View Full Version : Why A War Against Irak Is Wrong
ketoprak
03-11-2003, 04:14 PM
Demonstration by law
1.a. A country not directly attacked by another country should not attack this country without UN approval.
1.b. The US were not directly attacked by Irak.
2.a. There are a number of circumstances where the UN can agree on a war.
2.b. The Irak case doesn't fit any of these conditions.
--> This war is illegal
Demonstration by ethics:
1. Justice, as a value, is something universal.
2. This war is unfair (see above).
---> This war is wrong
General conslusion : This war is illegal and wrong.
SCHOLIUM
This war being wrong and illegal, would an attack on the countries making war to Irak (the USA and the UK) be legal and good?
Rocktron
03-11-2003, 04:25 PM
Any war is illegal and wrong...
What bothers me the most, is how CNN presents the news.. as if there is a Good Football game going on!
Any war or violence in any form is BAD!
War solves nothing.., people die!
People has te learn to listen to each other... recardless believes.... All the wars are about Faith or money and land!
Revenge is STUPID! Even after Sept. 11th
Just turn the other cheak!
All people are the same... what ever the colour or believes!
Jah Love!!
http://images.allposters.com/images/149/2975.jpg
Oh no not another war post..AGHHHHHHHHHHH :blink: :unsure: :rolleyes:
Why we SHOULD go to war with Iraq
1) Saddam Hussein has gassed his own people. killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.
2) he was not democratically elected
3)is OBVIOUSLY hiding weapons of mass destruction. ( i don't want to get into this to much but i will if you really want me to)
4)It has been known for more than 10 years that saddam has ties to al-qaeda.
5) remember 9/11? when bush knew that there was a threat from al-qaeda, and everyone is pissed that he didn't alert the public or try to stop it? well, now he IS alerting the public. sounds like a real threat that the cia discovered, now Bush doesn't want another 9/11 does he? so he is alerting America.
6)watch powell's speech, very convincing.
7) why did saddam not mention the long range missles in his 12,000 page document? if he has those not mentioned, it is scary to think of what else he might have.
i recently watched an MTV show/interview thing with tony blair, and in it a 16 year old guy (who lives in Iraq) was almost crying to the tony blair to help him and his family by taking out saddam, and not letting him continue his reign of terror.
if you don't think he should be taken out of power, then you must be stupid.
edit: and o, if you don't want to think of it as war, you can think of it as cops going after a huge crime organizations. you do think think that cops should get rid of crime organizations don't you?
Rocktron
03-11-2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by N£MO@11 March 2003 - 17:28
Oh no not another war post..AGHHHHHHHHHHH :blink: :unsure: :rolleyes:
People are affraid... nothing wrong with that!
And yes Saddam is a brainless Brainwashing asshole!
The people in those country's are Brainwashed. They don't know anything else but WAR!
They think that killing 1000's of people get them in a sort of Walhalla.... Tribute to the Martyrs!
No solution, at least no quick one!
Let's hope for the best, but still War is not the solution!
http://images.allposters.com/images/146/4430_a.jpg
Originally posted by Rocktron@11 March 2003 - 17:43
Let's hope for the best, but still War is not the solution!
then what is? it isn't like saddam will step down...
DarthInsinuate
03-11-2003, 04:47 PM
err, why start a full scale war when the problem is one man
Originally posted by DarthInsinuate@11 March 2003 - 17:47
err, why start a full scale war when the problem is one man
because for some reason, assassinations are illegal in this country.
but it is his whole government who is oppressing.
and bin laden actually doesn't like saddam, but saddam lets bin ladens buddies stay in iraq.
and no president should have many many palaces while most of his country lives in extreme poverty.
Rocktron
03-11-2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by DarthInsinuate@11 March 2003 - 17:47
err, why start a full scale war when the problem is one man
Nope it is bigger than that!
Just killing one man looks simple... But the whole country and all moslims (hope i don't hurt anybody) are brainwashed!
And affraid to say anything (or they will be shot) or get thrown stones at them!
Most Moslim men like the rules that rule now... women are less.. animals are less..
Men are great! Kill as many people in the name of Allah and be a Martyr!
It's harder then we all think! Moslims don't want to change! They really think they are doing the right thing!! :(
Yes maybe killing the aggressors would blow a gap in the thinking of the Islam?
But there is always another guy that thinks he should take over...
Some times i think BOMB the whole freakin Islam world.... but still there are also people that are innocent! (Sorry about spelling errors i'm Dutch)
Difficult subject...
scribblec
03-11-2003, 05:07 PM
irak = iraq
Originally posted by solidsnake@11 March 2003 - 18:07
irak = iraq
Great observational skills there k4l ;)
@rocktron,people are afraid...and this is going to make a difference??I was merely stating that this has been disscussed here before and frankly now it bores me :lol:
Rocktron
03-11-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by N£MO+11 March 2003 - 18:16--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (N£MO @ 11 March 2003 - 18:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--solidsnake@11 March 2003 - 18:07
irak = iraq
Great observational skills there k4l ;)
@rocktron,people are afraid...and this is going to make a difference??I was merely stating that this has been disscussed here before and frankly now it bores me :lol: [/b][/quote]
Are you an American NEMO?
daveyjones
03-11-2003, 05:33 PM
First of all i highly DOUBT that the muslims in iraq are brainwashed , if you knew jack SQUAT about what you were talking about you would know that saddam hussien is a SECULAR leader and since he came to power he has advocated that the general public accept secular views .
'Lets face it , all americans are brainwashed , i hope this doesn't hurt anyones feelings but all they are tought to want is to acquire things , they want more more things with no thought to human suffering in the world or poverty in their own country , that's why there going to war with iraq , they just want cheap gas to fuel their big flashy cars , american's don't care what happens as long as they can get it cheap "
That is what someone in another country could be saying about us right now , be mind full about generalizations because people the world over are for the most part the same , we all have families and friends and love lifes , were not THAT different if you think about it .
As for war with iraq , i guess i really can't advoicate assinating saddam hussine because i really belive he should stand trail , i can't advocate killing anyone out right , but if in the course of this war in which we are trying to bring him to justice for his crimes against humanity his military intefers then we will have to take the apporate actions , the only way in which this war is good is that we will be able to liberate the people of iraq from saddam , but its going to cost us in the united states a shitload.
Originally posted by Rocktron+11 March 2003 - 18:22--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rocktron @ 11 March 2003 - 18:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -N£MO@11 March 2003 - 18:16
<!--QuoteBegin--solidsnake@11 March 2003 - 18:07
irak = iraq
Great observational skills there k4l ;)
@rocktron,people are afraid...and this is going to make a difference??I was merely stating that this has been disscussed here before and frankly now it bores me :lol:
Are you an American NEMO? [/b][/quote]
No i'm in Europe rocktron....next question ;)
DataMore
03-11-2003, 05:37 PM
Oh no, not another war thread! :o
Can't you people see that these discussions always take us nowhere. ;)
:D You people always end up flaming each other and start your own personal war! :D
hypoluxa3k
03-11-2003, 05:38 PM
"Saddam Hussein has gassed his own people. killed hundreds of thousands of his own people."
true, he is fucked in the head, and should be removed, but ask yourself where the U.S. Gov. was when this was happening. yep, they turned thier back cos Iraq was an ally.
"he was not democratically elected"
and that doesn't happen anywhere else?
"watch powell's speech, very convincing."
hahaha!!! what? this one? "look! our satellite shows trucks moving! their moving weapons!"
"all moslims are brainwashed!"
fuck up. let me ask you something my dutch friend, if germany invaded your country and pushed ALL dutch people to a small area of land, and occupied the rest, would you be happy? i think not, because that's happening to Palestinians (muslim), Chechens (muslim) etc
then you wonder why muslims are so pissed off?
the ku'ran clearly states that you need to be 'firm' with your aggressor.
us muslims are peaceful people...unless we are provoked.
Rocktron
03-11-2003, 05:42 PM
[Are you an American NEMO?
No i'm in Europe rocktron....next question ;) [/QUOTE]
Okay sorry.. or i would have said something as what davyjones said about brainwashed Americans..
So don't be offended... don't want to start a WAR here in this Forum... Forgive me okay NEMO?
Skillian
03-11-2003, 05:43 PM
Nice post daveyjones, for pointing out to Rocktron the huge errors in what he says. Nice to know all your posts aren't just "arrgg matey" :P (j/k)
Rocktron that could be quite offensive to many people - but nice to know you are unsure about bombing the whole of the Islamic world because "there might be some innocents". <_<
DataMore
03-11-2003, 05:45 PM
:D I sense a flame war coming up real soon! :D
If you people don't take my advice, you will definitely end up flaming each other. ;)
Rocktron
03-11-2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Skillian@11 March 2003 - 18:43
Rocktron that could be quite offensive to many people - but nice to know you are unsure about bombing the whole of the Islamic world because "there might be some innocents". <_<
"there might be some innocents". <_< ???????
That is not what i said (read it again!) ... but forget about it!
I really don't want a WAR about this topic... If even we can't get along... how about the rest of the World?
Peace and Love! :D
People are People...
Originally posted by ketoprak@11 March 2003 - 17:14
Demonstration by law
1.a. A country not directly attacked by another country should not attack this country without UN approval.
1.b. The US were not directly attacked by Irak.
2.a. There are a number of circumstances where the UN can agree on a war.
2.b. The Irak case doesn't fit any of these conditions.
--> This war is illegal
Ergo, by using that logic, Terrorism, not being a country, cannot be attacked with or without U.N. sanction, AND:
Iraq, being merely a financier, trainer, and backer of terrorists, cannot be attacked, and it would be illegal, under international law, for the U.N. to sanction an attack on Iraq in any case; I.E., the U.N. could not, even if 100% of it's member nations voted to, sanction any such attack, owing to it's illegality.
Skillian
03-11-2003, 05:58 PM
@Rocktron - Not really meant as flaming, just debating - you make some good points in this thread and others.
And to those who don't like the thread - just ignore it! Like it or not this is an important topic. We may not be able to change anything, but we can't change the RIAA's views and actions either and I see plenty of threads about that! :P
al_birkett
03-11-2003, 06:04 PM
At first I was all against war , but now I say we shud bomb iraq and definatly get rid of Mr. Hussain because if we dont do it now we will hav the same dillema in 10 years time , only then he may have nuclear weapons like N.Korea . :(
I_DONT_SHARE_PORN
03-11-2003, 06:07 PM
I say we just go ahead and blow up the whole eastern world.
Rocktron
03-11-2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by I_DONT_SHARE_PORN@11 March 2003 - 19:07
I say we just go ahead and blow up the whole eastern world.
http://www.usflag.org/animate/flagwave2.gif
Duh? :blink:
ketoprak
03-11-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@11 March 2003 - 18:57
Ergo, by using that logic, Terrorism, not being a country, cannot be attacked with or without U.N. sanction, AND:
Iraq, being merely a financier, trainer, and backer of terrorists, cannot be attacked, and it would be illegal, under international law, for the U.N. to sanction an attack on Iraq in any case; I.E., the U.N. could not, even if 100% of it's member nations voted to, sanction any such attack, owing to it's illegality.
Since there's no proof of Iraq 'being merely a financier, trainer, and backer of terrorists' but only faked evidences provided by the Bush administration (with the 'help' of Blair), my demonstration is still valid.
Thanks anyway for not flaming ;)
and that doesn't happen anywhere else?
it does, but this just adds to one big scary bubble
hahaha!!! what? this one? "look! our satellite shows trucks moving! their moving weapons!"
the audio tapes. and i have a feeling, the info that they want to show, would show that they did illegal stuff to get it
"all moslims are brainwashed!"
[quote]
fuck up. let me ask you something my dutch friend, if germany invaded your country and pushed ALL dutch people to a small area of land, and occupied the rest, would you be happy? i think not, because that's happening to Palestinians (muslim), Chechens (muslim) etc
then you wonder why muslims are so pissed off?
the ku'ran clearly states that you need to be 'firm' with your aggressor.
us muslims are peaceful people...unless we are provoked.
um, i never said they were brainwashed... <_<
and I_DON"T_SHARE_PORN: please never use a stupid sentence like that with an American flag :angry:
go ahead and say it, but don't make it look the rest of America is as sarcastic and stupid as you.
ketoprak-
I'm so sorry, I wasn't aware that the reasons for going to war were complete fabrications; thank you for relieving me of my ignorance. I stand chastized, enlightened, AND STILL IN FAVOR OF TAKING HUSSEIN OUT!
Rocktron
03-11-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by kAb@11 March 2003 - 20:17
"all moslims are brainwashed!"
fuck up. let me ask you something my dutch friend, if germany invaded your country and pushed ALL dutch people to a small area of land, and occupied the rest, would you be happy? i think not, because that's happening to Palestinians (muslim), Chechens (muslim) etc
then you wonder why muslims are so pissed off?
the ku'ran clearly states that you need to be 'firm' with your aggressor.
us muslims are peaceful people...unless we are provoked.
Are you using, The Twin Towers attacked by Terrorist planes as a AVATAR?
Talk to the hand man! :angry:
I_DONT_SHARE_PORN
03-11-2003, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Rocktron+11 March 2003 - 14:04--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rocktron @ 11 March 2003 - 14:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--kAb@11 March 2003 - 20:17
"all moslims are brainwashed!"
fuck up. let me ask you something my dutch friend, if germany invaded your country and pushed ALL dutch people to a small area of land, and occupied the rest, would you be happy? i think not, because that's happening to Palestinians (muslim), Chechens (muslim) etc
then you wonder why muslims are so pissed off?
the ku'ran clearly states that you need to be 'firm' with your aggressor.
us muslims are peaceful people...unless we are provoked.
Are you using, The Twin Towers attacked by Terrorist planes as a AVATAR?
Talk to the hand man! :angry: [/b][/quote]
LOL , WORD!
There is no reason to argue over this was because it's gonna go down here pretty soon.
ketoprak
03-12-2003, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@11 March 2003 - 20:37
ketoprak-
I'm so sorry, I wasn't aware that the reasons for going to war were complete fabrications; thank you for relieving me of my ignorance. I stand chastized, enlightened, AND STILL IN FAVOR OF TAKING HUSSEIN OUT!
Your sarcasm seems to be only the sign of your ignorance. You may be living in a country without a free press. Since you have access to the internet, you may consider reading some alternative newspaper and you'll find the info about Blair & Bush faking evidences about Al-qaeda links & Iraq's nuclear program.
BTW, I was really pleased to read the New York Times editorial position on Iraq. It seems at last that some US journalists are begining to see the sitaution as it really is. you can read it here (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09SUN1.html).
-=M3th0d=-
03-12-2003, 10:33 AM
Paul, VB etc. i think this topic has been pretty much discussed to its maximum potential, if anyone has any comments they should probably post them in either 'why i think this war is wrong' or 'why i think this war is right'. Im not going to give my opinion here cos i have done so already, and form experience with the last time this was discussed, its only going to lead to flaming.
People just accept that different people have different points of view - there are arguments for and against this war, and you can shout them till your blue in the face but you cant expect everyone to agree with you, and if they dont it doesnt make them bad or evil or stupid or anything, it makes them an individual.
My point - if you have an opinion, say it once and dont get drawn into a flaming war with someone who doesnt agree with you, but honestly i think this topic should be closed.
I agree-tired,tired,tired
Events will take their course; perhaps there will be more "truth" after the fact.
Ketoprak-if either of us remembers, why don't we try to match notes after whatever "happens" happens?
Originally posted by hypoluxa3k@11 March 2003 - 18:38
the ku'ran clearly states that you need to be 'firm' with your aggressor.
us muslims are peaceful people...unless we are provoked.
The Koran is just a book that can be interpreted in many different ways.
Most interpretations are used for selfish reasons however.
The Islam today, is where Christianity was in the Middle Ages.
The only problem is that we have all these weapons of mass destruction now.....and people willing to use them.
If you call killing tens of thousands of Kurds peaceful, then you have a twisted sense of ethics, dude.
Bombing pubs and markets, filled with INNOCENT civilians in Israel is peaceful too? :blink:
You scare the shit out of me. :ph34r:
As far as the provocation goes, some people are provoked quite easily.
Just go into a bar and look at some guys twice. They WILL be provoked.
I live in Belgium, and my sheer existance seems to be a provocation to the Arabs here.
If you want to talk peaceful religion, think about Bouddhists. Now THAT is a truly peaceful religion! Ever had a problem with one of those people?
I haven't.
Ynhockey
03-12-2003, 07:16 PM
Hmm, let's see...
Why shouldn't the US go to war with Iraq ?
1) The US has acted as "world's mother" (simply no other way to describe it) long enough - it has to stop some day.
2) It's just going to result the deaths of many innocent people, and probably will have the same outcome as the last gulf war - the loss of Saddam, but no political change in Iraq.
3) Bush is just like Hussein except he's not a dictator. I haven't seen Bush do one thing that i would want a president of my country to do (thankfully, i don't live in Bush's country). Why shouldn't Bush and Hussein both be eliminated ?
4) Half the world is against this war, so why start it ?
Why should the US go to war with Iraq ?
1) There's a chance of actually achieving something, like eliminating the chemical weapons or killing Hussein.
2) Since Iraq supplies weapons to many terrorist organizations, maybe this will be like 'eliminating the problem from its source', and even though Russia will still sell weapons to Iraq (most likely), cutting Iraq's ammunition supply can be a direct blow to terrorist organizations around the world.
3) It's a fact that most Iraqis only know what's going on from Arabic sources (Arabic TV, newspapaers, etc.), and there's a lot of propaganda there, even more than on CNN, BBC and other such stations. Therefore, many Iraqis prepare to be 'live martyrs' for Saddam when they don't even know what the whole deal is about. A lot do know, but they trust only the 'Arabic sources' and disregard everything else. Again, that's a fact, whether we like it or not.
4) Can't think of any more major reasons, except that it will benefit Israel a whole lot - because of the Palestinians, Israel lost so much - the safety (yes, Israel was completely safe at some point), the economy - they took off a little from every aspect of Israeli lives. Since i live in Israel, i would greatly like to see Saddam eliminated (he clearly had a link with Arafat and the PLO).
So, which reasons are greater ? Neither are. But nevertheless, I'd like to see the 'Iraqi threat' eliminated. It's too bad that some innocent people will either willfully die, or just perish in the crossfire, there's nothing i personally can do for them. But if those people don't die, along with Saddam Hussein, the world would be much more dangerous for everyone else and then innocent non-Muslims will die. Therefore, it's either us or them - no better way to describe it. So i'm for the war.
Rat Faced
03-12-2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by kAb@11 March 2003 - 16:28
Why we SHOULD go to war with Iraq
1) Saddam Hussein has gassed his own people. killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.
2) he was not democratically elected
3)is OBVIOUSLY hiding weapons of mass destruction. ( i don't want to get into this to much but i will if you really want me to)
4)It has been known for more than 10 years that saddam has ties to al-qaeda.
5) remember 9/11? when bush knew that there was a threat from al-qaeda, and everyone is pissed that he didn't alert the public or try to stop it? well, now he IS alerting the public. sounds like a real threat that the cia discovered, now Bush doesn't want another 9/11 does he? so he is alerting America.
6)watch powell's speech, very convincing.
7) why did saddam not mention the long range missles in his 12,000 page document? if he has those not mentioned, it is scary to think of what else he might have.
i recently watched an MTV show/interview thing with tony blair, and in it a 16 year old guy (who lives in Iraq) was almost crying to the tony blair to help him and his family by taking out saddam, and not letting him continue his reign of terror.
if you don't think he should be taken out of power, then you must be stupid.
edit: and o, if you don't want to think of it as war, you can think of it as cops going after a huge crime organizations. you do think think that cops should get rid of crime organizations don't you?
WTF?
Can I ask you some questions, instead of answering your comments?
To your points:
1/ So why did the USA sell him all those chemicals AFTER he did this? Isn't this like getting mugged by the shopkeeper after buying your groceries?
2/ So why did the USA support him so avidly until Desert Storm? Seems there are a LOT of dictators where they are only because of US help getting there, none of them are renowned for their Human Rights record.
3/ Really? Well USA should know, i mean they SOLD them to him....
4/ Yes he has...He shoots any members he finds, so thats a tie of sorts. Al-Queda bomb Iraq more than any other country. They are FUNDAMENTALIST muslems, this is a Secular Islamic State....ie to Al Queda, he is a traitor to his Faith. In fact, after Desert Storm, the USA had to STOP Al-Queda finishing the job (coz they were another US ally at the time...which only existed because of the USA ). This being the case should UK try and invade Germany now?
I mean the IRA have bombed Germany before...so its just asking for it...it has ties.
5/ Dont you think if Bush knew and didnt try to stop it, then blaming a country going through terrorism by THE SAME PEOPLE all the time and didnt know about it, is a little off target even for the USA?
6/ The part where he praised the UK 'evidence' written by a student 10 years ago?
Yeh..that really convinced me too. I especially liked the 'taped telephone conversation too'..."Bury the Ammo", "What Ammo?", "You know THE Ammo", "The chemicals?", "Yeh, they're the ones"....I mean everyone knows the military of every country speaks like that on unsecure lines when they KNOW they are being tapped...
7/ The 'Long Range' missiles you are talking about are not designed to go that far. They are designed to have maximum range under that set by the treaty. It took all the US technological know how to change it to exceed this range.....so are you saying that Iraq is as technologicaly advanced as the USA? I think i'd question that one....
Wow MTV? We all know what a ROCK of investigative journalism MTV is; must be right. How could I even doubt anything comming out of those secred studios?
I wonder how a couple of normal UK 'protesters' only managed to get "Because I think Im right, and everyone else must be wrong" out of him, on a 1/2 hour program HE asked for to try and convince them the war was right? Interesting that the evidence was SOOOO strong that more people were against war AFTER the program than there was BEFORE it..
But you sure have convinced me kAb.....
Oh by the way, I think your Avatar is VERY offensive, could you please change it?
Thankyou
RF
PS
Oh yes...
Why dont you try offering a refund on the Goods that the USA have now found to be inappropiate, instead of just confiscating and destroying them? Im sure this would work....no one likes being 'taken' by the Grocer.
Originally posted by Rat Faced@12 March 2003 - 21:02
[1/ So why did the USA sell him all those chemicals AFTER he did this? Isn't this like getting mugged by the shopkeeper after buying your groceries?
2/ So why did the USA support him so avidly until Desert Storm? Seems there are a LOT of dictators where they are only because of US help getting there, none of them are renowned for their Human Rights record.
3/ Really? Well USA should know, i mean they SOLD them to him....
4/ Yes he has...He shoots any members he finds, so thats a tie of sorts. Al-Queda bomb Iraq more than any other country. They are FUNDAMENTALIST muslems, this is a Secular Islamic State....ie to Al Queda, he is a traitor to his Faith. In fact, after Desert Storm, the USA had to STOP Al-Queda finishing the job (coz they were another US ally at the time...which only existed because of the USA ). This being the case should UK try and invade Germany now?
I mean the IRA have bombed Germany before...so its just asking for it...it has ties.
5/ Dont you think if Bush knew and didnt try to stop it, then blaming a country going through terrorism by THE SAME PEOPLE all the time and didnt know about it, is a little off target even for the USA?
6/ The part where he praised the UK 'evidence' written by a student 10 years ago?
Yeh..that really convinced me too. I especially liked the 'taped telephone conversation too'..."Bury the Ammo", "What Ammo?", "You know THE Ammo", "The chemicals?", "Yeh, they're the ones"....I mean everyone knows the military of every country speaks like that on unsecure lines when they KNOW they are being tapped...
7/ The 'Long Range' missiles you are talking about are not designed to go that far. They are designed to have maximum range under that set by the treaty. It took all the US technological know how to change it to exceed this range.....so are you saying that Iraq is as technologicaly advanced as the USA? I think i'd question that one....
Wow MTV? We all know what a ROCK of investigative journalism MTV is; must be right. How could I even doubt anything comming out of those secred studios?
I wonder how a couple of normal UK 'protesters' only managed to get "Because I think Im right, and everyone else must be wrong" out of him, on a 1/2 hour program HE asked for to try and convince them the war was right? Interesting that the evidence was SOOOO strong that more people were against war AFTER the program than there was BEFORE it..
But you sure have convinced me kAb.....
Oh by the way, I think your Avatar is VERY offensive, could you please change it?
Thankyou
RF
PS
Oh yes...
Why dont you try offering a refund on the Goods that the USA have now found to be inappropiate, instead of just confiscating and destroying them? Im sure this would work....no one likes being 'taken' by the Grocer.
Ynhockey-
You done said it all; good to hear the Israeli perspective. I think it carries more weight than most.
Rat-let me try to answer you, point by point.
1. I don't recall ever hearing about the U.S. selling Saddam chemicals after he gassed the Kurds; where did you hear that? Odd point regarding the Kurds-he gassed them because he regarded them as "bastard Turks" who didn't deserve to live as Iraqis but invaded Kuwait because their land originally "belonged" to Iraq. Kuwait was also blessed with a shitload of oil-HMMMMM?
2 The U.S.A. originally supported Saddam as a regional ally in response to it's difficulties with Iran after the Shah fell and the Ayatollah started to get pissy with us. We didn't run a "background check" on him; he didn't like Iran, and that was fine with us, so we helped him. Afterwards, he started getting pissy too, but by then he had been agreeable long enough to have accumulated quite a formidable military. Things remained more or less status quo until he went into Kuwait. (Believe me, nobody here forgets that he couldn't have gotten where he is without U.S. help; that fact in no way mitigates the need to address the current problem). To complain about human rights not being our focus at the time.....Would you settle for a "mea culpa" and allow us to do something about it now?
3,4,5,6........
The rest I can't really make sense of; perhaps you could be a little more factually elaborate? A little less rhetorical, perhaps?
Edit: This is directed at RatFace's response.
1. I've never heard of these either...
At one point the USA did sell Iraq bombs. They made a very bad decision. Their main goal, was to fuck up iran. They weren't thinking of what iraq would do later with the weapons.
I don't agree with all that went on in the past, but it is the past. Now is now. iraq must be dealt with sooner than later.
4/ They don't bomb iraq more than any other country. NEVER HEARD THIS BEFORE. bin laden isn't tight with saddam, but many others sure are.
5. restate your sentence, i don't understand it. poor grammar.
6. Sadly, i wouldn't be suprised if the iraqi military is full of airheads not sure what to do with their "modified vehicles" etc.
7/ The 'Long Range' missiles ARE designed to exceed the treaty's set limits. Their technology isn't even close to ours, i don't know how you got it in your head about this.
The MTV show, wasn't really an MTV show, it just put it on the air by them. it was a show in the UK where teens asked Tony Blair questions. did i not make this clear?
There were many opinions on this program and i thought it was done very well. All sorts of questions were asked, for the war and against. I suggest you watch it sometime.
How is my avatar offensive? I see it as a remembrance of what was once there. If you think it is "offensive", obviously you don't realize the significance of the architecture of the buildings. my avatar is marveling at what was once a reality. I don't see how it could possibly be offensive, and i refuse to take it down.
kAb-
I believe your avatar is spectacular; I recommend anyone demanding you take it down be de-bagged and radished.
(Where do you think Ratface is doing his posting from? I have a guess....)
It's very good to have my historical recollections confirmed-thanks.
ketoprak
03-13-2003, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Ynhockey@12 March 2003 - 20:16
because of the Palestinians, Israel lost so much
And reversely: because of Israel, the Palestinians lost so much.
Can't you see that also?
Rat Faced
03-13-2003, 10:51 AM
How is my avatar offensive? I see it as a remembrance of what was once there. If you think it is "offensive", obviously you don't realize the significance of the architecture of the buildings. my avatar is marveling at what was once a reality. I don't see how it could possibly be offensive, and i refuse to take it down.
It is not offensive for the reason you stated....
It is offensive due to the nature of this thread, in which it can be perceived as inflamatory....
If you were not so openly pro-war, then I would have seen it for the Tribute that you claim, as it is I see those towers and your words together.
I have read soo many threads where USA have Iraq and Al-Queda mixed up so that they cannot tell one from the other. This is the ONLY reason I find it offensive.... I do of course, appologise if this is not your intent.
j2k4, im posting from the UK, as you well know. This is probably the only subjet I get worked up over at the moment. If you dont know that USA sold chemicals to Iraq from 1988 onwards, I suggest you do a Google search for some news organisations....or read some of the threads, that have links to them.
Its not exactly classified information.
-=M3th0d=-
03-13-2003, 11:23 AM
OMG!!!! This thread is becoming laughable. Look, make your point and then SHUT UP. THere's no reason to get so arsey with other board members because they dont agree with your point of view. I mean christ, saying his avatars offensive rat faced? Grow up. And everyone seriously, just dont lwer yourselves to these flamers level.
PS. Its nice to see some middle eastern opinion tho, dont usually get much in these types of threads....despite them being the ones who are going to be most affected.... <_<
ketoprak
03-13-2003, 02:46 PM
Just for your record, here's a 'funny' link : Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm)
Ratface-
You're right, I had sussed where you hail from and I apologize.
As far as reading more (google search), believe me , I have, and my judgement and experience leads me to believe that some sources are dispensing propaganda-nothing more or less. I don't reject things out of hand, as a rule, but some things I just find to be unbelievable.
If you were here, you'd know the press would have ferreted out ANY information like that if they thought it would have been problematic for Bush, Sr. Clinton was another story; he seemed to be more concerned with insuring that we were vulnerable in the FAR east, and the media kissed his ass.
Lets keep this subject open, eh?
Ketoprak-
Welcome back-the Palestinians have surely lost much, and (my opinion only), will probably continue to lose until Arafat, or whoever holds the reins, decides to make a good faith effort to bargain/negotiate a TRUE settlement. There is too much hot blood on both sides; too much reactionary thought. I don't want to sound naive on this, but if I knew nothing else about the situation, it would seem to me the side recruiting youngsters to give their lives by strapping explosives to their bodies for the glory of the cause has more reason to get to the bargaining table. Please don't insult my intelligence by trying to tell me these stories are propaganda, too.
ketoprak
03-13-2003, 03:07 PM
j2k4
Do you think that state violence is better than terrorism? As far as I am concerned, I see no difference in the very case of the Israel-Palestin conflict. I guess if the Palestinians had a strong army with good weapons, as the Israelians do, they would use this army and not terrorism.
And about negociations, it seems to me that currently Sharon is the one who do not want to negociate. Sure Arafat is not a clean guy, but do you really think Arafat & the Palestinians will change their attitude if Israel keep humiliating them?
Lamsey
03-13-2003, 03:13 PM
Why we SHOULD go to war with Iraq
1) Saddam Hussein has gassed his own people. killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.
2) he was not democratically elected
1) The Americans killed hundreds of thousands of people in Japan when they nuked two cities' worth of civilians off the face of the Earth. Should we go to war with them?
2) Neither was George W. Bush :P
Ketoprak-
No, I don't think ultimately there is ANY difference, but terrorists are not in the habit of seeking U.N. sanction, hence their intentions cannot be known in any other than the most vague terms (they're not as media-accessible). This is what makes them terrorists.
The Israeli/Palestine conflict is a case in point. The bombers are what most of us would define as terrorists, yet they would purport to represent all of the Palestinians. Insofar as Arafat occasionally says he has no control over them, and ALSO purports to speak for all Palestinians, we can only conclude there is some sort of dissension in the ranks of the Palestinians. Could this not be a reason for Sharon not to negotiate? He can only legitimately (?) sit down with Arafat. If I were Sharon, I would see this as an unsatisfactory option.
I don't want to give short shrift to the issue of "humiliation", but that, and "pride" are precise examples of what constitute the "hot blood" issue in my last post.
ketoprak
03-13-2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@13 March 2003 - 16:38
but terrorists are not in the habit of seeking U.N. sanction
Well it seems to me that it's precisely Israel (not the Palestinians) who don't comply with the numerous UN Security Council decisions regarding this conflict.
But, as this institution will probably lost any credibility in the next future thanks to the 'admirable' diplomatic policy of GW Bush, this won't be a problem anymore :(
Insofar as Arafat occasionally says he has no control over them, and ALSO purports to speak for all Palestinians
If you want democracy, the 1st thing you need is a State. Let the Palestinians have their state, and you will be able to help them build democratic institutions.
Originally posted by ketoprak@13 March 2003 - 16:54
If you want democracy, the 1st thing you need is a State. Let the Palestinians have their state, and you will be able to help them build democratic institutions.
Yes, but this leads to a debate about horses and carts, or chickens and eggs, which would serve no purpose other than to lead us back to the "hot blood" issue; if the Palestinians would forswear their current tactics and strategy (and could somehow make it stick, vis a vis the leadership question), in a unilateral fashion, and let it be known in no uncertain terms that it was doing this, world opinion would immediately weigh on the side of Israel doing the same. I'm sorry to say this, but in this matter, Palestine has the credibility problem, not Israel, and THAT is what is making this conflict insolvable. I'll say this: A "Proud Warrior", no matter WHAT his stripe, is nothing more than an arrogant asshole-no offence to ANYBODY here intended.
ClubDiggler
03-13-2003, 11:09 PM
Why go wo war when you can hug a tree!!!
or avoid the problem and bury your head in the sand...
maybe the problem will go away....
all by itself...
KEEP DREAMING!
Doing nothing is far worse.
ClubDiggler-
I just responded to your "newbie" post.
Re: this post-I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, but the mideast also has a monopoly on sa-------never mind.
Oh, lighten up!! (In advance, of course).
Originally posted by Lamsey@13 March 2003 - 16:13
1) The Americans killed hundreds of thousands of people in Japan when they nuked two cities' worth of civilians off the face of the Earth. Should we go to war with them?
The use of nuclear weapons was completely avoidable if Japan had just surrendered after they had been beaten down by the U.S.
The U.S. could not afford to keep on fighting Japan and Germany. Japan had also been on a course to rule the world, and they needed to be stopped.
THEY WERE WARNED MONTHS IN ADVANCE of the devastation that would occur if there was no surrender.
They weren't our own people.... it was in an effort to save our people.
And Ratface: My avatar is in no way related to this thread...
neevakee
03-14-2003, 03:55 AM
Just in advance I would like to say that I am neither for or aginist war.
It is my opinion that this goes far beyond George Bush and his capain in the early 90's. This is America trying to be liable for there actions. Yes theirs. It is the USA's fault Sadamm has the weapons, it was the early 80's he was at war with Iran and so were we. So we became quick friends. We gave them them resoucrces to build the weapons and we ingnored how they were used. Everything was goo untill kuwait was invaided, there wasa a more vested intrest in kuwait in oil. I can't rrecall at the moment, but trust me there was. So the us and allies went to war with Iraq. After the US had finished the war the weapons inspections came. They then stopped. Bill Clinton then HAd operation Desser Storm and he gave the same reasons bush is giving now to the worl to justify his attack. Anyway, then 911 happened, and since the US proably has been worried that if Iraq ever used the weapons against a undefended country or give them to terrorist ans they use them, the USA will be responsible. Why? because the USA gave Iraq the capibalites to make the weapons and we did nothing to stop them form using the weapons. IT is like you give a person a gun who says he wants to kill someone, you are going to be an accesory to murder. It is no diffrent only in this case we know that Iraq has used them before so what is to say they wont again.
Originally posted by neevakee@14 March 2003 - 04:55
Just in advance I would like to say that I am neither for or aginist war.
It is my opinion that this goes far beyond George Bush and his capain in the early 90's. This is America trying to be liable for there actions. Yes theirs. It is the USA's fault Sadamm has the weapons, it was the early 80's he was at war with Iran and so were we. So we became quick friends. We gave them them resoucrces to build the weapons and we ingnored how they were used. Everything was goo untill kuwait was invaided, there wasa a more vested intrest in kuwait in oil. I can't rrecall at the moment, but trust me there was. So the us and allies went to war with Iraq. After the US had finished the war the weapons inspections came. They then stopped. Bill Clinton then HAd operation Desser Storm and he gave the same reasons bush is giving now to the worl to justify his attack. Anyway, then 911 happened, and since the US proably has been worried that if Iraq ever used the weapons against a undefended country or give them to terrorist ans they use them, the USA will be responsible. Why? because the USA gave Iraq the capibalites to make the weapons and we did nothing to stop them form using the weapons. IT is like you give a person a gun who says he wants to kill someone, you are going to be an accesory to murder. It is no diffrent only in this case we know that Iraq has used them before so what is to say they wont again.
thats an interesting view...
i haven't thought about it like that before..
And if it's a "mea Culpa" as I said earlier, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? Well recognized, Neevakee.
neevakee
03-14-2003, 04:31 AM
One other thing as i pointed out earlier, Clinton gave the same resons that Bush is giving now back in 1998 for dessert fox. Why is it diffrent this time? It shows how truley two faced the world is they will agree to one thing, but if some eles comes to power they disagree.
I haven't posted on here all day, but some people (????) have been gone even longer-is this thread finished?
Rat Faced
03-15-2003, 11:06 AM
I think so j2k4.
There is nothing we can say to change the minds of those with strong views on the issue, and those are mostly the people that post.
kAb, I did appologise to you earlier in the thread....its just I first saw the new avatar on this thread, as i explained.
Lets change the subject.....
.... didnt Australia and New Zealand get riled at each other over a game of cricket once?
ketoprak
03-15-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@15 March 2003 - 04:52
I haven't posted on here all day, but some people (????) have been gone even longer-is this thread finished?
Some would have call that a 'blitzkrieg'.
I hope the upcoming war will also be very fast.
:unsure:
Ynhockey
03-15-2003, 03:10 PM
@Ketopark:
If you want democracy, the 1st thing you need is a State. Let the Palestinians have their state, and you will be able to help them build democratic institutions.
Now let's review every case where the Palestinians were supposed to have a state:
1936: The council under Lord Phil of Britain decided that there will be an Israeli and Palestinian state in the territory of Israel (which is now Israel and Jordan). The Israelis would get 4500 sq. km., the Palestinians would get ~110000 sq. km (notice the size difference) and the rest (cities like Jerusalem, Haifa, Nazareth, etc.) will stay international. The Palestinians declined the offer.
1939: The Woodhead council decided that there will be an Israeli and Palestinian state in the territory of Israel (which is now Israel and Jordan). The Israelis would get ~2000 sq.km. while the Palestinians get the rest (~112000 sq.km.). Both sides declined the offer.
1947: The UN decided that there will be an Israeli and Palestinian state in the territory of Israel (which is now only Israel, as Jordan was created then). The Israelis would get ~12000 sq. km. while the Palestinians would get ~3000 sq.km. (Israel now gets much more, but 3 million out of 4 of the Israeli Arabs were already citizens of Jordan). The Palestinians declined and as a result, they got zilch while the Israelis got their state on the promised territory, plus the territory that the Palestinians were supposed to get.
1948-1999: Haven't been following that period much, but i remember something about offering Palestine the west bank in the 90's and the PLO was formed in 1962.
1999: Israeli PM Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians the Gaza strip and the west Bank to make it a Palestinian state (thus giving up everything the Palestinians wanted except all of Jerusalem, although East Jerusalem was included in the offer). Arafat declined.
What can I say ? The Palestinians were given a lot, then less and less because of their own stubornness. It's evident that they want a state only under the conditions that all Jews are driven out of Israel. That won't happen and therefore the Palestinians will never get a state until they get a sane leader and stop terrorising people. They always simply make lame excuses (like religion, when they care nothing for Islam anyway, as was proven over time) to terrorise the Israelis. I can't beleive anyone can justify the Palestinians.
ketoprak
03-15-2003, 03:40 PM
I can't beleive anyone can justify the Palestinians.
This might be true, and the historical facts you remind us are true, but, as a Jew, I can add that nothing can justify the Israelians. People who suffered so much in the past from discrmination, terror and extermination should have built an exemplary state, which they did not. When they finally got a PM who really wanted peace, they killed him.
Nobody is right in this conflict. It needs impartiality, not the so obviously pro-Israel US diplomacy.
Rat Faced-
I believe this may be heating up again-
Ketoprak-ynhockey-
I would like to LEARN from your discourse; please mind manners?
I will reserve the right to interject as I see fit re: comments about the U.S.
Please, this kind of opportunity doesn't just drop out of the blue; you two are on opposite sides of the fence and are in an excellent position to make (NOT SCORE) points with anybody else who's here.
ketoprak
03-17-2003, 03:01 PM
We're all seating here, talking about futilities... In the next few hours or days Mr Bush Jr will launch its attack. People will die for an unfair & illegal war, the UN will loose its credibility, the world will probably enter in an era of chaos... and nobody has posted to this thread or similar ones for more than 24h!
I don't know what to think about it.
DarthInsinuate
03-17-2003, 04:15 PM
do you lot actually do anything apart from gossip about it like grannies? what are you going to do about it? fly over to iraq and moan to the mr soldier man to stop shooting at the other people with the big guns?
unless you suggest something practical we can all do i don't really care and you should stop posting about it, i makes me think
ketoprak
03-17-2003, 04:22 PM
Well, let's kill Bush :D
Or replace the soldiers by grannies :D
Lamsey
03-17-2003, 04:50 PM
i don't really care and you should stop posting about it
Come on... there are a lot of lives at risk here - those of Iraqi civilians, the soldiers on both sides, and even civilians in Western countries who will be at risk from a terrorist backlash if Bush's axis of warmongering goes on with its plans.
That's something that everyone in the world should care about, regardless of their stance.
ynhockey and myself seem to be the only ones posting on this who are willing to take a serious look at the issue(s).
I believe that we think the same way about most of whats involved here.
I will. for this record (and it IS a record), state a few of my beliefs:
1) Many people seem to think the U.S., being the big, bad, take your pick:Mommy, Daddy, Cop, Superpower-wants to start a war for the off-hand reason that "we don't like Saddam", or, (George W.) " My daddy said to finish what he started, or, "My oil buddies want this".
Nothing could be further from the truth; anyone who would comment thus SHOULDN'T BOTHER TO POST. My opinion only.
2) Many think we entertain the idea of war with no regard to loss of life, because "No matter what, we won't lose many people".
The U.S. has been in enough wars to know what it means to have people die in the effort; because of this, we've improved our ability to protect our soldiers supremely well. So sue us..... To imply that we don't care or empathize about loss of life is incredibly offensive. Those who would disagree with our position regarding the value of life are cynics or merely jealous.
3) Hard as it may be, try to put yourselves in our shoes:
You are in a position to effect change.
You have suffered the single most outrageous act of terrorism ever to be perpetrated on human beings.
You have the wherewithal to respond, and you believe doing so will better the situation for everyone.
You believe removing Saddam will have extreme effect on the viability of terrorism.
Do you sit on your hands and do nothing? Worse: Do you sit on your hands and spout anti-war platitudes and anti-U.S. statements without once being creative enough to stray from the "Standardized and Official Catalogue of Anti-anything and Everything Rhetoric"?
And ketoprak: "Kill Bush"? I'm surprised, even at you.
Rat Faced
03-17-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@15 March 2003 - 21:41
Rat Faced-
I believe this may be heating up again-
Ketoprak-ynhockey-
I would like to LEARN from your discourse; please mind manners?
I will reserve the right to interject as I see fit re: comments about the U.S.
Please, this kind of opportunity doesn't just drop out of the blue; you two are on opposite sides of the fence and are in an excellent position to make (NOT SCORE) points with anybody else who's here.
The trouble is there are no right or wrong answers...
Saddam is a bastard..we all agree with that.
Arafat is a Bastard...we all agree there.
And Sharron (sp?) is a Bastard....we can probably all agree there.
As to Israel/Palestinians...you cannot lay the blame totally in either corner.
Clinton laid the groundwork that created the Pallestinian Authority, and everything was working out...less violence/terrorism etc in the area. People could see light at the end of the tunnel...while both sides will probably never like each other, they were talking...things were happening.
Sharron gets elected and all of a sudden...the treaty that the USA (yes....the USA) had brokered is ripped up unilatraly by the Israeli's. Sharron is a war criminal, with a history of Human Rights abuse against Arabs in Jordan...and ripped up the treaty that had given the Pallestinians a homeland, so no wonder they are pissed at him.
Instead of going to the UN (which would be difficult, as they were not yet a recognised country) or to the International Community, they reverted to what they knew how to do.... ie Fight Back. This was the wrong thing to do, and gets them classified as terrorists again.
Sharron however doesnt really mind....as he hates Arabs with a passion. He doesnt mind sending in the army to wipe out a 100 pallestinians (many innocent) for every Israeli killed by a Terrorist. The big mistake for the USA is that there is now a Right Wing US government that refuses to condemn Israeli attrocieties....but does condemn Pallestinian.
They are actually as bad as each other....and the USA would gain respect if their Government treated the issue this way.
As to Saddam, i've said before that there is no right/wrong answer to this either.
I am against the war, as i believe it is the greater of 2 evils....not because I take a 'moral highground' over civilian casualties etc.
I dont like to see hypocracy from either camp........and that is all the pro-war faction seem to have. But the anti-war come out with crap too.
The Question that the Pro-war faction need to answer, to convert me is simple.
What happens AFTER?
The history of this area is 5000 years of waring factions, that HATE each other:
There are only 4 options I can see:
1/ Form a Democracy.
This is easier said than done. They hate each other with a passion.
If this is tried, then I will forcast a Civil War that will make the Balkans look like a Fight between skinheads in Brighton. It will include all the old favourites like Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide....with the added bonus of the Arabian Imagination with regards to ways of inflicting Pain, while keeping people alive as long as possible.
2/ Split the country into its component parts.
This will not happen. Iraq has the 2nd largest Oil Deposits in the world. There is no way that the International Community will allow the re-instatement of countries like Messopotamia etc...in order that they will be in continuous squabbling and fighting, with this resource at stake. Its like righting off the oilfields without trying......which at least you'd be doing with option 1.
Added to this that some of the traditional countries are also located partly in neighbouring countries...eg part of Kurdish homeland is now part of Turkey.. This also decreases the internal security of these other countries. I cant see Turkey (as an example) handing over 15-20% of its land to keep the new Kurdish country happy.
3/ A US/UN Military Governer
yeh...right.
The Arab world would let this happen without a fight.
Or the UN for that matter.
If they did.....good luck. The UK tried to keep peace here that way.....didnt work then. How many bodybags would it take for the US to withdraw?
Wasnt that many in Samalia (mind there isnt oil in Somalia)
4/ Install another Bastard like Saddam.
Well......this seems to be the prefered US Government option, if we look over the last 60 years.
But......what about the arguments being used to attack in the first place? Why risk the lives of our soldiers to 'Liberate' Iraq from one bastard, to give to another?
Until these questions are answered, and some actual reasons other than:
'He has WMD' (which were sold to him by the west in the first place, after he had demonstrated how big a bastard he is.......pretty hypocritical)
'He has links with Al Quaeda'.........which is such blatent crap its laughable
and
'He supports Terrorists' ....true, the PLO...like a lot of other Arabs and Arab States. But then the IRA gets most of its money from the USA, the UDF from the UK, ETA from ....... do i have to go on?
At the moment.....not attacking is the lesser of two evils.
Not attacking anyone, flaming anyone etc etc.
Everyone has their views, but please answer these questions.......unlike some in the anti-war lobby, im not a passifist, my mind can be changed........but not with any arguments i've heard so far from anyone, either here, at the UN or in the Press.
ketoprak
03-17-2003, 05:52 PM
3) Hard as it may be, try to put yourselves in our shoes:
You are in a position to effect change.
You have suffered the single most outrageous act of terrorism ever to be perpetrated on human beings.
You have the wherewithal to respond, and you believe doing so will better the situation for everyone.
You believe removing Saddam will have extreme effect on the viability of terrorism.
Really, I don't think that's a good argument. I've said that earlier. The simple fact that a second Gulf war was heavily discussed BEFORE the 11.9.01 attack should enough to validate my opinion.
I can understand the US sentiment regarding their situation after september 11, but I cannot understand why the US don't attack Pakistan or Saudi Arabia (not sure how you name this country), who have PROVEN links with international terrorism.
As for 'bettering the situation for everyone', it's a very risky bet, as it might as well increase the lack of comprehension of the South towards the North, and make this planet more insecure than it allready is, not talking of the decredibilization of the UN who, up to now, were to protect world security.
1) Many people seem to think the U.S., being the big, bad
I can assure you that people here in France are very sorry of the serious deterioration of our links with your country. So do I. It has nothing to do with anti-americanism (which I agree, is a kind of rhetoric here - but still very superficial), but it's the moral stance of a country who care about justice and international law.
And ketoprak: "Kill Bush"? I'm surprised, even at you.
I think this sentence is as stupid as "bomb Iraq' or 'kill Sadam'. 'bomb Iraq' is not the solution, so is 'kill Bush'.
-=M3th0d=-
03-17-2003, 05:58 PM
Ratfaced - I think you have a valid point about what happens after the war in iraq. I think the most probable outcome is for the beginnings of a fully democratic system be implemented, overseen by the UN. I do not think it likely that America will impose its own ally government and reap the obvious benefits (e.g. oil) as it has already been proposed by (i know at least) the British government, (and supported by various factions of the american govt) that all oil profits will be put back into iraq.
As to the reasons for going to war, personally it is more his FAILURE TO ACCOUNT for some 14000 tonnes of anthrax, scud missiles, and other illegal weapons; his countinued uncooperation with the international community (some 17 violations), his genocide of some 200,000 people, his continued violation of all human rights, etc. etc. etc.
I think that irrelevant of the fact we may have wrongly supported him in the past, that doesnt give a reason not to get rid of his genocidic tyrranic rule of iraq.
Skillian
03-17-2003, 06:05 PM
2) Many think we entertain the idea of war with no regard to loss of life, because "No matter what, we won't lose many people".
The U.S. has been in enough wars to know what it means to have people die in the effort; because of this, we've improved our ability to protect our soldiers supremely well. So sue us..... To imply that we don't care or empathize about loss of life is incredibly offensive. Those who would disagree with our position regarding the value of life are cynics or merely jealous.
Since ketoprak talked about the other two points let me respond some to this one.
It is certainly true that the US has improved its ability to protect it's soldiers. Unfortunately the way this is done has meant that more civilian casualties are on the ground. Bombing from planes up on high does decrease the chance of US casualties but increases the chance of civilian casualties. We may be shown the "precise accuracy" of the bombs used but this will always be a far greater risk to civilians. There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your own soldiers but the US had to do this, as there would be minimal support from the US public for war in Irag if this was not the case.
So while it is a noble thing to protect your soldiers, in effect is has made it easier for the US to take military action with public support, and lead to increased civilian casualties.
So, since a war seems to be a fait accompli-
Maybe when it's over we can form the coalition that doesn't exist now to maximize the potential in the region. Therein may lie the milieu (boy-two uses of le francais already) in which the U.N. may prove it's worth.
I have one request: can we start getting interesting a little earlier in the day so I can respond to the latest (and best) posts I've seen yet?
For now-prayers to and for all; it appears the dreaded event will soon be upon us.
the-ninja69
03-18-2003, 12:13 AM
We should definately go to war with iraq. Thoses damn middle easterns. Thy deserve to all burn in hell. Lets nuke there fuc*ing asses. To bad we can't nuke them since it would effect us too but oh well.
All u anti-war war ppl stfu. :angry: :angry:
alan36uk
03-18-2003, 12:15 AM
Its going to happen...
Seems like Wednesday it will kick off
MY FECKIN BIRTHDAY !!!
Skillian
03-18-2003, 01:12 AM
a war seems to be a fait accompli
Its going to happen...
Did anyone really have any doubt it would? :(
Afronaut
03-18-2003, 01:23 AM
I hade a little hope that it would not come to war. Just saw Mr. Bush on telly, and he is determined.
Too bad.
ClubDiggler
03-18-2003, 03:58 AM
Well, the inevitable is about to begin.
Keep our fingers crossed for smooth sailing from now on...
I wonder how they'll get Saddam. He has a bunker built by the Germans.
It is located 300 yards underground. It has its own air filtration system and supplies for
one year. I don't think there are bombs that can get to him without destrying the whole city.
They'll have to go in and take him out.
He's been busy
Well, most of you probably disagree, but I think the Iraqi citizens are welcoming a new form of
government or regime change.
I just hope there are minimum cassualties.
Peace thereafter....
saddam needs to die :angry:
lets get this damn war over with <_<
bring back our troops! just bomb the shit out of saddam and send in the special-ops!
we don't need a quarter of a million troops in iraq! that is all i oppose!
i support the war except for the quarter million in the gulf <_<
MagicNakor
03-18-2003, 04:30 AM
Bush is opening a huge can of worms.
I'm glad I won't be around when it comes back to bite him.
:ninja:
Originally posted by Skillian@18 March 2003 - 02:12
Did anyone really have any doubt it would? :(
Doubt? No.
But I had hopes.
I hope we can do this with the barest minimum of casualties, civilian or otherwise. I hope also to be taken at my word in expressing this.
Gonna break my heart if this gets out of hand.
Again-prayers all around.
Rocktron
03-30-2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Rocktron@11 March 2003 - 17:43
They think that killing 1000's of people get them in a sort of Walhalla.... Tribute to the Martyrs!
No solution, at least no quick one!
Let's hope for the best, but still War is not the solution!
I posted this on 18 March..
And this is now happening as we speak!
They blow up themselves and hoping to kill as many people with it!! :( Even their own people!! This is sick!
This what i was affraid off!
They really think they get in heaven after blowing up as many people as they can!
I pray for all the soldiers and innocent people involved in this crazy war... God help them!!
ne1GotZardoz
03-30-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Rocktron@11 March 2003 - 12:05
It's harder then we all think! Moslims don't want to change! They really think they are doing the right thing!! :(
Yes maybe killing the aggressors would blow a gap in the thinking of the Islam?
But there is always another guy that thinks he should take over...
Some times i think BOMB the whole freakin Islam world.... but still there are also people that are innocent! (Sorry about spelling errors i'm Dutch)
Difficult subject...
Rocket, you mentioned something that needs clarification from someone in the Middle East most likely.
I know that not all muslims are Islamic, and that not all Islamics are muslim.
What I don't know, is where they cross and why.
Any people from the Islamic nations who can clarify this issue for me?
Peace
Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@30 March 2003 - 08:30
I know that not all muslims are Islamic, and that not all Islamics are muslim.
Muslim: A person of Islamic Faith.
Muslim=Islam. It's the same thing, its like Christian=Christianity.
ketoprak
03-30-2003, 10:02 PM
I know that not all muslims are Islamic, and that not all Islamics are muslim.
You're mixing "islamic" and "islamist". An islamist is a muslim who has a political, milititant & shari'a (islamic law) -oriented vision of his faith. Many of these islamists are peacefull, but some, for some reason, can becom terrorists.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.