS their whole lives.

No, it's better to let them invest thier money in what THEY want, so they could get a better return. And NOT force them to GIVE money to the government. I would have a much better retirement if I could have invested the SS money that was STOLEN from me for the last 40 years of working.


the second one followed so shortly after the second that Japan had no time to recover from the shock and react.

So how much time does someone need? 12 years and 17 warnings? They could have been on the radio and surrendered within hours.




lets just let this one die ok?
No-one is getting mean or calling others names and it is SO FAR very civil and interesting to see how other LW users think.
We are all LW users and not someone coming here that isn't.

Long as it STAYS civil.

Lightwolf
12-18-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by prospector
If enviromentalists so believed in what they say, then why don't they pool all thier money, build a new type of energy source, set up a gas station type delivery system, like the oil companies did, and go into compatition against them???
If they sooo believed in thier mantra, they would be billionaires.
Well, that is already happening in a small scale. One of the problems is however that conventional energy is heavily subsidized all around the globe (who pays for nuclear waste? You and me, the taxpayer, not the corps that run the show).

Why do they have to FORCE others to live thier way???
Because you are forcing your way upon others as well. As long as you interact in a society, that's what you do to an extent. You force me to breathe in the air you pollute with your (hypothetical) SUV...

No such thing as corporate welfare.
There is such as a thing as a corporations responsibility toward society, but this has been going down in the last couple of decades...

They don't get money for doing nothing, they just have less money STOLEN from them in the form of taxes and regulations.
How do you define subsidies?

Try running a buisness and see what I mean.
I do and I don't ;)

So how much time does someone need? 12 years and 17 warnings? They could have been on the radio and surrendered within hours.
Well, I was replying to videoguys argument about Japan, and his "well known facts" that are definetly not well known and under heavy discussion up to this day.
There were 3 days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not 12 years and 17 warnings... ?!

No-one is getting mean or calling others names and it is SO FAR very civil and interesting to see how other LW users think.

But I can call 'yer Bob, can't I ? ;)
Cheers,
Mike - who agrees with prospector... as far as his last paragraph is concerned, which is a start. :p

TyVole
12-18-2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by prospector

no such thing as corporate welfare.
They don't get money for doing nothing, they just have less money STOLEN from them in the form of taxes and regulations.
Try running a buisness and see what I mean.


Giving corporations free money without anything in return IS welfare. And giving free money to a corporation that has intimate ties to the Administration might even be criminal.

Without taxes, dude, where would they get the 87 BILLION dollars for this war?

And I do run a business. You shouldn't make assumptions about me or anyone else.



I haven't seen any reports on what the initial charge for the fuel was, the cost of delivery,or any other numbers about the costs to the delivering company or the contract details, so how do they KNOW there was a 1.09 overcharge? The investigation just started.


The Pentagon itself determined Haliburton overcharged after performing an audit. It's not such a difficult thing to determine. And don't make it out that this is some unproven accusation -- it's been proven -- by the Pentagon no less.

3DBob
12-18-2003, 12:01 PM
Hi prospector,


Being from Calif, there was more smoke from the fires we just had that burned almost a million acres in the air that there has been in years of smoke humans put in the same area.

Wow - I'm glad you brought this one up - it is the perfect example of how we effect our environment. The majority of those fires were started deliberatly, by humans. It only takes one nutter with a lighter or careless dumping of a cigarette butt to start a fire - and you've got, what 60million in california? (not nutters that is) Chances are, they'll be someone starting fires every day.

Globally over 80% of vegitation fire is started either diliberately or by accident by human activity. Additionally, long periods of drought and higher temperatures, however they come about, will put vegitation into a tinderbox state. They then become more likely to ignite and burn out of control.

This is what is called accellerated positive feedback - global warming increases chance of fire - fire increases global warming.

Since burning of hydrocarbons adds greenhouse gases and 80% of these fires are caused by human activity - it is not a great leap of the imagination to conclude that we, as a species, may be having an effect on our environment.

The single most shocking event of this nature was the fires started by multinational logging companies in Sumatra and Borneo. (dileberate human action accounting for upto 40% of the global greenhouse emmisions in that year):-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2413375.stm

Think about that when you walk on laminate/wood flooring.

Also there is a knock-on effect......

"In 1997-98, five million hectares of forest burnt [diliberately] in Borneo. Of the resulting coal fires that started, 159 are still burning; 106 we have extinguished," he said.

This kind of human activity results in massive coal seams being set alight:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2003/denver_2003/2759983.stm

Here are further examples:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1977986.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2043476.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2548177.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3110387.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3170794.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3124745.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3120003.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2860367.stm

Many of these events are described as (and are historically) the worst in living memory - this should concern us. Most worryingly - vegitation is the very thing that removes the greenhouse gas CO2. Again this redoubles the positive feedback loop resulting in an acceleration of global warming.

In addition, over 70% of Guatamalas, and similar areas of Costa Ricas forests were burnt in the last 30years to provide land for American corporations Banana plantations. I've been there - Guatamala produces 4 billion bent yellow things a year - try and render that lot in lightwave without an instancing plug-in.

Nearly 80% of Sabahs forests where slashed and burnt to make way for palm oil plantations - I've flown over it - it looks like a 10,000 metre texture displaced subdiv with a top down palm tree image tiled at a texture scale of .01mm! Think of that the next time you eat something that contains, or is cooked with, vegitable oil.

Now I can't stop a nutter setting fire to my local nature reserve. But I can use less hydrocarbons - and I can refuse to consume wood from South America, Indonesia and the Congo.

3DBob

prospector
12-18-2003, 05:54 PM
who pays for nuclear waste?

Yes we do, same as waste in any other company in the world we buy stuff from. If you go to have a sheet of metal cut from a 4 X 8 sheet, you will be paying for the whole sheet if there isn't enough left that they can use, even tho you don't use the whole thing.
If you get siding for your house, do they refund money for all those 1 foot lenths left over that you didn't use?.


Well, that is already happening in a small scale

Don't do on a small scale.. do it right, do it all if it's so good for the world.


You force me to breathe in the air you pollute with your (hypothetical) SUV...

:) As I tell the non-smoking police we have here...If smoke really bothers you then hold your breath till I'm done.


corporations responsibility toward society
corporate responsibility is to shareholders, and to make them money.


There were 3 days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not 12 years and 17 warnings... ?!
And I was asking..how long do they need? 12 years and 17 warnings like Iraq got?


How do you define subsidies?
Subsidies are things given to people and corps in repayment or wrightoffs from taxes.

yes people get subsidies..like tax wrightoffs for home loan taxes.

Why don't they stop subsidies for everyone and NOT STEAL the taxes in the first place????


I do and I don't
You have no buisness taxes or any regulations that govern your buisness in any way??? And if there are, don't you pass the cost on to the customer? Like any other buisness?


Mike - who agrees with prospector... as far as his last paragraph is concerned, which is a start.

WOO HOO !!! your coming my way:D :D


Giving corporations free money Name a corp that goes to some office and gets a check for free money,or even name the program that gives them free money.
Or is it just getting a tax break that you call free money??


it's been proven
Haven't seen a cost analysis sheet yet. Where did you see one??


- it is the perfect example of how we effect our environment.
Yes it is..if it wasn't for the enviromentalist laws, then all of that underbrush (ie Tinder) could have been cleaned by people who have fireplaces. The dead trees from the beetle plague could have been timbered and fire trails made into the woods so firefighting equipment may have gotten in easier.3000 homes would be still up and lots of people wouldn't be dead.There have been larger and larger fires since the enviromentalists got thier hands in forestry than before they were formed in the 70s.


Most worryingly - vegitation is the very thing that removes the greenhouse gas CO2
Yes it does and science has proven that 1 acre of lawn grass cleans more air and releases more oxygen than 1 acre of trees.
And 1 acre of grassy fields has more animal life than 1 acre of woods, which is easy enough to see just by going into the woods and see how many animals and insects live there compared to a grassy,weedy field. And in last study, we now have more trees in US than before pilgrims got here by lumbering and replanting, it's just not in the same spots as before.

3DBob
12-18-2003, 07:37 PM
Yes it is..if it wasn't for the enviromentalist laws, then all of that underbrush (ie Tinder) could have been cleaned by people who have fireplaces.

This is a well known and valid argument - less ground fuel in very dessicated forests will reduce fire spread. However it is only a small pixel in the overall print res render that is forestry management. Additionally this argument is only valid in countries like America and Australia etc. were forests are "managed". It is irrelevant in the rainforests of the world. Totally irrelevant in the Kalimantan fires of 1995 that I provided a link to in my last post.

It is underbrush that helps accidental fires start and feeds them after starting yes, but the fact remains that prior to man there was no management of this sort and forest biodiversity has evolved with this in mind ( hence, the environmental view ). Trees, insects and animals gain much of their nutrients from fungal and opportunist organisms that live off the decaying matter. The problem is that America now only has 5% of its original tree cover 70% of which has been cleared in the last 300 years. This means that whereas a fire like this is significant now - it was a mere blip to the health of the ecosystem before. A graze instead of a gaping wound if you like. Animals could just re-locate to a unburnt bit.


There have been larger and larger fires since the enviromentalists got thier hands in forestry than before they were formed in the 70s.

Mmmm, now we are getting somewhere. Apart from the finger pointing there have been some other major factors at play. Firstly the rate of increase of mean global temperatures has been at its greatest during this period 70-03 (what one attributes this to is irrelevant.) Secondly the population of the US has gone from 205m to nearly 293m in the same period.

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

This is a slower rate of growth than in the rest of the world, global population doubled every 27 years in the last century! But California suffers from high immigration and proportionally its population growth has outstipped that of many US states. In 1970 under 20 million, 2001 34.5 million.

That means that very soon there are going to be 2 times the nutters with a lighter and two times the accidents - all in a warmer, drier climate. Additionally, higher population puts greater pressure on ground water reserves, making the ground more likely to be dry, as well as low availability of water to fight any fires that do occur. I'm really not very supprised the situation is getting worse! Don't for a minute think that clearing the undergrowth and puting a few fire breaks in will solve the problem.


Yes it does and science has proven that 1 acre of lawn grass cleans more air and releases more oxygen than 1 acre of trees.

Even if this were true in tropical regions - it is impossible to put grass everywhere. The Amazon and Congo Basin have some of the poorest soils in the world - often no more than a few inches of soil on sand. This is the reason a farmer has to slash and burn in order to have enough nutrients to farm and ranch the land for a few years. After which desertification occurs. Nasa and ESA has some fantastic sattellite imagery of this if one cares to look. The fact is, grass just can't hold it together and it does not create the rainforest ecosystem. Most people are unaware that over 70% of the rain that falls in a rainforest, is transpired by the trees themselves. Remove the trees and you get the remaing 26% or so from sea sourced precipitation. Around the equator - that amount of rain reduction would be a major drought and the result would be catastrophic - grass, what grass - the evapouration rate, far outstrips precipitation.


And 1 acre of grassy fields has more animal life than 1 acre of woods

I would love to see the evidence for this. I can believe that it may be the case in some small selected comparisons. Maybe it is true in some parts of California, but as large as the state is, it is only small fraction of the earths biodiversity.

Take Equadorian forest - over 300 mammals and the largest range of bird species in the world per square mile. Some reserves there have 450+ bird species. With similar biodiversity in reptillian, insect, fungus, bacteria, protozoa and algae.

The average fallow pastureland in Equador has a rediculously small subset of these creatures by comparison. Once it is desertified, major rates of extinctions occur.

It is for this reason that the millenium sead bank was built here in the UK just a few miles from me - Its goal is to prepare and Liquid Nitrogen freeze seeds from plants/trees etc around the world that are threatened by global warming/monoculture farming and other human activity. Some seeds if prepared properly can last 100s of years. There first target are the drier climates of the world. They are not saying "global warming is not going to happen", they are saying - "when it does - we'll have tried". Sadly this cannot be done for animals and other lesser creatures.

We cannot solve our problems by felling everything and grassing it. And we cannot ignore that overuse of hydrocarbons negativly exacerbates the issues of climatic and biodiversity stability.

3DBob

prospector
12-18-2003, 09:26 PM
5% of its original tree cover 70% of which has been cleared in the last 300 years

True of the coverage, but total trees in aggragate there are more.

Because of reforestation by loggers.
The tree farms of N.Carolina, Southern VA, Mississippi,Alabama, S.Carolina,Georgia and Florida, have never had fires, and the workers smoke there but they clean the deadwood,clear underbrush, and have many roads (dirt) that cut all thru forests.These are thousands of acres each in large square plots with hundreds per farm.
If you manage a forest correctly then there would never be any problems. they have it set so that each farm can cut 1000 acres per year and replant that section and it won't be cut again for 20 years as they move to other plots.

Why won't the enviromentalists let the rest of the country be managed correctly?
The same management ideas can be put into action anywhere in the world.

As for the rain forests, if there IS global warming, they will move to the temperate zones with the temperate zone trees moving more northerly, so nothing is really lost, the Gobi desert would fill with trees and cool off. The frozen tundra of Russia and Canada would fill with Pine trees. It would all even out.


However it is only a small pixel in the overall print res render that is forestry management.
Not here. Enviromental laws have designed so called 'Wild and wilderness areas' where you can't even go into the woods and touch a leaf. Yet they will let whole forests burn, rather than let it be cleared of underbrush. Use to be able to camp in the woods and that helped by letting campers build campfires with trash wood.
It's not that I don't want to see woods, it is just that enviromentalists go WAY WAY overboard.
I'm hoping to see some lawsuits here in Calif over these last fires and the enviromentalists groups are sued out of existance, and the State govt is sued for billions for lost property and deaths resulting from thier adherance to silly laws.

cholo
12-18-2003, 10:03 PM
Prospector:

You seem to be very concerned with profit margins, corporate culture, investemnts, etc... However you seem to forget corporations do have a responsibility towards society as much as they do towards their investors as society is their customer base and it us who are providing the profit by purchasing their goods and services... In the end, the only thing money really buys you is someone else's labour. When profits are really high, someone is not getting their hard work's worth and someone is getting too much. When such is the case you can spare some of your profit and "return the favor" if you will. In the end this will even the scale a bit and replenish your customer base. Such is the case of philantropic endeavours of the corporate world and they actually help a great deal.

It appears to me that you've never been in touch with any segments of society that would without social support programs have no opportunities at all. Opportunities to grow as individuals and to contribute to society which in return makes for more potential customers and in the long run... yes, more profit. But even if it is too hard to believe, some people are too concerned with basic survival (a place to sleep and something to eat) to really consider concepts such as investments, profits or even having a bank account for that matter. I'd be more than happy to be your tour guide of the third world and then you tell me if social support is a waste of taxpayers money.

gjjackson
12-19-2003, 06:10 AM
Here we go again. People just can't let loose of Socialism. That's the Only problem in this country, legislators trying their best to implement socialism. It doesn't work no matter how you try to justify it. This country tried it in it's early beginnings and quickly learned the fallacy of it.

Prospector wrote:

[Not here. Enviromental laws have designed so called 'Wild and wilderness areas' where you can't even go into the woods and touch a leaf. Yet they will let whole forests burn, rather than let it be cleared of underbrush. Use to be able to camp in the woods and that helped by letting campers build campfires with trash wood.
It's not that I don't want to see woods, it is just that enviromentalists go WAY WAY overboard.
I'm hoping to see some lawsuits here in Calif over these last fires and the enviromentalists groups are sued out of existance, and the State govt is sued for billions for lost property and deaths resulting from thier adherance to silly laws.]

And come to find out the main reason these environmentalists are so adamant in the extremism is they file lawsuits against the government and reap monetary rewards for such. 'Follow the money'. It's all about money. That is one way the extremists make their living, buy suing. I'd like to see a news organization actually investigate what's truly behind their ideology. It's partly anti-capitalist but not totally.

Lightwolf
12-19-2003, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by gjjackson
Here we go again. People just can't let loose of Socialism.
Hey, if you wanna be unsocial, you should go live in the woods on your own ;) . As long as your in touch with other human beings, you can't ignore the social implications of actions. And please don't mingle socialism, communism with, for example, a socialist democracy. That's like calling capitalism anarchy, and doesn't help the arguments on either side one bit.
Neither, pure capitalism nor pure socialism work, and both have failed (just as "everybody is equal" is a myth, so is "the market will regulate itself", or better yet, the notion of a free market).
Cheers,
Mike

TyVole
12-19-2003, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by gjjackson
Here we go again. People just can't let loose of Socialism. That's the Only problem in this country, legislators trying their best to implement socialism. It doesn't work no matter how you try to justify it. This country tried it in it's early beginnings and quickly learned the fallacy of it.


The number one socialist in the world right now is GW Bush. Only instead of giving to the poor, he's redistributing the wealth of this country to the military complex.

He's also funding a socialistic bureaucracy in Iraq with our tax dollars.

Beamtracer
12-19-2003, 06:55 AM
• Why is the US going to try Saddam Hussein on charges for crimes he committed in the 1980s with US blessing?

• Who supplied him with the weaponry to commit those crimes?

• Why are the US and Britain so concerned about crimes against humanity when they have committed such crimes themselves (like killing a half million Iraqis with sanctions)?

• Does the United States want Saddam executed to avoid the embarrassing information that would be revealed in an international trial?

• Isn't the execution of captives against the Geneva Convention?

3DBob
12-19-2003, 08:08 AM
True of the coverage, but total trees in aggragate there are more

To clarify, I think this statement means, yes it is true that there was 70% deforestation, and there is only 5% of virgin forest left, but there is more than 5% of the original 100% of land currently occupied by trees. Not, more than 100% of of the original land occupied by trees, this is not the case.

Now Plantation forests are very good at removing CO2 from the air because after 10-30 years (depending on the species) a growing tree will absorb 3 times the C02 of a mature tree. The problem comes when you have trees that don't spend very long at the mature stage - and you get a large land cover in the non mature, non advantageous growth phase.

Secondly plantations are typically fast growing mono cultures and have little or no biodiversity. replace the worlds forests with this, and one could easily say that a grassy field has more creatures in it! Conifer forests are often dark inhospitable places with virtually nothing at ground level - they might be good at fire retarding - but WOW, they are dull. Not everything is a commercial opportunity for man. Should we condemn our offspring to a white sphere with 100 % luminosity in a white six sided room?

Remove the biodiversity - and you don't know what subtle, but ultimately significant effects this will have un us. Or for that matter, what benefits that biodiversity will bring us.


As for the rain forests, if there IS global warming, they will move to the temperate zones with the temperate zone trees moving more northerly, so nothing is really lost, the Gobi desert would fill with trees and cool off. The frozen tundra of Russia and Canada would fill with Pine trees. It would all even out.

My point in a previous post has been missed here. The previous changes in world temperature have occured over many 10s of thousands of years - this is 100s of tree generations allowing the forests and wildlife to "creep" as necessary. The current rate of change does not allow this process. Additionally since the last change, we now have political boarders and 6.3 billion people that want a clear garden, pasture/crop land, golf course etc. Also reserves predominently have fixed boarders. Even if the temperature change was happening at a rate common with history, there are so many human influenced barriers that this process can not occur.

Thake Californias redwoods, or some of the many species of Amazonian tree that are 3000 years old. Not a problem in an ice age cycle, but with what we've got, it's an impossible flight of fancy to expect these to migrate.

In northern climes the situation is even worse. The second largest forests are those of canada, alaska, northern europe and russia. Here many of the trees grow in ground that has permafrost. locked into the ground of the tundra is fantastic amounts of methane. Temperatures here have risen 2 degrees, and millions of square miles of land are defrosting. This is releasing collosal amounts of methane (a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2). It is one of the biggest concerns that a small rise in temperature will cause a catastrophic release of methane resulting in a great leap in temperature over the course of the next 90-150 years.

It really is not as simple as one first thinks. We can't stop the release of this gas. BUT, we CAN reduce some of the causes of that release. It just takes forward, informed thinking and positive action.

3DBob

prospector
12-19-2003, 11:00 AM
Cholo..

You seem to be very concerned with profit margins, corporate culture, investemnts, etc...
It makes the world go round.
If there were no profits, there would be no buisnesses, no buisnesses..no jobs. So everyone should be concerned.

However you seem to forget corporations do have a responsibility towards society
I think you have this backwards...it is society determins what corps grow and which ones die. Corps only grow if there is a need for a service or item. You can start corps all day long, but if there is no demand for your product, it will die.

When profits are really high, someone is not getting their hard work's worth and someone is getting too much.
First, there's no such thing as too much..second, who determines what someone is worth? A job is worth whatever the lowest wage scale is. A welder in NY might think his job is worth 20 an hour, but a welder in Mississippi would take the same job for 8 an hour, so that job is only worth 8 an hour, and if the NY worker keeps demanding 20 an hour, the corp has no other option than to move where the worker is more in line with the work. Now in a global economy, if a worker here thinks his job is worth 10 an hour and a worker in India will do the same job for 2 an hour (because it's either 2 and hour or go hungry with no job at all), then the corp will relocate.
Now lets take the same person and same job because I have seen this happen. A worker in an auto plant sits on the assembly line putting on lug nuts of the tires as the cars go down the line. He use to have to put 1 at a time and hand tighten each, so physical labor was involved, and he makes 10 an hour. The next day the company comes in with a machine that puts all 5 on at once,and the worker only has to load the lug nuts into the sockets, is that worker now worth more?? There is less labor involved. Now we come to what is called a breakeven point. The worker thinks he is worth more because he is putting on 5 at once and the assembly line moves faster and the company is selling more and making more profit. But what he thinks he's worth is the same as the corp expanding the machinery so that the MACHINE loads the lugnuts. Now the worker is OUT of a job with NO money coming in because he held out (ie strikes) for more money, then whines because he lost his job.
Sorry for the long example but it has to be pointed out that a job is only worth what the minimum it takes to make or produce an outcome.


I'd be more than happy to be your tour guide of the third world and then you tell me if social support is a waste of taxpayers money.
As you can see from above it dosen't take social reform in third world countries to make people increase thier standard of living, only that a government gets out of the way and lets corps come in and produce jobs. They will bring in money that the third worlder would never have if they demanded the same wages as the higher paying countries wanted. Because the cost of moving a plant would not outweigh the gain in lower wages.

Sorry, but that's how the world works.

Lightwolf..


just as "everybody is equal" is a myth

WOO HOO !! another point we agree on...your slowly coming to my side :D


Beamtracer..
1..because he screwed up.
2..dosen't matter, he used then in an unauthorized way
3..We didn't ..Saddam did
4.. No, because he screwed up..But the French,Germans and Russians do, because the details of how they went around the UN sanctions would come out.
5..No..hence the Nurimberg trials.

3DBob..

this is 100s of tree generations allowing the forests and wildlife to "creep" as necessary
Are you sure??
The enviromentalists here say these are all 'virgin' forests, which means they have been growing in 1 place since the Earth formed billions of years ago.


The previous changes in world temperature have occured over many 10s of thousands of years -
But that means that the warming now is permanitly going up and not just a quick tick in temp and it will go back to normal in 10 or 20 or 100 years. In those 10,000 year cycles you talk about were never a steady.5 degree increase or decrease year after year for the full time, there were always little ticks or spikes in temp either up or down as the overall trend is either up or down that may have lasted for hundreds of years out of that 10,000 year span. So as we come out of the last iceage, about 8000 years ago, this might be just a spike and will level out 100 years from now as the overall and Natural temp rises to where it normally would in the course of this planet. And humans have no input into anything on a global scale. So should human endevour cease because of faulty science?? Or should it be PROVEN that humans are really doing anything before all sorts of laws are passed for true scientific and not 'feel good' reasons.

3DBob
12-19-2003, 01:20 PM
Are you sure??
The enviromentalists here say these are all 'virgin' forests, which means they have been growing in 1 place since the Earth formed billions of years ago.

Yes, 'virgin' forests are those that have not been cut by man and are in thier totally natural state of growth. Billions of years ago there was only one continent - and this state existed for the majority of geological time until about 200million years ago, when tectonic activity split and spread the land masses into the seven continents we have today.

For 4.2 billion years there were no trees, then from about 380million years ago - plant life progressed from mosses to the most primative trees like the south american Monkey Puzzle to the trees that one sees today.

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=ESP2

(check the last paragraph especially)

Having trees, allowed other organisms to evolve - and eventually it allowed humans to exist.

More worryingly is something that I touched on in my last post. Without a critical mass of trees in say the amazon, there will not be enough rain to sustain the remaining trees, leading to a cataclysmic and unstoppable collapse of the forest.

Another link from the same source ( doesn't really go into it very much - but it may help some to understand ). It also quite neatly mentions some of the other topics I have raised.

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=ESP1

It is easy for a car driver to understand that a car needs oxygen to burn fuel - why is it much harder to make them understand that we need photosynthesis to exist. It is photosysnthesis after all that made the hydrocarbons that we are abusing today.


this might be just a spike and will level out 100 years from now as the overall and Natural temp rises to where it normally would in the course of this planet.

Spikes are typically caused by increases in sun spot activity as I said before - this is not the case now. What is happenning is humans are actively and massively forcing the system (earth) to a an unstable state (by significantly adding to natural greenhouse emmisions), whilst simultaneously removing the very thing that could stabilize it (forests). One doesn't have to be very bright to see this is unsustainable.

I am not taking about keeping organisms alive that were around 100million years ago. I am talking about those that are here today that have evolved to live in the ecosystem that evolved with them (including humans).

A virus does not necessarily know it is destroying its host until the host dies and can no longer support the pathogen. Unfortunately, humans are running out of places to infect, and our host is dying, we are choking it whilst cutting out its lungs, bit by bit.

For us to survive, we need to move from parasite to symbiotic partner - like the ants that live in the hollows of congolese trees or the good bacteria in our guts that stops humans dying from stomac ulceration. Both give and take.


And humans have no input into anything on a global scale.

An absurd statement. If one is to make statements like this, one should substantiate them. Should it only be science that has to prove things? One, clear, indisputable fact is that the nuclear tests of the 40s and fifties can be detected in sediments and ice cores all over the world - We know it came from those events because the isotopes do not occur naturally. It is commonly used to date things in the last century. Now why if this airbourne event can be detected in all parts of the globe can not others? The answer is that CO2 released from a consumers car will be a global problem.

Burning so much fossil fuel wouldn't seam so economical if SEAsia/Brazil/Central Africa started charging heavy users for the Oxygen they produce or if the major oil producers had to pay a sales tax to them (hey, that's not a bad idea). Irresponsible use of hydrocarbons is global piracy - there is no other way of looking at it. It may make the abuser rich if they can get away with it - but it makes others poor. For this reason an abuser will justify but we all suffer the consequences. If an abuser refuses to see the writing on the wall, then he will not be loved for it.

Don't be surprised if a low energy user has resentment for an unnecesarily high energy user, especially when it is at the expense of all life on earth.

GW Bush likes to take pre-emptive action on the potential of an issue that may affect a miniscule proportion of the global population. Why can there not be the same determination to head off the far greater threat to all life that our unrestricted degredation of our surroundings is causing?

3DBob

prospector
12-19-2003, 02:06 PM
Why can there not be the same determination to head off the far greater threat to all life that our unrestricted degredation of our surroundings is causing?

I'm thinking that you give humans far too much importance in the things they can do.We as a species can do nothing like the meteor that hit the Yuccatan and destroyed 90% of the life on earth. We can do nothing like the amount of sulfer and dust and any other thing that Krackatoa and Mt.St. Helens and Vesuvious did in covering hundreds of square miles in lava and killing everything in its way. And that's not counting all the minor volcanos spewing lava above and below sea level. We can do nothing in the way of damage that Major Quakes (loma linda, the Alaskan quake of 8.7, the last one in China of 8.4.The ones in Mexaco and Chile. Compared to natural occurences, we are just a minor pimple on the planet.

All we can do is what every other spicies does, adapt or die off.
But there are 2 things we as humans can do that other species can't, and that is that we can build enviroments to sustain our species under most conditions, and best of all, we as a species can leave here to start life on other planets.
And that's something to look forward to and strive for.

gjjackson
12-19-2003, 02:10 PM
3DBob:

Sounds like you're one of those who actually think humans can destroy the earth. I kinda doubt it. We can't even put a dent in it. Nature has a way of compensating. There's a balance in nature that humans can't overturn. Even if we set off every nuclear weapon the world has it still wouldn't destroy the earth. Actually the climate today has been in existence for a miniscule amount of time. During the vast majority the earth's been here it's atmosphere was methane etc. And by that, if there were life here then (evironmentalists let's say) they would've been crying about the destruction of earth when the climate changed to CO2, Hydrogen etc.

Prospector:

You must have studied economics 101. Most union workers don't seem to realize that every job has a ceiling. Many have priced themselves out of the market. This is what has happened where I'm at. Unions keep demanding more and now the jobs lost here is about 40-50%. The company even gave the union an increase in retirement bennies that would've amounted to a 40% increase per month for new retirees. The stipulation was that those HIRED AFTER 2005 would not get retirement health benefits. Medicare takes care of that anyway.

toby
12-19-2003, 02:44 PM
Sounds like you're one of those who actually think humans can destroy the earth. I kinda doubt it. We can't even put a dent in it. Nature has a way of compensating. There's a balance in nature that humans can't overturn. Even if we set off every nuclear weapon the world has it still wouldn't destroy the earth.

Aside from the fact that this is your un-educated opinion in conflict with educated opinions, it's ridiculous. You think it's OK if half the world is in ruin, and radioactive rain falls on the rest? Do you think it's smart to risk this, just for the sake of Money and playing 'soldier' with other peoples countries?


We can do nothing like the amount of sulfer and dust and any other thing that Krackatoa and Mt.St. Helens and Vesuvious did in covering hundreds of square miles in lava and killing everything in its way.

Are you joking?? One of our warheads is 10 times more powerful than they were in the 40's, and we have hundereds of them. (And now Bush is developing more, more powerful ones)

gjjackson
12-19-2003, 03:22 PM
Toby;

I didn't say there wouldn't be ill effects from setting off all weapons, only the earth would survive it. It shows how the left will twist in order to further their point. I don't know how many times I've heard and debated people from the left. When confronted with facts they immediately change the subject. Look at any political show and it will be evident.

If you want educated opinions read Ronald Bailey,Bjorn Lomborg, M. Mihkel Mathiesen, Steven J. Milloy, Wilfred Beckerman, Bob Kohn. These and others will show whose educated and whose not.

prospector
12-19-2003, 03:49 PM
Toby..
Where did you read that???

All I seen in Gjjacksons reply is that we as humans can do nothing to destroy earth like natural disasters can. He didn't say it was ok. Just that we couldn't.




One of our warheads is 10 times more powerful than they were in the 40's
And your point is ???

They still can't cause the destruction of 1 Krackatoa.

They can make indentations in the dirt (like we've seen in films of the tests in Nevada where the dirt puffs up and settles back down into a depression) But we don't have the power to completly blow up square miles of earth and send it around the world.

Again, you give us more power than we actually have.


gjjackson..
I always thought that economics example was kind of self evident, we were tought that in the 6th and 7th grades.

But what gets me is when they turn around AFTER voting themselves out of work, we as taxpayers are made to pay (unimployment) for thier stupidity.

prospector
12-19-2003, 04:07 PM
OOPs
Libya blinked;)

Kadafi thought...'Hmm get rid of WMDs or lose a country..HMMM
no brainer...OK Mr.Bush..don't attack, I'm getting rid of them.'

Don't ya just love all the results of 1 dictator going under, and the rest taking a double look at thier own countries?

Speak softly and carry a big stick and USE it when needed.

3DBob
12-19-2003, 06:51 PM
Natural events have always occured and will occur. The Earth is currently and for the next 2-400million years in a position to support life. After this, the sun will start to run out of fuel and die, it will engulf and consume the Earth as it becomes a red giant before its ultimate demise.

My personal view before I go to India & Syria.

There was nothing to begin with - so if we destroy the current arrangement of quantised vibrating nothing (referred to as matter) then there is no net change and therefore no loss.

However I have two things in my life that give it meaning - one is that I poses the knowledge and talent to make beautiful commercial images. The other is that one day I will have kids, as have 3 of my siblings.

The images may last a long time, but I hope my bloodline will last longer, and to that end I would like them to live in the most beautiful planet I can leave for them. Therefore it is my duty to my sense of self and to my decendents that I minimise my impact and try to let others see - if they can, how they can do too.

I would like all humans, whenever or wherever they are born, to hear the call of the macaw, to sit behind the ears of an elephant, to hear the roar of a glacial waterfall, to be able to look at unbroken vistas as far as the eye can see.

Thats what I wan't for everyone.

See ya in a month

3DBob

3DBob
12-19-2003, 06:56 PM
Don't ya just love all the results of 1 dictator going under, and the rest taking a double look at thier own countries?

The Lybian government approached the UK government before the invasion of Iraq after Al Magrahi was sentenced. They wanted to come forward and negotiate their position. We have been working through this for many months - with some help from american services. It was just coincidence that this occurred within a week of saddams capture.

This reading of the situation is not accurate - but I bet a lot of people will believe it. Ho Hum.

Education before dissemination.

3DBob

toby
12-19-2003, 07:56 PM
"We can't even put a dent in it. Nature has a way of compensating. There's a balance in nature that humans can't overturn. "

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Look at Chernobyl. It sent a radioactive cloud over Europe. Nuclear waste is destructive to human life for thousands of years. The only way nature could 'compensate' for this is to wait thousands of years.

You guys have the mentality of the people who first experimented with atomic blasts in the 40's. It was thought that the sailors would be safe in the Bikini Islands during a blast - they developed tumors the size of basketballs.

Why make the point that we can't wipe the earth from the galaxy when what we're talking about is making it un-inhabitable?

prospector
12-19-2003, 08:39 PM
All I hear from enviromentalist is that we are DESTROYING the planet.

Too much sulfer in coal...Planet Destroyed.
Too much oil used..Destroying the planet
Drilling for oil..Destroying the planet
Cut trees..Destroying the planet
Hurt the snowy owl..Destroying the planet
Hunt wales..Destroying the planet

We have to take them at their word so we have to point out the planet will ALWAYS be here.
Now if they say we are making it un-inhabitable that's something else, but they use the word DESTROY and hence can't be taken seriously.

And nature will find something to live in radiation, so there will always be life on the planet.So it will always be inhabited.
Maby not by us, but something.

And if Chernobyl was as bad as you say
It sent a radioactive cloud over Europe. Nuclear waste is destructive to human life for thousands of years. .Then all of Europe would have cancer tumors as big as basketballs. Or at least golfballs..marbles? ball bearing size? pinhead sized? Molecular sized? Atom sized? Anysized????

3DBob..you can't seriously think for a heartbeat that if Iraq was still under the UN auspices and Saddam was still there that Kadafi would have even thought about giving anything up???

Beamtracer
12-19-2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
• Why is the US going to try Saddam Hussein on charges for crimes he committed in the 1980s with US blessing?

• Who supplied him with the weaponry to commit those crimes?

• Why are the US and Britain so concerned about crimes against humanity when they have committed such crimes themselves (like killing a half million Iraqis with sanctions)?

• Does the United States want Saddam executed to avoid the embarrassing information that would be revealed in an international trial?

• Isn't the execution of captives against the Geneva Convention?
Originally posted by prospector
Beamtracer..
1..because he screwed up.
2..dosen't matter, he used then in an unauthorized way
3..We didn't ..Saddam did
4.. No, because he screwed up..But the French,Germans and Russians do, because the details of how they went around the UN sanctions would come out.
5..No..hence the Nurimberg trials.
1. The US was a willing partner for Saddam Hussein during the 1980s, mainly because of their common nemisis, Iran. The US and Saddam were "partners in crime", with the US giving Saddam assistance (in the form of weaponry and chemical weaponry) to commit his dastardly deads.

2. We learn today that the US knew full well what Saddam was doing with that chemical weaponry.

Documents released today under the Freedom of Information act give details of Donald Rumsfeld's visits to Iraq in 1983 and 1984.

Rumsfeld basically told Saddam not to worry about the US's public stance against chemical weaponry. He told Saddam that it's OK, the relationship between the US and Iraq will be just fine, even if you do use chemical weapons on your Kurdish population.

The US continued to supply Iraq with this weaponry. This makes Rumsfeld and the USA equal partners in this crime.

3. Sanctions were useless. They didn't have the desired effect. They resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqis, a large proportion children and babies. The US and Britain knew this was happening. It's no excuse for the US and Britain to say "we did it because Saddam was a bad guy so it was his fault". It was a crime against the people of Iraq.

4. It's really bending the truth to say that the US worked within the wishes of the UN.

5. The death penalty doesn't achieve anything. Those who committed 9-11 thought they were going to paradise. They wanted to die.

It's a far worse penalty to be locked in a prison cell for the rest of your life. It gives you time to think about what you've done.

Killing Saddam or other prisoners makes the US stoop to the same crimes that Saddam committed.

prospector
12-19-2003, 11:24 PM
Beamtracer..your STILL on the US did everything in the world to kill people kick???

OK last time

your point 1..We were partners with Russia in WWII, but we didn't tell Stalin to kill 20 million russians. Partners are partners when needed, if you screwup and become non partners then beware.

your point 2..the world knew what he was doing...big deal and I am 100% positive that no-one in the US government chained Saddams hands to a trigger that released gas and killed his own people. You need to gett off that dead horse. No-one but him told someone to do it. No-one but him gave the orders.

your point 3.. no-one but him is to blame for all those deaths. He had money from the food for oil program and kept it out of the peoples hands. No-one but him gave the orders to shoot people.No-one but him gave the orders to torture people.No-one but him kept the people in poverty.

your point 4..We worked with the UN for 12 years and 17 resolutions.

your point 5..No we don't stoop to his level by putting him to death. If it was up to me...well lets just say that each week that goes by I would take a section of finger away and let whats left swell and get gangious,then take the next section and next till all fingers were gone and then start on the toes and legs, all the while keeping him alive introveiniously and shock paddles if his heart stopped. I would not let him go to his 42 virgins untill every limb was removed, his skin was removed, his internals were laying in the open (while alive) and I couldn't think of ANYTHING else to do to him. And I can think of lots of things.

danilo
12-20-2003, 02:04 AM
just say that each week that goes by I would take a section of finger away and let whats left swell and get gangious,then take the next section and next till all fingers were gone and then start on the toes and legs, all the while keeping him alive introveiniously and shock paddles if his heart stopped. I would not let him go to his 42 virgins untill every limb was removed, his skin was removed, his internals were laying in the open (while alive) and I couldn't think of ANYTHING else to do to him. And I can think of lots of things.

__________________
programs that don't intigrate with LW, don't deserve to be on the market


Sadam should be proud of you.
danilo

toby
12-20-2003, 02:22 AM
"Now if they say we are making it un-inhabitable that's something else, but they use the word DESTROY and hence can't be taken seriously."

Another pathetic excuse to ignore whom you choose, since you have no logical argument. btw, when has anyone actually said destroy?

It's your opinion that environmentalists go too far, how does that prove that they're completely wrong?

"And nature will find something to live in radiation, so there will always be life on the planet.So it will always be inhabited. Maybe not by us, but something."

So you don't care if we wipe ourselves out, making a quick buck is more important. You're a true American, in the right-wing sense.

Why are you arguing that 'something' will survive a nuclear holocaust? Why should we care more about a few fungi than everything else?

"And if Chernobyl was as bad as you say..."
What? off limits to human life indefinitely? that's ok with you?

"Then all of Europe would have cancer tumors as big as basketballs. Or at least golfballs..marbles? ball bearing size? pinhead sized? Molecular sized? Atom sized? Anysized????"

Are you really one of those people who thinks that if it doesn't kill you today that it's harmless? You think a cloud of radioactive gas is harmless? Smoking doesn't kill you the first or even the second year, does that mean that it's not unhealthy? If you run a red light and survive, does that mean it's safe to do?

Original1
12-20-2003, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by prospector


And if Chernobyl was as bad as you say .Then all of Europe would have cancer tumors as big as basketballs. Or at least golfballs..marbles? ball bearing size? pinhead sized? Molecular sized? Atom sized? Anysized????

3DBob..you can't seriously think for a heartbeat that if Iraq was still under the UN auspices and Saddam was still there that Kadafi would have even thought about giving anything up???

My wifes family live in Poland, after the Gas cloud passed over Poland Doctors there were advising women with prgnancies below a certain term to consider an abortion. The risks were higher than we were told in the west, 6 months after the event vechicles were coming in from the countryside with levels of radioactivity on thier tires,and many children local to the reactor developed cancers (see the book Children of Chernobyl.)

No reporting was done on the fact that the USSR lost a fair proportion of its spring wheat crop, and faces a very difficult winter that year

Don't make light of what was a very serious nuclear accident.

I am not an enviromentalist, but its better than being an ostrich.

3DBob
12-20-2003, 06:36 AM
Grrrr, I have some really nice 3D to do before I go - but I'm forced to post again.

Dear Prospector,

**sorry for using a personal reference here - but these comments are really just for you**

Firstly, I never said the word you attribute to 'environmentalists'.

Secondly, I'd like to make this point. If you had your leg and right hand chopped off and both your eyes poked out, technically you would be alive, but your quality of life would be degraded. Also those that knew and loved you would have their lives degraded. Maybe you can understand my position now?

Thirdly,


you can't seriously think for a heartbeat that if Iraq was still under the UN auspices and Saddam was still there that Kadafi would have even thought about giving anything up???

As I have said before my girlfriend of the last four years is half Lybian. Her father is a Lybian whos parents died in the bombing of his home country ( he survived by crouching under their kitchen table ). He played for the National Football team and is revered in Lybia as Beckam is here. After he finished his football carreer he became a diplomat - and that is how he came to England, working in the Lybian embassy. He has many Lybian friends that have massive oil interests in Lybia some of which I have met.

Now, the UN imposed sanctions on Lybia after Lockerbie and the US put some of their own on. This effectively meant that Lybia could only sell oil to a few nations - many of which have plentiful supplies of their own. Isolation crippled and impoverished the country. Lybia decided 4 or more years ago that if it was to capitalise on its massive oil wealth it must first find a way back into the world markets.

Granted Al Magrahi was a Lybian. But there is mounting evidence that it was not Lybia that initiated the action. The problem for Lybia was that the UN sanctions had a stipulation that said ONLY when Lybia accepted resposibility for the action would they be lifted. Well they did "accept" responsibility and have agreed a settlement with those affected by the event. This was good enough for the UN, they lifted sanctions and it was good enough for the British. Britain has good relations with many Arab states and British industrialists were chomping at the bit to see this impass resolved.

The problem for the Lybia is that the US uses over 1/3 of world daily oil production and the US decided it would only re-ingage with Lybia if Gaddaffi himself admitted responsibility - which he could not let himself do. The US had sanctioned themselves into a position that they had to maintain, in fact they past an act of congress that is valid to 2006, but they REALLY needed to get into Lybia otherwise American oil giants were going to loose out badly to British and European ones. More importantly Lybia could be a US trump card as it has said that it will stay distant from OPEC decisions.

http://www.platts.com/opec/glance.shtml

So when all the forora about IRAQ started to appear - Gadaffi saw a massive bargaining chip that could give those great customers (the US) something they could sell to their electorate. So they worked through the British government to find a position that would make Lybia seem friendly enough to allow the US to start buying its oil. The bonus for TB and GWB is it makes them look oh so wonderful!

http://www.iraniantrade.org/libya.htm

What Lybia has, may or may not be significant, but at least now GWB has something that he can use to convince his electorate that Lybias good to suck.

Let's face-it, a few sketches and I'd have my own WMD program.

I do find it amazing that "free" people in countries that have access to publicly available facts can still have such little understanding of how the world, and the politics within it, works. Instead, they latch on to sensationalist, unsubstatiated journalistic rumour, and take it, without questioning, as gospel truth because it supports their own thinking.

As the x-files proclaims "the truth is out there". But what the heck, we're spoonfed all the information we need in our "free" society. Ignorance and misinformation is rife in all cultures - it always takes a lot of effort to find the facts, and frankly, most humans can't be bothered as we are all, inherently lazy.

3DBob

prospector
12-20-2003, 10:01 AM
danilo.
Sadam should be proud of you.
No, he would be afraid, he would be giving up information,and most important,he would feel the pain he inflicted on everyone else. Nothing more nothing less. I wouldn't feel joy doing it, but I wouldn't feel bad either. Just revenge for all that died.

Toby.. Well some Kennedy from Mass (?) RI (?) forget but he constantly says driving SUVs are destroying the planet, Gores book says that cars are the worst thing man ever invented because it's destroying the planet, the enviro groups here in Calif say everything man does destroys the planet.That lady that ran for Gov. here in calif said Arnolds HumVees were destroying the planet. The usual mantra for radical enviromentalists.

So all I was saying is that even IF we took every roll of caps for kids cap guns and took every thing on the face of the planet that exploded up to every atom bomb and exploded every one at the exact same spot and at the exact same millisecond, WE COULD NOT DESTROY the planet. We may and most likly WOULD destroy the biosphere we as humans live., but there is a BIG difference between the PLANET and the BIOSPHERE.
But they say the word PLANET and therefore makes everything they say suspect and irrelivent. If they lie about that one statement (which is a MAJOR statement) ,then how can they be taken seriously?

Original1.. I remember Three mile Island and the enviromentalists said as soon as it happened that people from there to the east coast would be dropping like flies as the radioactive cloud spread east..DIDN'T HAPPEN. People would be dropping like flies when the cloud spread from Chernobyl to Stalingrad..DIDN'T HAPPEN.
People would be dying all over Nevada because of the nuclear tests..DOSEN'T HAPPEN
And again,the enviromentalists SO overstate a problem, that anything they say after the fact is purely irrelivent.

Were they good things? NO
Do I want to see it happen? NO
Will ANYTHING man does DESTROY the planet? NO NO and NO
Should enviromentalists be listened to? YES
Should they be listened to after statements that are absolutly wrong? NO NO and NO

3DBob.. didn't say you did say that. Matter of fact I didn't even think you was a radical enviromentalist, and just someone that was worried about different biospheres, and that we were having a good, but differing sharing of ideas about trees.

Now about Kadafi..If he was talking to the Brits, then that's good
BUT...just as SADDAM was talking to the UN and held them off and stayed in charge untill the US finally went in, Kadafi would have held off the Brits and the UN in the same way.
Saddam was able to jerk the UN chains for 12 years. Kadafi was on the same path, but after seeing Saddam go down, it HASTENED the final outcome. It may not have been the only thing that changed his mind BUT it surly speeded things up.

toby
12-20-2003, 12:14 PM
I'm really tired of this pathetic argument that you claim you believe that Gore or whoever believes that driving an SUV will actually obliterate the planet Earth from the Galaxy. I don't believe that you believe that, you're not that stupid, are you? It's really just a distraction, defensive, argumentative, bickering about what words are being used, trying to defend yourself from LOSING an argument - which is all you righties care about, you always have to 'win', even if no one is playing your game, you always have to have a 'bad guy' that you can put your fist in, everything is either a football game or a John Wayne movie to you.

"And again,the enviromentalists SO overstate a problem, that anything they say after the fact is purely irrelivent."

Well, you think that radiation is completely harmless, understating it, so what you say is purely irrelevant. You're also speaking without any personnal experience like Original1 - attempting to dismiss his opinions with rhetoric and tap-dancing or dodging it completely. It's not constructive at all, just annoying and childish.

Hope you're enjoying yourself.

Beamtracer
12-21-2003, 09:11 AM
SADDAM CAPTURE A FAKE!

A ficticious story of events. A fantasy of the US army. A story contrived to help George W's election chances.

Sure, Saddam was tracked down and captured, but by the Kurds, not the US. The Kurds arranged to place Saddam in the "spider hole" and then let the US army know the location so they could pull him out.

Is it really necessary for the US administration to make up little stories to make themselves look victorious? That's a bit childish, isn't it?

• Saddam was a tyrant.
• There are other equally bad tyrants around the world who are not sitting on such vast oil reserves who don't attract any attention.
• The wars + sanctions on Iraq (1991-2003) killed far more Iraqis than Saddam did. That's why the "humanitarian" argument being pushed by Bush is nonsensical.

Originally posted by 3DBob
I do find it amazing that "free" people in countries that have access to publicly available facts can still have such little understanding of how the world, and the politics within it, works. Instead, they latch on to sensationalist, unsubstatiated journalistic rumour, and take it, without questioning, as gospel truth because it supports their own thinking.
Well said, 3DBob. This seems especially true for the right-wingers.

Unfortunately people like easily digestible news. I call it low-fiber news. This is why people prefer to watch FOX news than find out the facts for themselves.

The moral: never trust a journalist to pre-digest the news for you.

TyVole
12-21-2003, 10:40 AM
Where did you read/hear this? This is news to me. Not that I doubt its plausability, but you need some facts to back it up.

In regards to FOX, unfortunately, there are very few (if any) unbiased news services. As slanted as FOX is to the right, many others are equally slanted to the left.

What you say about FOX can be said of just about every American TV news station.

dfc
12-21-2003, 10:45 AM
I think it can be said about most TV stations around the world..not just America.

toby
12-21-2003, 11:59 AM
Fox is the worst. Just listen to the broadcasts and you'll hear opinion, judgments and comments from all of their newscasters, not just the Commentary spots - it's not even journalism. Fox is 'easily digestible' news for people who want to hear what they want to hear, instead of unbiased facts that make them uncomfortable. They won't report anything that's embarrassing to the Right, which is why they were the only ones invited to Iraq when Bush made his surprise visit on Thanksgiving.

Of course there's no such thing as unbiased journalism, but other news organizations at least make an attempt, there's some checks and balances - I've seen conservative and liberal views from most of them, but Fox was created to fill the niche that there was no completely right-wing news service.

Also, news organizations in the US care about profit as much as the next company - they want the left-wing to watch them too. If they are caught lying, they lose customers. Not to say that I trust them implicitly -

prospector
12-21-2003, 01:04 PM
I'm really tired of this pathetic argument that you claim you believe that Gore or whoever believes that driving an SUV will actually obliterate the planet Earth from the Galaxy. I don't believe that you believe that, you're not that stupid, are you?
Matter of fact I DO know what they MEAN.
But there are people across the US and the world that believe them when they SAY DESTROY. (The Kyoto believers)

And they pass stupid laws based on stupid science by people trying to frighten (intentionally) the ones who don't understand.

So the lies (destroying the planet) have to be pointed out.




Well, you think that radiation is completely harmless, understating it, so what you say is purely irrelevant
I REALLY said...
Were they good things? NO Do I want to see it happen? NO

What I pointed out were AGAIN the lies that were shown on the news within minuits after they happened that Nuclear plants kill and everyone downwind was on thier way to dying. Did some get sick? YEP. Did everyone DIE?? NOPE.
Yet while they were spouting those lies, people actually believed them.

Beamtracer..you've gone TOTALLY off the deep end :D

As far as FOX..they don't have on someone from the right without someone from the left at the same time, UNLESS that someone from the left refuses to go on, and they announce that someone from the left was contacted but refused to come on.
Which is more than Broadcast news stations do when they talk to someone from the left.

Oh yea, we can drop nuclear bombs now and NOT destroy the biosphere
Called Neutron bombs, and radiation clears up after a few weeks and the land is safe to live on again.

ted
12-21-2003, 03:19 PM
Thank goodness Bush did what he did!!!
Now even Libya is conforming along with North Korea.
We kicked bu**, got Sadam, Saved thousands of Iraqi from further oppression, slowed the worlds Terrorists previous unbridled growth.
At the same time, showed that we won’t take garbage from anyone.

Not a bad thing no matter what distortions and distractions get thrown at it.
Thanks George!!!

toby
12-21-2003, 03:43 PM
Yes! We shall rule the world with an Iron Fist, since we are the Strongest! (who said that before?) But we're not fascist...

TyVole
12-21-2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by ted
Thanks George!!!

I wonder if you'd be thanking him if for some reason they (or some future administration) decided to arrest you in the middle of the night with no charges or cause under the auspices of the Patriot Act.

But hey, who needs civil rights as long as we can watch dead Muslims on TV?

prospector
12-21-2003, 05:01 PM
We may even see Syria, Iran and Palistine turn over a new leaf within a cupla weeks:D

Bush will Be elected for 4 terms

Yes yes, the constitution only says twice but he will be elected by write-ins for two more:D

Maby longer for the French tho;)

dfc
12-21-2003, 05:25 PM
I agree, that news today is agendized. Not just american news. Some to more or lessor degrees than other, but all of it still forming some "opinion" in the way it's presented and what they choose to present, and what they choose to leave out.

Having said that, Fox is obviously a right leaning News org. Their opinions go that way. But, they have had their moments in reporting "facts" that everyone else in the world...either missed or just misled about.

During the Iraq war, with the reporters from various news orgs, embeded right along side the troops...when the US forces took the airport quickly, and immdiately proceeded to roll right down into center Bagdhad, it was "only" Fox news that reported that correctly. Everybody else insisted that we were still 100s of miles outside of Bagdhad.

Even "after" Fox aired the footage of our tanks rolling into Bagdhad, it took the news orgs a good 48 hours to catch up.

They have their moments, just like everybody else does. But, I agree, that what they "do" present, is obviously biased towards the right in opinion. The arab news orgs are the absolute "worst" for agendizing the news. What they are good for, is covering things that happen in the arab world, that don't get air play in other parts of the world. BBC, has been in trouble a couple of times already in the last year for misreporting factual information. But, they do a pretty good job, compared to american news, of covering a wider range of international news.

I have read the documents Beamtracer refers to , that he says say that the uS told Iraq it was "ok" with them to use CW..and all I can say is, I can't find anything in them not even stretching it, to come up with what Beam asserts.

Beam, you got a reference for that?

TyVole
12-21-2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by prospector
Bush will Be elected for 4 terms



You actually may be prophetic. I'm not sure we'll even be able to vote a few years from now (for national security reasons, of course.)

Perhaps he'll even pick up a few of Saddam's old tricks -- like having himself elected President for life, with 99.9% voting in affirmation.

toby
12-21-2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by prospector
Bush will Be elected for 4 terms

Yes yes, the constitution only says twice but dictators can ignore the Constitution.


damn too late

Beamtracer
12-21-2003, 05:52 PM
Saddam captured by Kurds, not US
Those who insist on remaining inside the US "information bubble" should read what is being said outside for a change.

Saddam was captured by the Kurds, not the US miliatary...

The Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/21/1071941612613.html

Aljazeera News (Qatar):
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A1D11E46-3EE1-4DDC-A193-E3233A933275.htm

The Sunday Herald (Scotland):
http://www.sundayherald.com/38816

The Statesman (India):
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=8&theme=&usrsess=1&id=31500

Today Online (Singapore):
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/12080.asp

The Palestine Chronicle:
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20031221161318573


Why isn't the US media carrying the story??? You'd think they could at least say "other news organizations are reporting that..."

This is what I mean by the "patriotic filter" that operates in the main US news organizations.

Here is the test. Lets see just how long it takes FOX news before they mention anything about the Kurdish involvement in Saddam's capture.

toby
12-21-2003, 06:07 PM
Thank goodness Bush did what he did!!!
Now even Libya is conforming along with North Korea.
We kicked bu**, got Sadam, Saved thousands of Iraqi from further oppression, slowed the worlds Terrorists previous unbridled growth.
At the same time, showed that we won’t take garbage from anyone.

Not a bad thing no matter what distortions and distractions get thrown at it.
Thanks George!!!
<-- has completely fallen for the quote by Herrman Goering : "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked"

Tell me, what malicious attack was Iraq going to lay on us?

"We kicked bu**" Also proves my point - "you always have to 'win', even if no one is playing your game, you always have to have a 'bad guy' that you can put your fist in, everything is either a football game or a John Wayne movie"

"slowed the worlds Terrorists previous unbridled growth"

No, no proof of his involvment with any terrorist orginizations, no terrorist organizations effected by this action, but they do have thousands more reasons to attack us now. But that's cool, it gives us more chances to invade in the future.

TyVole
12-21-2003, 06:15 PM
Very intriguing, Beam. Nice research.

However, at the moment, there doesn't seem to be any substantial facts -- only an insinuation made by a British tabloid, based on unnamed sources. This may be the reason the American mainstream press is holding back.

If it holds up, though, this will be big. Very big.

toby
12-21-2003, 06:19 PM
What I pointed out were AGAIN the lies that were shown on the news within minuits after they happened that Nuclear plants kill and everyone downwind was on thier way to dying. Did some get sick? YEP. Did everyone DIE?? NOPE.
Yet while they were spouting those lies, people actually believed them.


Even if they were lies or exaggerations, what harm could it cause, and what was the result of being inaccurate?

Thousands dead? International laws broken? Our country Billions of dollars in debt to Republican-contributing Banks? No, these 'stupid laws' cost corporations money. That's it. You would rather risk Chernobyl, and acuse scientists with decades of experience and millions of man-hours of knowledge of not knowing what they're doing, than lose a few bucks. True American - in the right-wing sense.

toby
12-21-2003, 06:28 PM
He was drugged and abandoned, ready for the American troops to recover him. Saddam was betrayed to the Kurds by a member of the Al-Jabour tribe whose daughter was “defiled” by Uday, the report quoting a senior British military intelligence officer said. “

Well considering that the US believes the BI about an African Uranium deal instead of it's own CIA, this must be true too... oh I forgot, it's only true if they agree with Bush!

prospector
12-21-2003, 07:03 PM
TOBY
Now c'mon..you KNOW this statement you made is a lie.

No, no proof of his involvment with any terrorist orginizations
He was paying Palastinians 15 grand to blow themselves up in Isreal. (Well their families anyway).
Everyone KNEW he had a terrorist training camp just north of bagdad. Even the UN (as slow as they are) knew that.




what harm could it cause, and what was the result of being inaccurate?

It made all kinds of laws and regulations against a clean source of power for no scientific reason.
It makes all sorts of laws and regulations that keep people from using millions of acres of taxpayer funded federal land for no scientific reason.




You would rather risk Chernobyl, and acuse scientists with decades of experience and millions of man-hours of knowledge of not knowing what they're doing, than lose a few bucks.
If they intentionally lie...YES, I would rather see the scientists lose all credibility and go on welfare than be able to pass stupid unscientific laws.

dfc
12-21-2003, 07:06 PM
ROTFLMAO

Yes, lets put all the Kurd "assets on the ground" _spies_ on TV and interview them..to explain exactly how they have been invovled on the ground in the capture of Saddam, his 2 sons, and other baath party memebers. (and how their active operations are going)

While your at it, have them print up "how to avoid capture" brochures..with their pictures on it.

hahahaha.

Too funny!

toby
12-21-2003, 07:49 PM
"He was paying Palastinians 15 grand to blow themselves up in Isreal. (Well their families anyway)."

Point taken. But I was talking about involvment with Al Qeda, 9/11, etc.

quote:
what harm could it cause, and what was the result of being inaccurate?

"It made all kinds of laws and regulations against a clean source of power for no scientific reason. It makes all sorts of laws and regulations that keep people from using millions of acres of taxpayer funded federal land for no scientific reason."

Again I ask - to what harm? A few bucks? And how does it compare to : "Thousands dead? Our country Billions of dollars in debt?"

quote:
You would rather risk Chernobyl, and acuse scientists with decades of experience and millions of man-hours of knowledge of not knowing what they're doing, than lose a few bucks.

"If they intentionally lie...YES, I would rather see the scientists lose all credibility and go on welfare than be able to pass stupid unscientific laws."

Interesting that scientists who can put men on the moon will see radiation burns where there is none, they can make Nukes that fly around the earth and can target on a baseball, but as soon as they cost rich companies a buck or act like 'sissies', they don't know what they're talking about.

You're judging what's scientific based on profit and convenience, which is ridiculous - and you're willing to risk nuclear contamination on this???

Beamtracer
12-21-2003, 08:42 PM
The Turkey was a fake!

We all know that the christmas turkey that George W carried to the troops (as seen EXCLUSIVELY on FOX NEWS) was a fake. It was created with inedible material so that it would look good for the cameras, but was unfit for consumption by the troops.

Now we find out that the US capture of Saddam Hussein was also a fake. For those just joining this discussion, read the news links on the previous page (page 15) of this thread.


Originally posted by TyVole
Very intriguing, Beam. Nice research.
[...]
If it holds up, though, this will be big. Very big.
Not much research needed, as it is the front page of most newspapers around the world. US news outlets are still not carrying the news.

From the Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/21/1071941612613.html
"The first media account of the December 13 arrest was aired by a Tehran-based news agency.

American forces took Saddam into custody around 8.30pm local time, but sat on the news until 3pm the next day.

However, in the early hours of Sunday, a Kurdish language wire service reported explicitly: "Saddam Hussein was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan"

"The Western media in Baghdad were electrified by the Iranian agency's revelation, but as reports of the arrest built, they relied almost exclusively on accounts from US military and intelligence organisations, starting with the words of the US-appointed administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremer: "Ladies and gentlemen: we got 'im"."

So, OK everyone. How do you explain the Bush/US media account? The Iranian/Kurdish news was reporting that the Kurds had captured Saddam before anyone else knew that Saddam was captured. Before the US media knew, before the US military said anything.

The reason is because the Kurds caught Saddam, not the US military.

Bush needed to take the glory, and give himself the election boost.

The lesson from this is that wherever you live, you should check news sources from outside your own country. Use the net. See what the others are saying. This is especially true if you live in the USA, where 280 million people have just been successfully deceived about the capture of Saddam Hussein.

prospector
12-21-2003, 10:29 PM
You're judging what's scientific based on profit and convenience,
Nope, on REAL science, and not on pre-concieved outcomes and then manipulated numbers to reach that outcome to furthur an ajenda based on lies.

So by your statements, you would rather have laws passed based on lies and manipulations.


Beamtracer...Your REALLY bagdad Bob aren't you?

Cuz ONLY bagdad Bob can twist and spin things the way you do.

We're suppose to actauly believe a paper from Tehran???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I would believe the most lowly private on the field of battle before I would believe ANYTHING reported by any MidEast media, INCLUDING the BBC.

First off, they caught him in the AM on Saturday not PM, then they waited for DNA returns and got him well out of the area before they mentioned ANYTHING.( which was reason for the day delay)( you would have really had fun if the said they got him and it turned out to be an imposter.;)

And the report by the Kurdish wire service that said he was caught SUNDAY were totally wrong as he was already in prison.

As the Kurds despise him, anything in the air even CLOSE to resembling a capture of Saddam by the KURDS would have been on the wire service immediatly, with pictures of him being dragged thru the streets.

C'MON...smarten up.

ted
12-21-2003, 10:50 PM
Toby, in response to my statement you said, "No, no proof of his involvement with any terrorist organizations, no terrorist organizations affected by this action".

Now you back down and say connected with 9-11?

Come on, if you want to deny the US action was a success, fine, but don't backtrack on your own statement!

For what it's worth, Sadam DID support terrorists and Iraq DID have terrorists and training camps.
And YES, our actions DID have an effect on their numbers. Sure those left will come out of their rat holes to fight us, but that's no reason to leave them alone to grow stronger.

So what’s the problem?

Beam, even IF the US didn't catch him, (if you believe in such conspiracies), he was only caught because the US sent the dirt bag into hiding and allowed the situation to be possible. Right friggin on!!!

For goodness sake, some of you will use any distraction to bash the US actions.
That's great though. The farther you have to dig to find something to stand on, the more obvious the success of the US and Bush's actions are proven.
And the world is the winner!!!:) :) :)

dfc
12-21-2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer

....Not much research needed....
,,,,,,.

I seem to have heard that somewhere before?

TyVole
12-22-2003, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by ted
For what it's worth, Sadam DID support terrorists and Iraq DID have terrorists and training camps.

Every nation in that region, including Isreal, supports terrorism in one form or another. So, by your reasoning, we should invade an occupy every country in the Middle East.

And if I recall correctly, the Reagan Administration supported Afhani terrorists during the Soviet occupation. Now, you may not call them terrorists because they were fighting against our enemy, but they were terrorists (one was a fellow named Bin Laden.) Perhaps we should arrest Reagan and put him on trial alongside Saddam.

dfc
12-22-2003, 05:15 AM
I can tell you, if the Kurds caught Saddam, there would be nothing left of him. He'd be hanging off a pole in their district with each family cutting a piece off him. Lets face it Beam, the story is pretty far fetched. It doesn't fit with any of the facts of what we "do" know. But, taken completely out of context..and thrown out against he wall hoping it sticks, does make for hyped up tabloid.
And gosh knows, nobody could possibly have any motivations to try and discredit the US or Bush for anything that happens in Iraq. That just wouldn't happen unless it was true. (nudge, nudge)

It's a little struggle here to come to reconcile our positions against the backrop of Saddam being on trial for crimes against humanity isn't it? So, everybody just decides..well..it's a good thing..right thing..as long as Bush doesn't get credit for it? Who in the world , UN or anywehre else "fought" for this? Nobody did. Well, maybe abstractly Bush did...under the guise of "regime change" to end the WMD "threat". But, that now everyone is trying to pass this off..as some happy accident that no one intended ..it's just bizzare.

Now, we have Muamar Kaddafi. Another dictator..who is getting old and concerned about his family rule (his sons) given the circumstances. I applaud Muamars actions. But, I can't help but think, that what happend in Iraq, seeing Saddam brought to trial in Iraq for his crimes..and what message that's sending ..to everyone, including us, brought Muamar to the table on this one. Another "surprise" in this? Just another happy accident?

You see Beam, you are going to be left with one very diffcult proposition to deal with... And that is...that Bush "misled" us all into an illegal, unjust war..that turned out to be the right thing to do.

Because..even if things go badly for "us" in Iraq..and they form some Islamic based gov (which I personally have no problem with as long as all the people of Iraq agree on it), a gov which is Not friendly to us, it will still be a free Iraq..and moving foward without the torture and muder of Saddam. And even if they get crappy leaders to start with...how much worse can they do than Saddam? It's not going to EVER be "worse" than it has been for the last 20 someodd years for them. It''s going to be a good thing..no matter "how" badly it goes for the US. And no matter how much you wish that not to be so...it's gonna be so.

And I think trying to discredit Bush for it, as time goes on, is going to get harder and more diffult..and your going to bust a vien trying to come up with something..that could possibly counter the wieght of the changes that are going on..and you'll find...as the UN and other countries will as well, that your opposition..is not even going to make sense or have any context against what's going on in the world. Think about it...standing outside the trial ofSaddam for crimes against humanity..carrying a sign that saying...this war was WRONG. Bush lied, he misled us into freeing Iraqi people? Or..Fake Turkeys and Saddam wasn't really captured by Americans?

Those who opposed the war in Iraq, who said it was "illegal", "unjust"..etc..are now holding those positions in the face of all this..and it's gonna get harder and harder to do...as all this unfolds.

Unjust? For whom? Saddam? Illegal? While Saddam is on trial for crimes against humanity?

Think about it, Bush fought an illegal, unjust war, and misled us into it..that was exactly the right thing to do?

OR do you think that the fact that Saddam is on trial now, was NOT the right thing to do? Or are you saying..you believed that, given enough time, we could have affected regime change in Iraq via the UN? Or are you saying you believe that geting rid of Saddam just wan't necessary to end all this? Hey, I'm sure Bush would have been FINE with bringing Saddam to the Un to put him on trial for crimes against humanity and removing him from power..then using the UN to scour IRaq, to dismantle any WMd programs, etc he had. I guess all the Fedayeen, republican guards and baath party memebers would probably not be too happy about that though? LEts face it Beam, it would have been a war to affect that change and the UN wasn't going to do that without SAddam invading another country. And even THEN..they didn't take him out! They just said, push Saddam back to Iraq.. Think about how that is gonna go down inhistory after the trial and all his crimes against his people come out.

And it's not helping your cause that regime change was part of Bush's plan from the beggining and that regime change was clearly NOT even on the table for the other side of this..(even when saddam DID violate international law and invade another country) but in fact..name calling abounded about the very notion of it! And yet, it turns out that everyone is "glad" and happy that there is regime change in Iraq?

But, Beam, I "do" respect you..and admire your zeal and desire to keep up and research thing and keeping us all abreast of the latest accusations, etc about Bush and his fake turkeys and media events..and staged caputre of Saddam etc. Of course, none of that is even remotely important in comparison to the news that Saddam actually "was" caught. But, I admire your tenacity in it.

Beamtracer
12-22-2003, 07:07 AM
Actually, the United States has had a long history of faking things at wartime. The capture of fake arms caches during Vietnam.

Or taking the glory for rescuing the downed chopper crew in Somalia, which became the subject of the movie Blackhawk Down. It was the Malaysian army that really performed that rescue, but they didn't get a mention.

They always say that truth is the first casualty of war.


Originally posted by dfc
You see Beam, you are going to be left with one very diffcult proposition to deal with... And that is...that Bush "misled" us all into an illegal, unjust war..that turned out to be the right thing to do. I still believe the war on Iraq was very wrong, even though I won't convince you or Prospector of this.

How many American soldiers dead? I think the number is approaching 500 now. How many Iraqi's dead? It's a six figure number there.

The US administration wanted regime change, yes. But they couldn't make this their reason from the start, as it would have been illegal under international law.

Instead they needed the excuse of WMD, to say that the United States was under imminent threat from Iraq, to justify it. Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy and a tyrant, but the US was not about to be attacked be Iraq.

We know the neo-conservatives always planned to attack Iraq. They had written many papers about it in the years preceding this.


Originally posted by dfc
Think about it, Bush fought an illegal, unjust war, and misled us into it..that was exactly the right thing to do?
The attack on Iraq was a waste of lives and resources.

Meanwhile, the real perpetrators of 9-11 get away. All that rhetoric about Osama, then it was a quick "bait and switch" and Osama is swapped for Saddam.

The 9-11 concept was conceived in Kuala Lumpur. It was financed from Saudi Arabia. There were operatives all over the world, including western European nations like Germany. The attack on Iraq diverted valuable intelligence resources away from finding the real villains.


Originally posted by dfc
And it's not helping your cause that regime change was part of Bush's plan from the beggining and that regime change was clearly NOT even on the table for the other side of this..(even when saddam DID violate international law and invade another country)
Before the war, Bush made WMD his main reason for invading Iraq.

You accuse Saddam of violating international law and invading another country, and that accusation can also be applied to the United States.

The US violation of international law has shamed America around the world, and caused great diplomatic damage with other countries. It has caused a rise in anti-American sentiment around the globe, and this is not a good thing.

gjjackson
12-22-2003, 08:35 AM
I guess it's not surprising but sure evident that there are some who just D e s p i s e the U.S.

"Believe what you want, just don't believe it here" John Candy.

You can believe what you want. You can put your trust in your sources and I'll put my trust in my sources. Did you forget that we wouldn't have even attacked if Saddam would just leave Iraq. Apparently some here have forgotten All that was done and said prior to invading. All it amounts to is a hatred for this country and hatred for a somewhat Conservative President. You complain on and on on what we did. Did the U.S. cut out people's tongues, cut off people's ears. This is the kind of person people are complaining about this country putting an end to. Bush didn't need any U.N. or international permission. We were at war with Iraq since 91. The only thing signed was a cessation of hostilities. That's why we had flown 350,000 sorties since 91.

TyVole
12-22-2003, 09:13 AM
Actually, we L o v e this country -- that is the reason why we are upset.

I think it's people like you who secretly D e s p i s e it -- hoping that a nation founded on liberty and democracy is changed to the type of fascist dictatorship you crave -- where everyone thinks and acts as one, where everyone obeys, where the trains run on time.

Your argument about Saddam leaving prior to the invasion is ridiculous. We would've still occupied the Iraq -- we would've had to -- otherwise total chaos would've erupted.

And for the nth time, your human rights argument is complete nonsense -- you don't give a damn about any of the other ruthless dictators, some of whom are worse than Saddam.

gjjackson
12-22-2003, 09:56 AM
Typical response.. Get a life.............

TyVole
12-22-2003, 10:09 AM
Talk about a typical response . . .

Can't win an argument -- hurl insults; or in the case of GW -- hurl bombs.

ted
12-22-2003, 10:42 AM
TyVole, so we should have let Sadam continue just like the UN did just because there are other bad leaders? HA HA HA HA HA! NO way.

As I've said before, while taking out Sadam was of importance to Iraq the people, so was stabilizing the region so we didn't have to go back and help his neighbors AGAIN, help stabilize the oil market, YES it’s a good thing, AND take out a known supporter to the terrorists.
There were many reasons why Sadam was a good start.

I hope next time people want to help another country, they make the UN do something other then make idle threats. Over a decade with no results other then hurting the Iraq citizens. WAY TO GO UN.

We got positive results and time is proving our actions were the right actions. That’s what’s got so many people trying to distract from the fact that we were right.

prospector
12-22-2003, 10:49 AM
No matter how many times it's uttered..it's a lie
say that the United States was under imminent threat from Iraq, to justify it

imminent was never uttered.

So get over it.

dfc
12-22-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
....The US administration wanted regime change, yes. But they couldn't make this their reason from the start, as it would have been illegal under international law........


....We know the neo-conservatives always planned to attack Iraq. They had written many papers about it in the years preceding this......


Last I looked Beam,genocide, rape, mass murder, torture, etc.. even in your own country "ARE" against International Law are they not? That's what they are currently using at the Hague for Milosivitch..is it not?

Saddam is currently facing trial for Those very charges right now(among others). And need I mention that UN "now" wants and thinks such atrocities should be handled by "them"? And should I mention that bringing Saddam, his sons and baath party memebers to such a trial for such crimes WOULD have meant regime change just as it did for Milosivitch.

So, the atrocities that Saddam committed which are against international law and should be tried in international court now, which will result in those tried being on trial for the life and removed from power in Iraq, are the same crimes that did not warrant such action before?

Think about that "real" hard Beam.

TyVole
12-22-2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by ted
TyVole, so we should have let Sadam continue just like the UN did just because there are other bad leaders? HA HA HA HA HA! NO way.


No. What I'm saying is that either we should be trying to oust all despots or no despots. We just can't pick one and saying we're doing it for humanitarian reasons.

The truth is we didn't give a damn about how many people Saddam killed and tortured.

If some guy in Zambia killed 10 million people tomorrow, we wouldn't lift a finger to help. And if you think I'm wrong, ask the people of Cambodia, Rwanda, and the Congo.

dfc
12-22-2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by TyVole

And for the nth time, your human rights argument is complete nonsense -- you don't give a damn about any of the other ruthless dictators, some of whom are worse than Saddam. [/B]

And you know me so well? Sheesh, maybe we should at least shake hands or something before you make such a judgement bout me. And "I"m not saying you don't love your country.

Tyvol.
Human rights violations..."different" than Crimes Against Humanity. Different guidelines..different penalties.

There are plenty of dictator ships..that have ongoing human rights abuses. It's the nature of such a regime , since people are not allowed to vote, or change their gov via free process...the only way to affect change in such gov is coup..or assisination. The leaders of such a regime, pay an army that is close to them..to prevent such a coup. And they oppress the people, and violate their human rights, to keep them in line, and from having the ability to organize and affect a coup and to generally maintain control over a country that does not have free will. That's also why these people, the citizens of said countries, often request outside help from foreign govs...to help overthrow their gov.

Yes, I am against ALL dictatorships! All of them, as a form of gov. And it esp irks me that the only "democracy" ever introduced to such places..is their vote at the UN...where they are afforded all the rights..that they do not give their own citizens. And I am against ALL human rights abuses, in any country. And we have ongoing talks and negociations with countries who are guilty of such things..to encourage them to NOT do it. And we offer them benefits, trade, etc..to leverage them to stop..or improve such conditions in their own country. I'm ALL for that.
Crimes against humanity however, are different. That's..death penalty or life in prison (many times over). I know of no other leader/dictator, etc..who is still in power who is guilty of such attroricites as sAddam. The only other leader I know of that comes close to Saddams crimes in this day and age ..is Milosivitch. And he's currently on trial at the Hague for Crimes against humanity. (was removed from power..pre-emptively I might add). If you know of antoher, I'd like to know who they are..and what their crimes were./are. I'll just say, if there exists such a person, as another Saddam, I'm HAPPY to support the UN removing them and putting them on trial under International Law. I think that's supposed to be the way it works in the first place..is it not?

Having said that, let me say this, I don't doubt for a min any of you guys as to your love for your country, etc. Nor do I question your motivations in that regard for the views you have. I just want to make that clear.

TyVole
12-22-2003, 12:13 PM
dfc,

I was actually addressing gjjackson. He was the one accusing us of despising our country. Sorry for the confusion. Sometimes it's difficult on these forums to see who's responding to whom.

dfc
12-22-2003, 12:20 PM
Tyvol,
Just wanted to add, that if your point is that we have failed as an international community to address such leaders around the world..and let them go...I agree with you!

Something could have been done about Saddam a LONG time ago, by anybody given president/leader..not just the US. It was never done. Everybody turned a blind eye to it for their own reasons.

Pol Pot was never captured..but he remained wanted for the rest of his days..and had he been caught, he too would have been put on trial for crimes against humanity. As per international law, US forces were not allowed in Cambodia. (legally). They were a soverign country..etc..etc. Same deal. We were often in Cambodia..documenting Pol Pots crimes though...and tracking VC movements who continually darted in and out of cambodia against International Law because they knew we couldn't follow them in force. OF course, also as usual, nobody minded that the VC did it.