PDA

View Full Version : F**k



Epita
03-19-2003, 03:14 PM
F**K, at 1pm GMT Bush Jnr. will say the words which will start a war, and end thousands of lives in one go.

Idiot

Epita

kenmac
03-19-2003, 03:44 PM
More people have been killed by Saddam since the gulf war than all the people who were killed in the gulf war.
This is long over due.
God bless America and all the countries who have joined us.

mattclary
03-20-2003, 12:04 PM
Praise the lord and pass that can o' whup a*s!! :cool:

Alec Trevelyan
03-20-2003, 01:03 PM
"unexpected this is. And unfortunate..."

~Yoda

well, not so much unexpected...but definitely unfortunate...

JohnD
03-20-2003, 01:05 PM
Agreed. This is long overdue. 5000 people die every month under Saddam. His regime tortures and rapes women and children. Why anyone would want to leave him and his thugs in power is beyond me. I support all of the troops who are putting their lives on the line. Come home safe.

Skonk
03-20-2003, 01:47 PM
Iv never wished harm upon anyone before but if anyone deserves to be taken out of the picture, its Saddam Hussein.

Cant get away from the fact that this should of been done a long time ago when there was support from the general public though.

James..

Lamont
03-20-2003, 02:26 PM
Well, even if you are not for what Bush decided, the fact is that people are over there fighting. So we have to support them.

Yeah, time to pass that can of whoop-*****.

Go team.

Beamtracer
03-20-2003, 04:39 PM
I hope that lives of troops are not lost. I hope no lives are lost. However, that shouldn't mean that everyone should not oppose what the objective is. This is an opposition to the political decisions that have taken place, rather than for the actual troops on the ground.

By the way, the half million children who died in Iraq over the last 12 years was caused by sanctions, and by US policy of disruption of the clean drinking water supply in Iraq.

It's called "death by diarrhea".

crownam
03-20-2003, 04:54 PM
Well, the way I see it, It would be downright idiotic to sit on our butts and not do anything about the Iraq situation. For those who live in America, I'm sure you know what I mean. It doesn't make sense to place what we think is integrity, truth and honor on a man so rediculously self-serving such as Suddam. These anti-war demonstrations don't make sense either. I'm all for freedom of speech in America, however demonstrators in America -1: should be a little more educated about what they are demonstrating agianst, 2: and they should remember that the reason they even have the ability to demonstrate is because of the freedoms that were FOUGHT for years ago. We don't have a free country because of our "sit on our butts forefathers", we have freedom because of our Freedom Fighting Forefathers! Disarming Suddam and his regime is better fought on their soil-NOT OURS! If we don't take down his regime, this idiot will bring it to us on our soil. I guess that would mean that the so called "peace-keepers" (anti-war demonstrators) would rather have this conflict take place at home. Could you imagine telling George Washington not to fight? I don't know where all this anti-war comes from, maybe it has to do with taking the Pledge of Allegiance out of our schools or worse yet, attempting to take "...under God.." out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Apparently many people have forgotten that freedom isn't free. We must do something to release us and the world from the bondage of terrorism. God bless America, our troops, and American citizens who want to make a positive difference for future generations so they may live in a better, free world.:mad:

kenmac
03-20-2003, 06:37 PM
Beam,
The sanctions could have been stopped at anytime by Saddam.
As an American I can rest assured that we didn’t have anything to do with the death of the children that you mention.
The UNITED NATIONS placed the sanctions on Iraq.
I have compassion for the people of Iraq.
That is why I back this envasion 100%
Ken Mac

kenmac
03-20-2003, 06:50 PM
An article from England



No matter what your views on President Bush's
statement of upcoming war, this, from an English journalist, is
very
interesting. Just a word of background, for those of you who
aren't familiar
with the UK's Daily Mirror.
This is a notoriously left-wing daily that
is normally not
supportive of the Colonials across the Atlantic.
Tony Parsons Daily Mirror September 11, 2002
One year ago, the world witnessed a unique
kind of
broadcasting - the mass murder of thousands, live on
television. As a lesson in
the pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11
was up there with
Pol Pot's Mountain of Skulls in Cambodia, or the
skeletal bodies
stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps.
An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated
and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one
thing – nobody deserves this fate. Surely there could be consensus: The victims
were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil.
But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is
increasingly seen
as America's comeuppance. Incredibly,
anti-Americanism has increased
over the last year.
There has always been a simmering resentment
to the USA in
this country; too loud, too rich, too full of
themselves, and so much
happier than Europeans - but it has become an
epidemic. And it
seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my
stomach. America is this country's greatest friend
and our staunchest ally. We are bonded to the US by culture, language
and blood. A
little over half a century ago, around half a million
Americans died for
Our freedoms, as well as their own. Have we forgotten
so soon? And
exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and
children - not
just Americans, but from dozens of countries, were
butchered by a small group of religious fanatics. Are we so quick to
betray them?
What touched the heart about those who died
in the Twin
Towers and on the planes, was that we recognized them.
Young fathers and mothers, somebody's son and somebody's daughter,
husbands, wives,
and children, some unborn.
And these people brought it on themselves?
Their nation is to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?
These days you don't have to be some
dust-encrusted nut job
in Kabul or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America
as the Great
Satan.
The anti-American alliance is made up of
self-loathing liberals who
blame the Americans for every ill in the Third
World, and conservatives suffering from power-envy, bitter
that the world's
only superpower can do what it likes without having to
ask permission.
The truth is that America has behaved with
enormous restraint
since September 11. Remember, remember - Remember
the gut-wrenching
tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say,
"I love you,"
before
they were burned alive.
Remember those people leaping to their
deaths from the top of
burning skyscrapers. Remember the hundreds of firemen buried
alive.
Remember the smiling face of that beautiful
little girl who
was on one of the planes with her mum.
Remember, remember - And realize that
America has never retaliated for 9/11 in anything like the way it
could have.
So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked up
without a trial in
Camp X-ray? Pass the Kleenex.
So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot
up after they merrily fired their semi-automatics in a sky full
of American
planes?
A shame, but maybe next time they should stick to
confetti. AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of
the world into a parking lot.
That it didn't is a sign of strength.
American voices are already being raised against attacking Iraq -
that's what a
democracy is for. How many in the Islamic world will have a
minute's silence
for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11? How many
Islamic leaders will
Have the guts to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was
an abomination?
When the news of 9/11 broke on the West
Bank, those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street.
America watched all
Of that - and didn't push the button. We should thank
the stars that America is the most powerful nation in the world.
I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not provoke all-out war.
Not a "war on terrorism." A real war.
The fundamentalist dudes are talking about
"opening the gates
of hell," if America attacks Iraq. Well, America
could have opened the gates of hell like you wouldn't believe.
The US is the most militarily powerful
nation that ever
strode the face of the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan
may have been
less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be
misconceived.
But don't blame America for not bringing
peace and light to these wretched countries. How many democracies are
there in the
Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them
on the fingers of
one hand - assuming you haven't had any chopped off
for minor
shoplifting.
I love America, yet America is hated. I
guess that makes me Bush's poodle.
But I would rather be a dog in New York City
than a Prince in Riyadh. Above all, America is hated because it is
what every
country wants to be - rich, free, strong, open,
optimistic. Not ground down
by the past, or religion, or some caste system.
America is the best
friend this country ever had and we should start
remembering that.
Or do you really think the USA is the root
of all evil? Tell
it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped
to their death
from the burning towers.
Tell it to the nursing mothers whose
husbands died on one of
the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a
collapsing skyscraper.
And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose
husbands worked for
the New York Fire Department.
To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press
than Saddam Hussein. Once we were told that Saddam gassed the
Kurds, tortured
His own people and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we
are told he
likes Quality Street. Save me the range center, Oh
Mighty One!
Remember, remember, September 11 -
One of the greatest atrocities in human
history was committed against America.
No, do more than remember. Never forget.

Beamtracer
03-20-2003, 07:55 PM
To criticize one action that the government does, does not make one anti-American.

To suffer a terrible loss of life in a terrorist attack does not make it right to inflict even bigger losses of life on another country.

To value the privilege of living in a "free" country should make one appreciate the fact, and not want to support the installation of an alternate dictatorship in Iraq. (The United States will not bring democracy to Iraq).

To hear it in the media does not mean that it is correct information.

Is Saddam Hussein a tyrant? Yes.

Does he have weaponry that is a threat to the United States? No.

Does he have nuclear weapons? No.

Does he have enriched nuclear materials? No.

Does he have links to al-Qaeda? No.

Do Iran & Pakistan have these materials? Yes.

Does Pakistan have links to al-Qaeda? Yes.

Does Saudi Arabia have links to al-Qaeda? Yes.


If the "weapons of mass destruction" really existed, then there would be a case. However such claims don't stand up to international scrutiny. Someday we'll learn what the real reason for this war is.

Stabilization of oil supply? Influence over OPEC prices? Middle East water resources? Clamp down on Islamic fundamentalism? Domestic distraction?

JohnD
03-20-2003, 08:45 PM
(The United States will not bring democracy to Iraq).

I'm not sure where this negative attitude is coming from. Beam, what made you suddenly become so concerned about the Iraqi people? Did you feel this way over the past 12 years as they suffered under Saddam? Or did you just decide to start posting your thoughts as the notion of war drew close? I was listening to a local radio program the other day, and there was a debate being discussed about the pro-war/anti-war stance. An Iraqi women phoned in and told her story about growing up in Iraq. About Saddam's regime toturing and killing her father, and other family members. She was able to flee here fortunately. She then explained that she didn't understand how there could be such anti-Americanism right here in America. "You American's don't know how good you have it." She then broke into tears.
I've been hearing, and watching more and more Iraqi natives, now here in America, saying speaking up and saying similiar things. Just today I went and got my haircut from my barber. We discussed the war and she said that she was introduced to an Iraqi just the night before at some social gathering she was at. They spoke of the Iraq war and he said that he had been waiting for this day for a long time.

What I'm trying to say is that you should really look at what your saying, and realize that you don't have a problem with the Iraqi people being liberated, so long as that it's a Democratic President who leads the charge.

May I ask...did you protest against the Kosovo incident?

Freak
03-20-2003, 08:54 PM
Beam Wrote:
Stabilization of oil supply? Influence over OPEC prices? Middle East water resources? Clamp down on Islamic fundamentalism? Domestic distraction?

It's all of those things! Without doubt!
Domestic Issues, and Oil.. being the main two!

But the downsides of this war internationally, will not be known
for many years to come...

But of course Terrorism on our own streets will increase,
as a consequence, as will hatred and lack of respect..
(And people wonder why school kids shoot guns at other schoolkids, when we allow our governments to do the exact same thing....

Although i'm sure Nth Korea, are ramping up production of all it's illegal weapons, as we speak... And now they have an excuse to use them first!

We have international division, and lots of nuclear weapons.
This is the start of many years instability world wide.

Now we wait for "evidence" of Saddams weapons of mass destruction, which we all know he does not really have.
(but the coallition of the stupid will produce something no doubt
They have no choice now!)
They also have to keep the bodycount way down.

Alec Trevelyan
03-20-2003, 09:03 PM
about now i think BeamTracer and I are the only sane ones here....:rolleyes:

Beamtracer
03-20-2003, 09:24 PM
Hi John,

Iraqi's in exile (such as those in the United States or Europe) seem to be much more pro-war than those living in Baghdad. I guess that's because they're not directly in the firing line.

Nobody is arguing that Saddam is bad. He is the brutal dictator that everyone says he is. It's just not as simple as Saddam goes and democracy comes. Democracy won't come, and there's every chance of the next dictator also ruling with an iron fist.

The deaths of tens of thousands of citizens is too high a price to pay. These are huge numbers. If Saddam just gave himself up peacefully (which there's not much chance of that happening) to avoid this loss of life, then it would be a huge relief.

In Kosovo there was some air-bombing in the cities. The one that hit the Chinese embassy is an example. Another one hit the TV channel. However there was never the threat of mass bombing to the extent planned for Baghdad. There was never the threat of a bloody street battle that is likely for Baghdad. Apart from the elite Republican Guard, most of the rest of Saddam's army is the children of the city who have had rifles thrust into their hands. How are the marines going to not shoot at them?

In the end, the worst weapons will proliferate rather than decrease. Other rogue states will have no choice but to go nuclear to avoid a similar invasion.

In some ways, Saddam is just a side show and not the main game. There's a lot of global issues that will be forever affected in the aftermath. Also, it may not turn out as expected. Global alliances will be destroyed. American may find that bombs and military force can't fix all problems. America may need those alliances to help solve other issues (like terrorism).

I don't believe this action is in the best interests of America.


FREAK: The water issue shouldn't be overlooked. A lot of middle eastern countries don't have easy access to fresh water. Many get their water from underground supplies that are drying up. Iraq has plentiful water supplies. This water could be used to influence other countries in the area.

Meaty
03-20-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
To criticize one action that the government does, does not make one anti-American.

If the "weapons of mass destruction" really existed, then there would be a case. However such claims don't stand up to international scrutiny. Someday we'll learn what the real reason for this war is.

Stabilization of oil supply? Influence over OPEC prices? Middle East water resources? Clamp down on Islamic fundamentalism? Domestic distraction?

I agree that criticizing the government does not make one un-american, unless of course you are a communist =] Most people agree that Saddam is bad but just have a different methodology about neutralizing him as a threat. I for one believe that the military action is appropriate at this time.

You cannot ignore Powell's briefing before the UN Security Council. He brought forward some really damning evidence. Evidence of connections to terrorism. Evidence of biological, nuclear, and chemical weapon programs. Evidence of Saddam's trickery when avoiding the inspectors. Couple that with the atrocities he, his sons, and their top staff have committed and you have a case for war that is about as strong as you can have without having been attacked first. The United States has over 40 countries supporting her now. So it is difficult to say that the the 'proof' has not stood up to international scrutiny. I really don't care that France, Germany, and Russia (all of whom have well documented finacial ties to Saddam) aren't with us on this one. France in particular, they refused to sign any resolution that had an ultimatum that would end with conflict. They would just be happy to stand there and demand "pretty please Saddam, disarm for us."

The statement that Saddam does not have any weaponry that can threaten the United States in an interesting one. There are two responses to that. First, the whole idea is not that he doesnt have direct delivery systems to shoot at the United States. This is where his ties to terrorism come in to play. Now, Beam doesn't believe there are any ties. I for this one will defer to the national security experts. If they say there are, and provide some evidence to back it up, I'll believe them. I dont need to know the ins and outs of all their counterintelligence systems for sufficient proof in my mind. Aside from that, the whole problem that we find ourselves in with N.Korea is what happens when your options are limited, when you dont deal with evil when it is still weak. N.Korea has leverage over us with nukes, and the fact that Seoul is about a stones throw away from a few hundred pieces of N.Korea artillery. We are trying to stop Saddam before he gets those weapons and military action is not necessarily possible.

Aside from what you think the motives 'truely' are you cannot deny the facts. If you think Bush wants to oust Saddam for other reasons, then that is an ad hominim attack on Bush himself, and not the argument for war. The stories I am hearing about Saddam and his sons are amazing. One guy describe how they used plastic shreaders to kill people. People who were given mercy got to go in head first, those who were not given mercy, went in feet first and died a horribly painful death. What is the number of people he has killed, the number keeps going up, last I heard it was OVER two million. And that only scratches the surface.

Anyways, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and we can be united in our hope that the least amount of people are killed as possible. That I know we can agree on. Here is hoping it is all over soon.

Cheers

JohnD
03-20-2003, 10:12 PM
Iraqi's in exile (such as those in the United States or Europe) seem to be much more pro-war than those living in Baghdad. I guess that's because they're not directly in the firing line

Well, the ones in Baghdad have no choice. Any voicing against Saddam is taken care of with a bullet to the head.

I guess we will just agree to disagree ( seems to be the end all of statement. )

Actually, according to the lastest news, Saddam may already be dead and his supreme republican guards discussing with allied forces of surrender.

ted
03-20-2003, 11:18 PM
Once North Korea and others see that we mean what we say, it'll give a lot more substance when we have to deal with them.

The way the UN has dealt with Iraq, North Korea had no reason to believe their idle threats or cooperate.

I'm glad to see some of those counties that originally opposed us, are more willing to work with us now.

Some times you have to kick the bullies *** to get him under control. More than a decade of "threats" has only cost us more money and more lives in Iraq.

Seems pretty simple to over 70% of Americans.

hrgiger
03-20-2003, 11:51 PM
I think some of you are overcomplicating the issue. I think all we really need to know that the earth will be a much better place without Saddam Hussein. I hope he's dead real soon. I think a war is a small price to pay for people's freedom. Ask Iraqi's in this country who aren't under the iron fist of Saddam and they'll tell you how they feel.
There will be collateral damage. There will be civillians killed. But it's going to be different this war. It's going to be minimal. Our weapons are more precise then ever and so less lives will be lost during attacks then in the gulf war. 25% of our troops that died during the gulf war were due to friendly fire. They have outfitted all the vehicles of our armies with devices now so that we can easily discern ours from theirs. One of the reasons civillians will be killed in the gulf will mostly be due to the fact that Saddam hides behind them. He moves his armies into residential areas and sets up defenses there. Right there alone is reason enough to see that he needs to go.

CTRL+X
03-21-2003, 12:09 AM
What ever the pros and cons of the past it seems that the talks to an end are at hand,, even quicker than I imagined.

the strength to do what is right when based in truth and facts will always, always win over strength built on lies and fear.

The thing to learn for the future from what the world has witnessed in all this is to be honest with yourself and ask how much of what I think is based in the truth of fact, and how much of what I feel is based in the emotions of my beliefs.

Beamtracer
03-21-2003, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by ted
Once North Korea and others see that we mean what we say, it'll give a lot more substance when we have to deal with them.

Wrong. The action in Iraq will cause North Korea to, at the minimum, bring the world to the brink of nuclear war. You will see this happen.

North Korea could even be crazy enough to pull the trigger.

This war in the middle east is one of the most reckless acts of modern times, with no thought about the consequences.

kenmac
03-21-2003, 06:40 AM
Beam,
I think you better stop letting fear run your life.
If the world acted like you do we would all be living in the dark ages.

Maybe the first settlers of this country shouldn't have fought against England.
Maye the world should have looked the other way in WW2.
Maybe we should have not taken the Taliban out.
Maybe we just shouldn't envaded Iraq.
Maybe we should look the other way from N. Korea
Maybe Kennedy should have let the Russians put missles in Cuba.
Maybe we shouldn't have a space program for fear of atack from Mars.


Maybe I shouldn't take the subway into NYC anymore.
Maybe we should all just be afraid and do nothing.

Now that is FREEDOM huh....

JohnD
03-21-2003, 08:05 AM
Nobody is arguing that Saddam is bad. He is the brutal dictator that everyone says he is. It's just not as simple as Saddam goes and democracy comes. Democracy won't come, and there's every chance of the next dictator also ruling with an iron fist.

Beam,
You keep saying how Democracy won't work in Iraq. Are you saying that the people of the middle east are incapable of making it work? Are so incapable, that in fact, you believe it's not even worth letting them try it out? It seems pretty arrogant to come to a conclusion that a county is not worthy nor capable of governing themselves.

As far as North Korea goes...you should realize by now that they have done this before. This is how they negotiate. Mr. Kim is desperate for money.

loebek
03-21-2003, 08:19 AM
5000 children die every month in Iraq because of the UN-embargo. The embargo boycotts medicals supplys for over 9 Years now.

This is a massacre!


I have nothing to say then bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity!
:rolleyes:
Insane.


I pray for
Iraq children
Iraq people
all soldiers down there
Saddam (may he stop his tyrannian way)
Bush and all other governements

====================
www.boycottnow.info will be up soon....

jcupp
03-21-2003, 10:47 AM
Just to respond to several different points made by others in this thread.

I don't see how anyone can honestly think this war is about oil. Iraq offered oil at below market prices and we didn't take the deal, we don't buy much oil either directly or indirectly from Iraq anyway and if we wanted oil bad enough to start a war over it why didn't we just keep kuwait's oil fields when we had them in the last gulf war? I think it would be easier to capitulate to Iraq and let vthem sell oil on the open market and just buy the stuff cheap if this were really only about the oil.

Those opposed to this war need to be reminded that the only reason Saddam survived as leader of Iraq after the first gulf war was because we agreed to a cease fire after he agreed to totally disarm. After 12 years he hasn't lived up to his end of the bargain so we discontinue the cease fire and finish what we started. This and a number of other UN resolutions give us the legal and more importantly the moral right to prosecute this war.

Events are proving those who fear mass casulties form carpet bombing cities or house to house urban warfare wrong. The Iraqi leadership may have been wiped out in our opening cruise missle strike and the rest of the Iraqi military appears to be poised to capitulate so this is probably going to be a quick, low bloodshed war. But even if the US has to unleash the "Shock and Awe" attack we must liberate Iraq both for our own long-term safty and because it is the right thing to do for the Iraqi people.

Our surprise attack on Saddam and Co. may give pause to the North Korean leadership. One minute your having a meeting about how to combat the great satan and the next cruise missles are blowing you up. I think I'd rattle my sabre a little more softly after seeing that.

Our real challange will be to help the Iraqi people set up a just system of self government while keeping simmering ethnic and religious division from boiling over into civil war. If we can do that I think over the next decade we wil see other unjust goverments in the region fall to democracy, sort of a reverse domino theory. I predict that within five years we see a new secular government of the people rise up in Iran. And even entrenched theocracys like Saudi Arabia may soon have to change.

Sorry about the long post and I too would like to thank everyone for the civil tone of this debate.

-Jeff
Digital Arts

CTRL+X
03-21-2003, 12:31 PM
North Korea is nothing on the world scene, those who worry about it are waisting thier time, Iraq was thier biggest buyer,, when they saw the U.S. going into Iraq ,, allll that noise they were making was thier way of saying " Hey U.S. ,, if your going to go destroy our biggest money maker we want to be compensated, if you don't we will act like children".... thats all they've done


and the U.S. didnt fall for it.... N Korea is isolated and not a threat to this world at this time..they just wanted to be bought off.

Hiraghm
03-21-2003, 02:23 PM
I did some calculating and thinking about the war...

At the current rate of loss of Iraqi life, the population of Iraqi will be cut in half in...

just under 10 thousand years.

As of this writing, we've lost more British lives due to in-theatre accidents than total Iraqi lives in this campaign.

With a population of 5 million in Baghdad, if the evil Coalition forces kill five thousand Iraqis in the bombing, they will have killed one-tenth of one percent of the population of Baghdad.

The Iraqis have launched SCUD missiles toward Kuwait. They were in the process of destroying the oil terminals in the Persian Gulf when Navy Seals showed up and suggested that would be A Bad Thing. The thousands of oil wells to be torched number thus far between 4 and 8 wells.

The hundreds of thousands, if not millions of refugees fleeing the country to date total just over 300.

The U.S. stock market is up 12% in the past 8 sessions. There hasn't been a sustained "up" period like this since 1996, and not an increase like this in 20 years, according to those who watch such things. Of course, this is just a small sample of the terrible financial repercussions of the war that we face.

Yes, this is such a terrible thing we're doing, so viscious, so heartless, so greedy, so inept. Not.

ted
03-21-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
Wrong. The action in Iraq will cause North Korea to, at the minimum, bring the world to the brink of nuclear war. You will see this happen.

North Korea could even be crazy enough to pull the trigger.


North Korea is going to do what they are going to do.

With the US demonstrating that they will act on their threats, there is a better chance that North Korea will better think through their actions.

If they "pull the trigger", it surely won't be because of the war with Iraq. This war might just prevent them.

Beamtracer, I honestly can't understand most of your views. That doesn't make you bad, just a little to the left and I'll gladly keep my views since I'm on the "Right".;)

Hiraghm
03-21-2003, 05:25 PM
Is Saddam Hussein a tyrant? Yes.

Does he have weaponry that is a threat to the United States? No.


Yes. They're looking for 6 Iraqis who are a definite threat to the U.S. (more importantly, a threat to me! :p )


Does he have nuclear weapons? No.


You know this.... how? In a few days, this will undoubtedly be true. He'll either be dead, or we'll have them.


Does he have enriched nuclear materials?


See above.


Does he have links to al-Qaeda?


Yes. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is both a recently-arrested Al Qaeda bigwig, and a dead Kuwaiti student. Many members of Al Qaeda have identities lifted from Kuwaiti records during the Iraqi rape of Kuwait. That's called "a link".


Do Iran & Pakistan have these materials?

So does the U.S.
I know it's difficult for the liberal mind to grasp, but try to understand these two analogies...
cops carry guns.... crooks carry guns... law-abiding citizens carry guns... which of these three pose a threat to my safety?
When the U.S. became involved in WWII, we did not paratroop into Berlin. We did not paratroop into Tokyo. We attacked N. Africa first, then Sicily, then Italy, then France.

That we haven't attacked other nations we do not consider as immediate a threat as Iraq ("We" spelled "U.S.") does not mean we won't get around to them eventually. That someone has a weapon doesn't mean he's about to blow your brains out. That he has a track record of bashing brains out with a baseball bat (cricket bat to you, I suppose,) does suggest, on the other hand, that he might. Pakistan is helping us, however unwillingly, with the hunt for terrorists. Iran is pretty much keeping its mouth shut, and appears to be facing some internal turmoil that suggests the forces of liberty are already fighting the forces of tyranny, there.

And when we finally do get around to dispensing the blessings of liberty on these peoples, you will no doubt be right there in the front, defending the rights of tyrants to rule the lives of millions of people, with the same tired, inaccurate and unrealistic arguments you put forward now.


"Political Correctness" is all of the former and none of the latter.

"Moral Relativity" is neither.

CTRL+X
03-21-2003, 10:55 PM
Wrong. The action in Iraq will cause North Korea to, at the minimum, bring the world to the brink of nuclear war. You will see this happen.

Wrong again Mr Beam,,

America did in 30 days to Afgahnistan what the USSR could not accomplish in 10 years

America will do to Iraq in a matter of weeks


Do you not think every military commander and Party leader on this planet sat straight up and thought " What kind of power is this" when they saw these campaigns going on?......

The greatest power is restraint, which America yeilds everyday, the power of restraint and tolerance....... and no one even notices it.

But if she had too, she could level anything at anytime for any reason....that kinda power behind restraint is what will prevent N Korea from doing anything, and they know it, and U.S. knows it.

Hiraghm
03-22-2003, 05:23 AM
Hm.

Nuclear war with N Korea... their side has (maybe) 1 nuke.

Our side has (at least) 6,000 nukes. Oh, and the initial deployment of SDI.

In spite of the left-wing hysteria, a nuclear exchange would not automatically be the end of the world. Even the most pessimistic forecast required a major exchange between the Soviet and U.S. arsenals, which at the time were each two or three times the size of our current arsenal.

Their conventional forces are numerous, but comparatively ill-equipped. They're impoverished, which means they can't supply their troops for a sustained campaign. If they move on S. Korea without "softening it up" with artillary, they'll get lunched. If they hit it with artillary, they'll destroy much of the supply and infrastructure they're going to need. If they disperse it among their civilian population, it'll be useless. If they deploy it in the field, we'll chew it up and ask for more. If they launch their one lousy nuke, we get to test our SDI systems and respond by making Pyongyang a parking lot.

Unless you care about N. Korean lives (something Kim Jung Il and I have in common; neither of us do,) it's not a big worry.

Epita
03-22-2003, 12:13 PM
well, im glad to see that my PCness sparked something off
Right now, the massive bombardment of bagdhad will start agin soo, but ut looks like the US is doing OK and limiting Civ damage

Since sadam hasnt nuked anyone, why is this war going ahead!

Epita

jricks
03-22-2003, 12:25 PM
--- Since sadam hasnt nuked anyone, why is this war going ahead! ---

It will not end until Iraq is liberated and the chemical weapons are destroyed and the entire regime of Saddam's is gone.

Read 1441 will help you determine where the end is and all the countries that voluntarily agreed on the issues and set the result in place. Although most of them have failed to live up to their commitments.

Saddam's dead, hiding or in a hospital bed. His armies aren't, although they are shooting thier commander's rather rapidly.

Recently a Bunker was found full of their commanders, shot by their own subordinates. When the coalition troops arrived the Iraqi army was just kinda whistling dixie and ready for a meal.

Amazing when the army of the foe is fighting for the forces to liberate them.

There is probably much of a fight coming against the remaining leaders of the Iraqi military that hope to have the country for their own now that Saddam is probably incapacitated. But, they also have to watch their backs since their own troops are gunning for them too.

Epita
03-23-2003, 04:28 AM
Well,

I think that America wants to Liberate the Oil, not the country. Afterall why are all the wells and plants being captured! (i know about fires)

Also the majority of the troops that have surrendered are the conscripts. These had bad moral before, and were expected to jump ship. However the Republican Guard and Special REpublican Guard are the ones who are garding bagdhad and are loyal to Hussain. When they get there, there is going to be a massive fight, but no one wants it inside baghdad, as all the military positions are outside, prehaps to minimise all civ damage.

And where are these NBC missiles Hu?

Epita

Rory_L
03-23-2003, 08:02 PM
Yeah: so do the South Koreans. So do the Japanese. So do I. All it takes is ONE lousy atom bomb to to kill me and level Tokyo.

These people who think a show of force will cow the rogue nations are underestimating them. Many of these problem children have ancient cultures, a big element of which is deep pride. I`m afraid that some of them would rather launch their scant supply of nuclear devices and suffer obliteration than swallow hurt to their pride. Bush in particular is blind to this: he`s a notoriously bad diplomat, frustrating his own closest aids.

I grew up under the dark shadow of M.A.D. and know how precarious the balance was. There was no stability and no sense of security in the knowledge that if THEY launched their`s at us we`d send all ours to them.

Anyone still not worried about atomic warfare should read a very modest, but meaningful document on the subject called `When the Wind Blows`. It has heart and a sad voice of reason.

R

Red_Oddity
03-24-2003, 03:07 AM
I can't believe that 'we go there to liberate the Iraqi people' is the only reason the US government is telling us...Yeah right guys, now i REALLY believe you...The US government never gave a rats arse about what was going on countries like Iraqi (besides that it was a good place to sell weaponry and they paid in oil)...
Heck the US didn't even wish to help europe in WW2, not until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the US himself....(don't get me wrong, many generations today thank the valiant soldiers who gave their lives to liberate us...)

Why do we think this 'war' will end all problems in Iraqi...I don't hear many people about the internal clan conflicts within Iraqi....
How about the Kurds? Why do you think Turkey 'liberated' the north of Iraqi (that's where the Kurds live)...Those countries have been in fued with the Kurds for many a generation, and now, with the fall of IRaqi government it will be very likely they get a own state/country and give for more unstability in the region....

No my waving friends, i don't this war will be over soon, and i'm afraid many a soldier and innocent citizen will loose it's life before the end is in sight...
I think this war may be going on for a long time in the form of a guerillia war within the cities...
Offcourse i hope not...

This war is a total mess, it is coming forth out of such a weird blend of so many people interrest and reasons, it's hard to tell what the governments are really up to and what the real 'real' reason is to this rediqulous display of arms and firepower.

Beamtracer
03-24-2003, 04:37 AM
You are right there, Mr Oddity, about the various ethnic groups. Unfortunately, the network news will consider these issues too complex for a mainstream audience.

As I said in another post, the Iranian-linked Shias make up about 67% of the Iraqi population. In a true democracy the Shias would take control. There is no way in the world that the United States will allow these people to govern Iraq, with such strong ties to Iran.

When Bush and Rumsfeld rave on about bringing democracy to Iraq, all they really mean is that they'll set up a McDonalds on every corner.

hrgiger
03-24-2003, 07:31 AM
Ooooh, if I lived in Iraq, I would want a McDonald's. Preferably one without a mural of Saddam Hussein painted on the walls. One where the big mac wasn't called the big dictator.

Rory_L
03-24-2003, 06:43 PM
I`d rather a chain of Freshness Burger stores: their burgers actually taste better than the wrappers. I wonder if I could pursuade Koizumi to invade Iraq after the American dust`s settled!? :D

R

Ernest
03-24-2003, 10:20 PM
hey jricks, you got me curious so I went and read resolution 1441. Actually I went ahead and read resolution 687 too since there were so many references in the "determined" parts (looong boring reads to be sure!).

I couldn't find "where the end is" anywhere. I admit I know very little of international law so any hints you can give me on where to look will be greatly appreciated. If you could just explicitly tell me "where it ends" that would be even better. Thanks in advance!

Actually, I couldn't even find the article that authorized third party countries to use force to enforce the resolutions if they felt they were being broken; only that they can "be reported to the Council for assessment", instead what I found were...->
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"
<-... these kinds of commitments from the countries that voluntarily and unanimously agreed on the resolution, so it's kind of confusing. I have to agree that they haven't lived up to their commitments (thank God!).
But the important thing is not how it starts but how and when it will end, so just knowing that is enough for me. Thanks again.

jricks
03-25-2003, 12:24 AM
Ernest,

It's a super long read, congrats for being heads up enough to read it.

April 3rd, 1991
Resolution 687 exerts:

Reaffirming the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions in the light of its unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait. (which the UN did not enforce, nor monitor as Iraq continued to shoot at allied aircraft)

Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons. (what are the grave consequences for gassing their own people?)

Recalling that Iraq has subscribed to the Declaration adopted by all States participating in the Conference of States Parties to the 1925 Geneva Protocol and Other Interested States, held in Paris from 7 to 11 January 1989, establishing the objective of universal elimination of chemical and biological weapons. (which the UN allowed to continue by failing to enforce their resolutions)

Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972. (which the UN did not pursue after Saddam denied them further access except by creating new resolutions)

Stressing the importance of an early conclusion by the Conference on Disarmament of its work on a Convention on the Universal Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and of universal adherence thereto. (the UN reached an early conclusion but has done nothing to enforce it during the past 12 years)

Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq. (which the UN did not pursue when Saddam denied further access)

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; etc. (Which Iraq did not allow inspectors to complete and the UN turned their heads)
---
(a) Arms and related materiel of all types, specifically including the sale or transfer through other means of all forms of conventional military equipment, including for paramilitary forces, and spare parts and components and their means of production, for such equipment; (recent information indicates that arms and other supplies have continued to be sold to Iraq coming from businesses within UN Nations-this should be looked at in regards to all companies, find them, list them regardless of Nation)

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
(what does remaining seized of the matter... secure peace and security to the area endorse?)

8 November 2002
Resolution 1441: Last chance for Saddam to end 12 years of material breach based on topics in 687 etc.

8 November 2002
Security Council 4644th Meeting Press Release:
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations. 45 day time limit.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

So, the UN at it's finest, 12 years of warnings, resolutions, looking the other way, evident material breach, statements of grave concerns, serious consequences, understanding of international threat, lack of follow through.

In that press release: They recognized the threat Saddam's failure to comply poses to international peace and security

The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security. (Britain had their say too, I encourage everyone discussing it to read it as these are only exerts)

After 12 years of failed diplomacy, resolutions etc...what does "facing serious consequences", "final opportunity to comply", mean for a ruler that is in a cease fire from a war if he violates the majority of terms of the cease fire?

If they've not managed to enforce anything in 12 years through Resolutions and looking the other way, what is the intent of "serious consequences"? Further resolutions would not be serious as they've gone un-enforced. You can ask him to go into exile or for him to voluntarily repent... uh-huh. Or go in and get him. Not a whole lot of options that could be drawn from final chance when you've thrown every other conceivable recourse at him for 12 years.

The press release clearly says: 45 Days or serious consequences...1441 was unanimously signed... that's the end of the terms, signaling immediate consequences of the nature of ending it once and for all...not the beginning of new terms of the same.

Sorry for the long post. Everyone that is in debate over this should take the time to read 687 and 1441 and the Press Release. More than enough info for any messageboard to discuss.

Do not misunderstand the fact that I'm in no hurry to see this war. I simply can't imagine where the confusion is to the fact that the UN has done nothing to prevent it or much room to say 1441's intent didn't reveal it was coming if Saddam so chose to continue material breach.

Ernest
03-25-2003, 01:50 AM
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I hadn't read the press release which is the one that contains the "specific" calls to action, so that link really helps.
If I understand the excerpts correctly, then the war will be over when we are able "to secure peace and security in the area." Wow, considering what the area in question is, this must be the most ambitious war ever fought. If they can really achieve that, then everything will be worth it.

jricks
03-25-2003, 02:04 AM
Yeh, there isn't much easy or simple about it for sure... no easy answers.

Hats off to you just for taking the time to read it. It does give us something other than "war for oil" to talk about with an issue that has been boiling over 12 years.

Lawyers I'm sure are busily reviewing it since it's their lingo, I'm not one of them...hehe.

I've got plenty of questions about the last 12 years and these resolutions, and who's done what or who's done nothing, so, thanks for taking the time to check it out and sharing thoughts on it.

cholo
03-25-2003, 02:14 AM
I have to comment on this or else I'll implode at some point ;)

After having spent my entire life so far living in a place riddled with corruption and lies all I can say is... How can you trust your government to be doing the "right thing" so blindly? Especially when the stakes are so high! Consider the following...

As we speak there's lots more countries out there suffering under the pressure of a dictator, this is a fact of life. Too bad they don't have 20% of the world's oil reserves in their territory or else they'd also be in the list to be liberated, right? It's not like you'd spend 75 billion to liberate just about anyone. Ok, but this is a BAD dictatorship, isn't it? Hell, there's other dictatorships out there that are openly islamic fundamentalists, that have comited genocide and accept it, with clear links to Al-Qaeda, that openly possess weapons of mass destruction, like Pakistan for example, yet Saddam and Iraq seem to be getting all the attention, could it be the oil?

No, the U.S. clearly has no use for Iraq's oil, but who does? Mmmmmm..... ah! Europe! The blossoming economy that a couple of years ago adopted a new currency, the Euro, started at around 80 cents of a dollar and are now above 1.10 dollars to a single Euro. I guess if the U.S. had Europe's oil supply under control they could have an influence over these events and more. But then again this is all just speculation and probably just a series of coincidences, right? Let's explore the issue from another angle...

Ok, Saddam is a dictator and dictators are bad because their existence threatens other countries and their security. Hypothetically and just for argument's sakes, let's pretend there was a dictator elsewhere in the world. Let's think crazy for a while and pretend an american president became a dictator. There's been instances in which a democratically elected president goes bad after a while, it's not like it's something that only happens to other countries, right? And such a scenario would really pose a threat to the rest of the world because the U.S. has possession of weapons of mass destruction with more range and destructive power than any other country in the world, not to mention extensive military power, right? Now, in such a scenario, scary as it may sound, would americans appreciate an invasion by an external coalition to "be liberated"? Would you? Why then would Iraq's population be appreciative of the war effort then?

There's no doubt people are risking and some losing their lives in the front lines as we speak, but opposing the war is, in my personal oppinion, the only way their efforts will not be in vain, because by admitting that the war could be a mistake we give ourselves a chance to learn and grow as human beings, and not repeat the same mistakes in the future, thus saving potentially even more lives and eventually... ourselves.

I hope my ramblings do not offend anyone, but I think war is too large a scale of events to have ANY margins for error at all. And if there is the smallest chance that war would not have been necessary, then that is too large a margin of error to go ahead and start one.

Last, I'll accept that I could be wrong because I'm not an expert on the topic, but all of you in favor should also accept that you could be wrong too, and know that if you are, it's now too late. :(

jricks
03-25-2003, 03:05 AM
Cholo,

I don't know where you live but it doesn't sound like a democracy, actually our Constitution created a Republic but that's a whole different topic. We've certainly got our own problems in America, but the UN is in the drivers seat on 12 years of Saddam and has unanimously sent resolution and warning after warning, but that's it, didn't enforce them or produce a solution.

Blindness on this subject, in my opinion is blaming Bush and totally disregarding the failure of the UN... of everyone in it, during all the years. They have simply failed to do anything meaningful except waste alot of money, time and enjoy nice meals, comfortable homes and all of their freedoms while allowing Saddam to go on his way and create or hide chemical weapons, torture and kill uncountable numbers. After of course telling him not to "or else".

An American President that comes into the process 10 years after instigation is being accused of being a potential dictator for holding the UN accountable for everything it has acknowledged is a problem with Saddam and then the UN in turn, doing nothing. Then finally holding them accountable for 1441. Bush is not coming off the wall here, if anyone is surprised they haven't been paying attention to the UN or Saddam for a very long time.

An American President can't manipulate the Constitution or Congress and the rest of the check and balance systems rapidly enough to truly become a dictator, just doesn't work that way.

Anyone can suspect Bush and Blair, Europe or any conspiracy, but not without adding the UN right along side them since it's their failure to resolve this in the 10 years prior to Bush's administration... To blame Bush and Blair as the only culprits they would also have to completely ignore who Saddam is, the war that is in cease fire and everything he's done to break very specific UN mandates and their failure to do anything about it.

The difference in this issue with Saddam is that he has invaded other countries, he has been in a cease fire for 12 years. He has ignored the terms of the cease fire and the UN published it's supposedly final mandate with a finite time limit as his last chance.

Why is the UN not doing something in all the other areas where their job description seems to indicate their authority? I have the same question. Heck, why they don't seem to do much is another of my questions. I hope that is answered soon so that a real organization can be created that will.

cholo
03-25-2003, 04:01 AM
Ok, first off, I live very close to you... Mexico.
Our constitution does not allow presidents to be reelected and the presidential term lasts 6 years, yet we have endured an 80+ year dictatorship, so don't trust the law to keep your head above water when it comes to politics ;) Dictatorships are not something perpetrated by one person. And a few years ago we supposedly overcame this because the opposing party finally won the presidency and became "more democratic". Yet the same power circles are ruling the country and corruption continues as bad as ever. The internal conflicts we had like Chiapas are full of interests from different angles and perspectives, and most of all full of lies. All I can say is if I have learned something over the years is to be skeptic when it comes to politics.
I hope the US never gets into a scenario as the one I described earlier with a dictatorship at it's helm, mostly because since we are neighbors I would probably be affected by it in a big way, but also because when I see the american public reaction to events such as the recent war it makes me wonder if such a dictatorship would even be spotted and fought against.
Last but no least, yes the UN was irresponsible, it was irresponsible to pull out it's inspectors and not finishing what it had started despite the menace of war hanging over their heads.

JohnD
03-25-2003, 08:02 AM
Hmmm...isn't the definition of Dictatorship: One man rule?

Hiraghm
03-25-2003, 03:35 PM
Abraham Lincoln defined the American system.

"...government of the people, by the people, and for the people..."

If this is so... the only way for the government to become corrupt is for the people to become corrupt.

A political party did attempt to gain control of the government in the last Presidential election; and many Democrats still can't believe their effort failed.

Today, the President's tax cut was halved, even though his party is the majority in the Senate. 3 Republicans voted in favor of the tax-cut cut. This is how we can know our gov't is not yet a dictatorship. By the same token, a Democrat *minority* in Congress have been holding up the nomination of a Judicial nominee. Couldn't happen in a dictatorship. The unity within the Democrat party is sometimes scary, because many in the leadership (hi there, Daschle) have made it clear that their greater concern is what gains the Party power, rather than what is best for the nation. Of course, in many of their minds, this is one and the same.

There's also historical and cultural traditions which fight against the U.S. becoming a dictatorship. Washington was offered the crown by the most powerful military force on the continent. No one could have opposed him had he wanted to be king. He refused. All our traditions and legends from the beginning express hostility for totalitarian rule. It's difficult to create a dictator under those conditions.

Our War of Independence was not a peasant rebellion, as in France, Russia, and even the many rebellions in Mexico. Those who formed the country were merchants, largely middle-class, not peons. The peon mentality, until recently, is alien to the U.S. philosophy. President Bush went to New York City after 9/11, was introduced by an old, tired fireman, and when the fireman started to step down, the President put his arm around him and pulled him back up onto the pedistal. My father, a 4th generation bricklayer, was a friend with Dr. Van Allen, discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts. With a chuckle he would relate how Dr. Van Allen would invite him into his office to chat about matters from politics to physics. The point being, while we are not a classless society, we are a classed society which respects the individual, not the title. It's VERY difficult to subjugate a people who think themselves equal, and who value knowledge, regardless of the source. Note that the communist elements within American society make every attempt to "dumb down" our populace, to pit class against class, to make everyone a victim of everyone else. This browbeating may someday result in a populace cowed enough to accept a totalitarian regime, but just when they think they're on the brink of success, a 1980 Olympic hockey team, or a Ronald Reagan pops up and ruins their effort.


Unlike Hussein, Stalin, Hitler, or Castro, our President has to be careful of public opinion. If it turns against him, he'll be tossed out of office. He can't call on the military for help; their oath binds them to uphold the Constitution not the government. Tommy Franks, along with every other officer, is obligated to disobey any order he regards in violation of the Constitution. This is why "honor" and "duty" are given such extreme emphasis in the military. Theoretically, the President could try putting the FBI, BATF and Federal Marshalls up against the military... but I wouldn't advise it.

The Strategic Air Command had at its command more destructive power than all of the armies in all of history. The motto of Napoleon's Old Guard was "The Old Guard dies, but never retreats!", The motto of the Texican army was "Remember the Alamo!", the motto of the French Foreign Legion was "March or Die".. many military units in history have had strong mottos for their membership, but none so strong as that of the Strategic Air Command....

Peace is our profession
When that's the mindset of the military forces of a nation, and when those forces are volunteers from among the common populace, it's very very very very very very (very) hard to create a totalitarian regime.


The Americans
Gordon Sinclair
Radio Station CFBR 1010
2 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

"LET'S BE PERSONAL"
Broadcast June 5, 1973
CFRB, Toronto, Ontario
Topic: "The Americans"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.

As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did.

They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Misssissippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.

The Marshall Plan .. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.

I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.

Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon?

You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times ... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, most of them ... unless they are breaking Canadian laws .. are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.

When the Americans get out of this bind ... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the Israel bonds, Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.

Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.

I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.

This year's disasters .. with the year less than half-over… has taken it all and nobody...but nobody... has helped.



By their deeds shall ye know them.

If we are imposing our values on the rest of the world, be grateful for what those values are.

I'm not asking for the rest of the world to help us, or to even like us. But just stop mis-characterizing us. Stop saying we're bad people, we we're good people. Not perfect, just good.

cholo
03-25-2003, 07:12 PM
If I remember correctly most of the southern part of the United States once belonged to my country. I'm not complaining, what's done is done, but let's try to keep a perspective on things. I'm not saying the current US administration is a totalitarian regime or even close, but we should always try to keep things into perspective because it's not that easy to spot when things start going wrong.
For example when Hitler began his political career he managed the impossible, he rebuilt a country deeply damaged both economically and physically. And not only did he rebuild the country, he made it into a world superpower in a few short years. Most of Germany's modern infrastructure today dates back to that regime. Back then nobody could have imagined what was to follow, because let's face it, the man was really smart and how could the population distrust him after such an accomplishment. And yet it took a few extra years for an apparently bright administration to go bad really fast.
Remember, history's our strongest ally. I'm not an expert in the field, but I find it hard to believe that the current world superpower finds it in it's best interest to spend 75 billion dollars just to help out a poor nation in distress, especially when there are so many nations in distress around the globe, and when the one they singled out for aid happens to be host to 20% of the earth's oil reserves. Which brings me back to my initial statement, the territory we lost to the US. Isn't that territory very rich in oil by any chance?

jricks
03-25-2003, 07:22 PM
--I'm not an expert in the field, but I find it hard to believe that the current world superpower finds it in it's best interest to spend 75 billion dollars just to help out a poor nation in distress, especially when there are so many nations in distress around the globe, and when the one they singled out for aid happens to be host to 20% of the earth's oil reserves.--

Cholo, you can take a piece of what is going on or you can look at why it's going on.

Saddam is on his way out due to the constant agreement by the UN that he is an international threat if he will not meet the terms of the UN's resolutions during a cease fire of a war he started when invading Kuwait.

The liberation of the Iraqi people is an obvious benefit of that.

You are going to have to come to terms with the specifics of Saddam's crimes as to why this is happening or you're not even talking about anything relevant. If there are other places around the globe that need help. Write the UN.

cholo
03-25-2003, 08:53 PM
I just have to remark a simple thing I mentioned...

75 billion dollars!

$75,000,000,000.00

Yup! If you rally for support to such an endeavour and you managed to convince rich folks to donate 1 million dollars each for the cause you'd have to find 75,000 supporters. Now I ask you, is there such a thing as a free ride in this planet?

(btw... you're paying for it, you should be concerned about this. Every time you have lunch, every time you buy yourself a t-shirt, etc...)

jricks
03-25-2003, 09:46 PM
yep, serious chunk of change. i don't know what would make you think I'm not concerned about that figure... but it would not prevent my feelings on what's right or wrong.

hrgiger
03-25-2003, 11:02 PM
Well, Bush's tax plan is stupid and counter productive to our economy. That money might as well go for something noble like the liberation of Iraq.

Epita
03-26-2003, 03:07 AM
Well, at least America has the money to spend on a massive war. however the UK should not be spending all its money on a semi pointless war when it doesnt have a propper health system, the goverment wants more people to pay for school fees, land of the free indede!. (i cant spell)if blair wants to help millions of people, he should look towards his own country to do it, not half way round the world!

I pray for the lives of every solider that will die on both sides

Epita

hrgiger
03-26-2003, 06:01 AM
Epita,

America has the money like a person who makes 10 million dollars a year and then goes and spends about 30 million. America doesn't have a good healthcare system either unless you're lucky enough to work for a company that provides it for you. It can be readily available for anyone who wants it, but it is often expensive and not the best coverage. So I woldn't exactly say that America has the money either but I think that we'll be compensated somewhat from Iraq with Oil. Not to say that I think that the reason for this war is oil. Being compensated for a service and taking something by force are two different things, and I think that ridding the earth of Saddam is a service to most of the world.

mastermesh
03-26-2003, 12:33 PM
The far more emminent threat is that during the Iraqi Freedom Campagn, Turkey will attempt to take the North part of Iraq and Iran will attempt to take the East... that would then require the United States to defend Iraq from these countries due to the Geneva Convention... then when all of that happens, N. Korea will start getting intersted in striking - and we'll be looking at WWIII....

CTRL+X
03-26-2003, 03:23 PM
The far more emminent threat is that during the Iraqi Freedom Campagn, Turkey will attempt to take the North part of Iraq and Iran will attempt to take the East... that would then require the United States to defend Iraq from these countries due to the Geneva Convention... then when all of that happens, N. Korea will start getting intersted in striking - and we'll be looking at WWIII....


Maybe in some other dreamstate but not in the real world LOL

Rory_L
03-26-2003, 10:33 PM
Mastermesh: `eminent` and `imminent` have two very different meanings! :)

Epita:-

www.dictionary.com

Not being able to spell isn`t a crime, but not checking one`s spelling gives people a poor impression, with the above URL just a click away.

Sorry to be a school ma`am. Now: back to your arguing!

R

Edit:-
I know a lot of us here are not native English speakers and I`ll cut them all the slack they want, but Epita, you said you couldn`t spell, indicating you knew that that was incorrectly spelled. Indeed it was :D

Hiraghm
03-27-2003, 12:00 AM
Bush's tax plan is not counter productive, it is simple common sense. The most important thing in the world right now is to stop the U.S. government from acquiring money. Money == power, and the U.S. gov't has too much power over the lives of its citizenry. That's why I favor any tax cut proposed.
America shouldn't have a health care program, we're not some communist hellhole. You take care of your family, I'll take care of mine.Of course, a lot of people could afford a health care program if they didn't have the tax load they currently have. And some of them would have bigger paychecks if their companies didn't offer health care as a cheaper (for the company) alternative. With bigger paychecks, they could pay for health insurance themselves. But then a lot of Americans anymore don't want to be responsible, even for themselves... whaaa, I want mommy gov't to take care of me, and ooh, I want to make mommy gov't control the life of my neighbor too, so I can feel good and important, whaaaa.... pfah.

Epita
03-28-2003, 07:58 AM
well, just because a country has its own national health system does not make it communist.

england has one, its crap but it still has it, and its not communist (just) so i think that it is a good idea to have a national system but only iff the proper resources are spent on it!

Epita

ted
03-28-2003, 09:16 AM
Don't ever forget that a Government run Health Care system, like any government run system, ALWAYS starts looking good, but eventually gets more expensive and then starts getting cut.

Ask anyone about the Military’s health care system. My Brother started bragging about it 30 years ago. By the time he retired from the Air Force, he said it was nearly impossible to get into a Dr. Then when you would get in, they rarely diagnosed anything properly. When they did, they ALWAYS chose the cheapest solution.

People bitched about the price of Health insurance. Then they got HMO's. Now they ***** about how cheap the HMO's are when it comes to treatment.

National Health care will be far worse without competition.

By the way, anyone who really needs medical treatment can get it now.

Hiraghm
03-28-2003, 05:43 PM
That someone else should expend the fruits of their labor so that I might have health care is a socialist idea. That some authority should make someone else expend the fruits of their labor so that I might have health care is a communist idea.

True, England and Canada aren't communist.... yet. But they're both heading that direction. With us not far behind.

What I find amusing is that most proposals for national health care seem to involve some form of national health *insurance*. Many who complain about lack of health care cite statistics of people who don't have health *insurance*. It's insurance which drives the price of health care up, in my opinion.

cholo
03-28-2003, 07:01 PM
You should lay off Rush Limbaugh for a while man, seriously ;)

Hiraghm
03-29-2003, 02:39 PM
Actually, I suspect he has my house bugged... I gripe about something at the TV and a few weeks or months later, he says the same thing....

:D

CTRL+X
03-29-2003, 06:03 PM
Great minds always think alike

hrgiger
03-30-2003, 10:37 AM
Rush Limbaugh is more conservative then any one human should be. Just a little over the top, or blindly republican.

Hiraghm
03-30-2003, 06:52 PM
Rush Limbaugh is a moderate. If you think he's conservative, you haven't encountered real conservatives. Most Republicans are barely conservative. Just conservative enough to make more sense than liberals.

(No, I don't consider myself Republican; I'm an Imperialist.)

Lightwolf
03-31-2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by mastermesh
The far more emminent threat is that during the Iraqi Freedom Campagn, Turkey will attempt to take the North part of Iraq and Iran will attempt to take the East... that would then require the United States to defend Iraq from these countries due to the Geneva Convention...

Well, that would be one the few times the US stick to international treaties. I doubt it.

jricks
03-31-2003, 09:48 AM
Lightwolf...

and your examples are...?
I would eagerly like to see them.

Then we can talk about Germany awhile if you'd like.

Lightwolf
03-31-2003, 09:56 AM
jricks:

The current situation shows it clearly.
The UN? Something to step over (and yes, the UN includes a bunch of treaties, and it has been co-founded by the US).
Ban on biological weapons? Hasn't even been signed.
Kyoto ?
Landmines ?

True, the US don't need to stick to them, they don't even sign them (Which, with some of the treaties, puts them in the same league as the "axis of evli"). I just think that is a shame for an administration that seems to value democracy so highly.

Talk Germany? Sure, why not. Nothing to hide :)

jricks
03-31-2003, 11:13 AM
Ah, I thought you were talking about signed treaties or international doctrine.

Like, say... 1441 and 17 UN Resolutions that were signed. You may see it as America and Britain and others stepping over the UN. However, the documents exist, warnings issues, grievances itemized and a finite timeline for "final" compliance is clearly stated. Maybe the reality is America, Britain and the others are the only ones standing up for the words and signatures of the UN.

Kyoto... be sure to check out some info on both sides of that fence to help understand why it won't be ratified by the US. Scientific evidence does exist on both sides, it's a good thing to review both sides or what do any of us really know that we aren't being fed?

We don't have the media machine here against our allies that appear to exist elsewhere...

However, a quick search on the internet provides multiple examples of Germany's violations to the international community, anti-semitism, childrens rights violations and I think I'll simply leave it at that.

When a people blame other contries without considering the faults of their own, I can see how America appears as such a problem to them. If you don't think Americans see faults with America you're wrong, if you don't think we're working on them, you're equally as wrong. If others think everything they are doing is on the up - square, no politics, no violations etc - and have reached a point of perfection one could say, it's easy to see where the dispute comes in. Normally in these debates, if someone admits anything they normally blame it on America anyway so the circle is rather naive and unproductive and in total neglect of their own role.

Perfection simply has yet to be achieved anywhere that I know of...

Don't loose sight of the real international threats or what each and every one of us do and don't do that allows them to prosper or exist.

If we don't face the threats together, we will certainly be their victims alone.

Rory_L
04-01-2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Hiraghm
(No, I don't consider myself Republican; I'm an Imperialist.)

Actually Hiraghm, the Queen`s had quite enough of all this and wants her colonies back NOW, if you don`t mind! :D

R

Rory_L
04-01-2003, 01:07 AM
Putting aside whether it was legally or morally right to prosecute this war, the political effect of it will be to entrench anti-American bitterness and mistrust in the Arab world particularly and in much of the rest of the world too, a feeling which shall last for decades. If America truly wanted stability and peace, this was not the way to gain it.

R

Lightwolf
04-01-2003, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by jricks
Ah, I thought you were talking about signed treaties or international doctrine.

Like, say... 1441 and 17 UN Resolutions that were signed. You may see it as America and Britain and others stepping over the UN. However, the documents exist, warnings issues, grievances itemized and a finite timeline for "final" compliance is clearly stated. Maybe the reality is America, Britain and the others are the only ones standing up for the words and signatures of the UN.

Well, in that case, how come the US for example don't support the extension of the UN Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia ( http://www.un.org/icty/ ) to other cases in the international community. I'm much of a law and order fan, but you need international law and order first before you should even think about military consequences...


Kyoto... be sure to check out some info on both sides of that fence to help understand why it won't be ratified by the US. Scientific evidence does exist on both sides, it's a good thing to review both sides or what do any of us really know that we aren't being fed?
One should obviously have a look at both sides. Still, the US is still the largest polluter of our planet (probably rivaled by China soon), but has hardly made any effort to change that.


We don't have the media machine here against our allies that appear to exist elsewhere...

Ahm, yes you do. Come on, you guys are the "Masters of Media Machinery" :D Let's see, we get a fairly broad view of opinions over here, even some US channels on cable. How many foreign channels to you receive and watch?
And fending off a different view as "liberal commie BS" doesn't help either, really. It's a bit like censoring yourself. (BTW, liberal and left are perceived as two totally different things over here, e.g. your social and economic internal politics are what we see as liberal).


However, a quick search on the internet provides multiple examples of Germany's violations to the international community, anti-semitism, childrens rights violations and I think I'll simply leave it at that.
Well, anti-semitism is a very, very old cliche, but Germany makes a good target for that I agree. I think there is probably more anti-semitism in other western countries, but in Germany, every time somebody critisizes Isreal, you hear loud accusations of anti-semitism. This is a very special case.
On the other hand, there are probably more Nazi organizations in the US than there are in Germany (basically because they are illegal over here), and most of the neo-nazi propaganda that reaches Germany comes from abroad (ie. many www servers located in the US or UK).
Childrens rights violations are a different thing alltogether (I assume you're playing on the divorced mixed-marriage cases). Here we basically have a clash of national laws, which again shows how important international treaties are. On that base I could also accuse the US of breaking human rights (German citizens in US prisons with no contact to the German embassy, no lawyer etc.).


When a people blame other contries without considering the faults of their own, I can see how America appears as such a problem to them. If you don't think Americans see faults with America you're wrong, if you don't think we're working on them, you're equally as wrong. If others think everything they are doing is on the up - square, no politics, no violations etc - and have reached a point of perfection one could say, it's easy to see where the dispute comes in. Normally in these debates, if someone admits anything they normally blame it on America anyway so the circle is rather naive and unproductive and in total neglect of their own role.
Well, to be honest, I perceive the Americans as not seeing many of their faults (obviously, I see most of the faults we have over here, and there are still plenty of them, believe me :-).
And, as I said, I'm not anti-american, but to me, as to many Americans I know, I perceive the current events as betraying many of the values that America once stood for. This is obviously a matter of perspective, but an outsiders perspective can sometimes help to sharpen things up. Otherwise I wouldn't bother discussing here.


Perfection simply has yet to be achieved anywhere that I know of...

Doesn't mean we have to stop to try (I think we both agree on that) :)


Don't loose sight of the real international threats or what each and every one of us do and don't do that allows them to prosper or exist.
Well, the perception of threats can be a very subjective thing, which is one of the reasons the whole europe-us difference escalated to this scale.
We've lived with terrorism for a while, we've built up a (budding) union of nations on the rubble of two world wars (with we I mean the european nations), we have to get along with each other even if we were enemies at some point of time in history. And we have to do that with peaceful means, since europe is packed with tiny countries (which also means that we have to face the differences with each other on a "daily" basis").
This is a very different base to do international politics from compared to the American POV.


If we don't face the threats together, we will certainly be their victims alone.
Again, yes we have to face the threats together. How we face them is the problem.

Peace and a big Cheers from across the pond

Mike :cool:

Epita
04-01-2003, 01:08 PM
sory for not reading the previous statement, my connection is dying. Today an american group opened fire on a van that did not stop when approching a cheakpoint, in light of the call of suicide bommers, the yanks shot and killed 7 ppl. Now everyone thinks the yanks are slaughtering Iraqies. I think that its a fair call, they should have stopped everyone knew about the pervious accident (ok) so, now the total british dead due to yanks is still higher than the no of iraqies, what the frill are they doing!

Epita

Hiraghm
04-01-2003, 01:21 PM
Maybe it's old habit, killing Brits :D Maybe 10 Brit deaths could be attributed to the U.S.; that's about a third of total Brit deaths. There've been more civilian casualties than that.

Please don't refer to them as "yanks". Makes my back hairs go up.

As for the checkpoint; there were 13 people aboard; 7 died, 2 were wounded. The vehicle wouldn't stop, even when warning shots were fired, even when they attempted to disable the vehicle. The survivors, when questioned, said that their families were being held as hostage, including the driver's wife and child. If they hadn't tried to charge the checkpoint, their families would have been killed.

Not "everyone" thinks the U.S. is slaughtering Iraqis. Just those who agree with the Hussein regime's propoganda. Only an idiot or evil person would think the U.S. was purposefully slaughtering civilians.

jricks
04-01-2003, 02:06 PM
-- One should obviously have a look at both sides. Still, the US is still the largest polluter of our planet (probably rivaled by China soon), but has hardly made any effort to change that.
--

Largest polluter, no kidding? Does no one really get the reasons why beyond the typical wasteful scenarios?

Check out the stats and see if you really still agree that we've done nothing. Our levels have been lowering for many years.

Check out the Marshall's Institute as an example for some "other side info".

The Alps won't stop melting because of Kyoto. If their reasons are true, how do they contend that global warming was occuring prior to the industrial era in America?

Kyoto is an attempt to keep populations calm in the face of something very out of our control... imho.

Do a search on Chemtrails to see whatelse we're doing about it anyway... which I am not happy about.

And the media thing... who started these threads, and what are the subjects? When is the last time you saw an American start a thread here on Germany for any reason?

Could be done, easily if our intent was just to cause turmoil. Look at the intro's again, tell me they contain the intent to discuss issues vs... slander and I'll have to hear again who does and doesn't start this crap frequently.

I agree anti semitism is an old cliche, but it's also still a subject of violations that pop up on Amnesty International etc, which is the only reason I mention it as an example. We've all got plenty. A little equal time on our faults would be a great thing actually.

I have no doubt you see American's as not recognizing their faults. Your media won't allow it, these messages give us no opportunity to do anything except defend against accusations. Try talking to an American instead of throwing this typical stuff in their face. You'll learn a thing or two.
But that really just furthers my point, no one is talking, too busy with the typical Euro impression, where's the true interest in knowing?

I have yet to see an outside of the box accusation or question made yet from all the international participants here. It's the same bag of insults that Americans spend time like this addressing, futily by the way because it's not about understanding, it seems to be a game that will be replayed endlessly based on the same historic insults in new sentences.

If you want to know something else, stop making the same insults and talk to an American instead of constantly attacking them with the same accusations.

Lightwolf
04-02-2003, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by jricks
If you want to know something else, stop making the same insults and talk to an American instead of constantly attacking them with the same accusations.
Well, excuse me, but I do. Not only do I have a bunch of realtives spread all over the states, but I have plenty of american friends as well, some of which live in the states, and some of which live abroad.
So far, only one of them actually sympathizes with the war, the others have a far more opposed view to the current situation than I have.

Cheers,
Mike

Epita
04-02-2003, 01:49 AM
well, sorry for using 'yanks' no offencive comments meant. im not saying that the americans are just slaughtering the iraqi people. i think that it was fair of them to open fire. its sadams fault for trying to get suicide bommers to work for him. he is responcible for this sort of incident. i disaprove of the use of civilians fighting a war, it just means that there are more civ deaths.

Epita

jricks
04-02-2003, 02:16 AM
--Well, excuse me, but I do. Not only do I have a bunch of realtives spread all over the states--

that's great... must be a great party when everyone gets together.

Everyone I know is mixed, but far beyond the stereotype stuff flying around here.

Dunno... but the futility of the topics just regenerates the same stuff. If you want a perspective other than yours, let me know. If you're satisfied with yours or just want the pot to stir in a circle... see ya... I'll check in when the war is over and everyone is making all the business deals that weren't in it and we're itemizing what was found and hearing from the Iraqi people.

When the results are at hand - one of us will have had the wrong impression. I'm satisfied to find out then.

Ok... continue your sport of dissing America, I'll check back in later when the results are in.

Lightwolf
04-02-2003, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by jricks
--Well, excuse me, but I do. Not only do I have a bunch of realtives spread all over the states--

that's great... must be a great party when everyone gets together.

Everyone I know is mixed, but far beyond the stereotype stuff flying around here.
Obviously. I'm just trying to balance out the stereotypes :D



Dunno... but the futility of the topics just regenerates the same stuff. If you want a perspective other than yours, let me know.
If I wouldn't, I wouldn't be here, getting lot's of flak in the process, would I? I'm just trying to point out that there are other alternatives, other POVs, that are just as valid.


If you're satisfied with yours or just want the pot to stir in a circle... see ya... I'll check in when the war is over and everyone is making all the business deals that weren't in it and we're itemizing what was found and hearing from the Iraqi people.

When the results are at hand - one of us will have had the wrong impression. I'm satisfied to find out then.
Well, satisfied might be the wrong word here :) I'm very weary of the implications this war has for the whole region, and when the war is over is probably much too soon to analyze results. I'm giving it 10-20 years.


Ok... continue your sport of dissing America, I'll check back in later when the results are in.
I am dissing the American administration, just as I am dissing the Iraqi administration (in another context, I'd diss the German administration just as well). It is not a sport, I'm just trying to leran and retain a critical view on what is happening around the globe.

Cheers,
Mike

anieves
04-02-2003, 12:08 PM
you know? I am trully amaze at those who think the war is unjust. I guess it is better to sit on your *** and do nothing rather than take action and do what's right. I wonder what would have happen if the world took this mentality during WWII... humm, maybe some hypocrits would be speaking a different language right now.... I wonder...

read my signature... Albert is 100% correct.

jricks
04-02-2003, 02:07 PM
--I'm just trying to leran and retain a critical view on what is happening around the globe.--

You know what Lightwolf, I believe this comment to a degree but hesitantly and had hoped to be able to see evidence of it. But, to learn you have to consider the fact that you might be miss-informed. I try to keep this door open for myself also, and in these threads have explored other points made if links were made available.

But, to change your point of view, or simply fill in between the lines for you here appears increasingly futile regardless of the points made by many participating in it. Although some have spent their time here and given facts, and opinion I see no signs that you don't see us as suspect first, and the great evil that is rampant as an opinion. Alot of us here spend a great deal of time holding our country accountable and continuously search for answers. But we simply do not assume we want to rule the world, nor is it reasonable to think we would allow our sons and daughters to waste their lives on that effort, or for oil that can be bought. With enough historic information that goes before us, the story never seems to change. Ask Kuwait if we took their oil, ask Afghanistan what we took from them and just keep going back. Will you find mistakes...yeh, sure. But if you open your eyes to it you'll also see what we're telling you.

Regardless of whether you make that real effort to review your opinion, so be it in fact, that's the opinion wall we face on boards everyday as the assault topics spring forth. Rarely are they productive and are normally anything about really wanting to learn, just a chance to take shots. This one follows the same path as multitudes before it on the same agenda. In the face of the facts, or opinion, there's not one single identifiable example that our information, or opinion has even been considered, so I'm just not totally sold on the wanting to learn thing.

So in the end it does leave me questioning why you are here, to accuse and debate in a circle, or to consider some American feedback that might change your opinion.

cholo
04-02-2003, 03:24 PM
I believe that fighting a war for peace is like eating double fudge ice cream cookies for health, merely a contradictory concept.

ted
04-02-2003, 11:43 PM
Cholo, at what point you go to war has a lot of room for subjectiveness, and we can all agree to have different points of ignition.
But those who say never, just don't understand reality.

I won't waste space giving a ton of analogies, but I'll just give one.
Hitler.
Do you still think going to war is never the best option?

cholo
04-03-2003, 01:09 AM
Hitler dug his own grave when he turned his back on his own ally, Russia, had he remained allies with the russians we'd probably be writing in German ;) Which makes your analogy even more interesting considering this war started unilaterally.

ted
04-03-2003, 01:32 AM
Key word, like you said Cholo, WAR.
And even though it resulted in catastrophic bloodshed, the end result was better then not having the war. Was it not? You’d be speaking German too.
So you do agree that there are times war is warranted? When, IS always debatable.

Cute clichés, like “love thy neighbor”, “turn the other cheek” and “peace not war”, are just that, cute, when it comes to dealing with sadistic, mean spirited people like Sadam and Hitler.

Sadam has shown too many traits of Hitler to even consider letting him continue for another decade.

I say take that Bastard out once and for all. Call it whatever you like. I'm tired of half way dealing with that jerk.

Lightwolf
04-03-2003, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by jricks
So in the end it does leave me questioning why you are here, to accuse and debate in a circle, or to consider some American feedback that might change your opinion.
Well, both really, and also to give most of you guys some European feedback that might change your opinion.

cholo
04-03-2003, 02:08 AM
If Saddam had the resources or wits Hitler had in his time I would agree with you, but Saddam is nothing but a fool with winds of grandeur up his ***, so basically that leaves us with a war that cannot be justified with the downfall of Saddam, it's like saying WWII was fought over Mussolini ;)

anieves
04-03-2003, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by cholo
If Saddam had the resources or wits Hitler had in his time I would agree with you, but Saddam is nothing but a fool with winds of grandeur up his ***, so basically that leaves us with a war that cannot be justified with the downfall of Saddam, it's like saying WWII was fought over Mussolini ;)

Tell that to the thousands of people he has killed! oh wait, they're DEAD. Tell that to the people that Satan Hussein fed through a plastic shredder machine, or the prisoners that got thier ears cut off. It is easy to say this sort of things when you have never lived what the Iraqi people live day by day. Tell that to the people in Baghdad while they are still afraid for their lives and their families... Freedom is coming soon enough!

Lightwolf
04-03-2003, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by anieves
read my signature... Albert is 100% correct.
I'd be careful quoting a pacifist :D



Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.

Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.

Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!

The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.

He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.

Through the release of atomic energy, our generation has brought into the world the most revolutionary force since prehistoric man's discovery of fire. This basic force of the universe cannot be fitted into the outmoded concept of narrow nationalisms.
For there is no secret and there is no defense; there is no possibility of control except through the aroused understanding and insistence of the peoples of the world. We scientists recognise our inescapable responsibility to carry to our fellow citizens an understanding of atomic energy and its implication for society. In this lies our only security and our only hope - we believe that an informed citizenry will act for life and not for death.

ted
04-03-2003, 10:13 AM
Hitler didn't start with "world power", Hitler gassed his own people and so did Sadam along with too many other similarities to cover here.
Now everyone asks, "why didn't we deal with Hitler earlier?"

When you have a cancer growing, dealing with it early is always the best solution. Sadam is just that, a cancer that we are taking out.

Plain and simple. At least now, more and more countries are seeing that America has forsight.

jricks
04-03-2003, 10:43 AM
Got that right Ted. How many times have you been asked what took so long for the US to join WWII?

I'm suspecting the Iraqi's will have the same question of all those not there right now.

cholo
04-03-2003, 05:06 PM
Hitler was two things: a) a very perverse human being and b) (and this is not touched very often when we learn about this in school because it's hard to accept) a genius, or at least one of the most intelligent people that's been around in a long time. He took a country that was basically torn to shreds both physically and economically and in a matter of 2 decades turned it into a superpower, then into a military superpower, achieved a level of joint cooperation and synergy from his people never before seen and almost conquered the world. The thought that what he achieved in his time has never been duplicated in history sends chills up my spine. What has Saddam achieved during his rule of Iraq? His country has endured the worst economic conditions during his rule, his people don't trust their government and aren't working together with Saddam, his military might consists of state of the art military equipment if you lived in the 1970's... So basically how can you be so afraid of such a pathetic loser? Now when I think of the US that has resources both economically and military that Hitler only dreamed of in his time, setting the rulebook for global behaviour in the 21st. century, now that sends chills up my spine once again.
Just my humble opinion.

CTRL+X
04-04-2003, 12:29 AM
that quote is so sad.... it is, to me, so sad when I see people give up on thier humanity and get lazy in their thinking. he cant admit to who he really is so he blames others who are different to make himself feel better about insercurity.


but at least he understands where the answer is from within the brain, he just can't see he has it *** backwards

Epita
04-04-2003, 11:30 AM
well, talking of militaryness, America shot one of its own soldjers today, funny how such a "allmightly state" can make such a fool out of itself, I think that the republican guard should win this battle for bagdhad but they wont (british)

Epita

jricks
04-04-2003, 11:41 AM
Epita, and you think this has not happened in any way at any time by any country?

If you hate America, at least you have sound reasons like this. Makes me very comfortable with your willingness to understand what you are opposed to.

ted
04-04-2003, 11:42 AM
Epita, friendly fire happens. It sucks, but it happens. You just don't understand warfare do you???

At least we aren't intentionally killing our people like Sadam is. He's killed far more of his own army, not to mention the countless civilians.
Where's your "foolish" comments about Sadam.

Sorry you want Sadam's army to win this war. Again, you are on the wrong side.

mattclary
04-04-2003, 12:01 PM
Epita stated his age as 16 in another post not long ago, take his opinions for what they're worth.

Just read this quote from George Orwell, thought it was kinda cool: `We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm'

jricks
04-04-2003, 12:45 PM
Matt, amazing how different an age can be. A couple years ago I spent a couple weeks exchanging emails with a young Serb. 17 years old.

I heard his views on us, what we were doing to him by helping others, he told me stories about him and how he had been involved in killing others for 5 years.

I guess I would rather know that there are still naive 16 year olds than 16 years olds killing over historic feuds and already aged by propoganda.

But Epita, the subject warrants some consideration before posting stuff like that.

mattclary
04-04-2003, 01:04 PM
Agreed. :(