PDA

View Full Version : Bush's Speech..



Z
03-18-2003, 01:21 AM
i havent posted any opinions about the war in this forum. i cant really say if im for or against it.
i just watched the speech and it was pretty convincing...
what do u guys think??
:huh:

kAb
03-18-2003, 03:08 AM
i've been convinced for a long time. his speech was good (i think it would've been better if he had been sitting) and saddam needs to leave.

here (http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html) is a very good analysis of iraq to convince all you peacepeople that war is a must.

"The Avatar Man"
03-18-2003, 03:15 AM
I think it was a war declaration <_<
any wich ways it goes noone can deny that at least we&#39;ll be removing someone who does not deserve to live :angry:

DJ-KeTTLe
03-18-2003, 07:18 AM
My PM John Howard has commited Our troops so i say go in now :D :P :D

plus these 2 guys defaced the opera house with "No War"

Z
03-18-2003, 07:46 AM
do u live in australia? :huh:

DJ-KeTTLe
03-18-2003, 07:49 AM
yes and proud to be an aussie&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :D :D :D

Knuckles187
03-18-2003, 09:38 AM
well... i was convinced already...


EVERYONE KNOWS he has these weapons... and nobody is doing bugger all.. they are doing something.. and that my friends is better than nothing...


Tom.,

jetje
03-18-2003, 10:04 AM
The speech...

Made me clear its about the oil...

quote... not literaly

- all that put fire in oilwells will be prosecuted

and only after he said that he said

- any use of NBC (mass destructive) weapons will be prosecuted....

my guess..? What&#39;s the most important, you put that 1st.... I thought it was because of him having those weapons they attack....? Not the oil....

junkyardking
03-18-2003, 10:44 AM
Some of you guys are full of it, do you know what happens if you go to war you have to kill people sometimes women and children, you have to see your buddies with their organs spilling out,
people suffer.
Some young people want to fight war but when they come back they are shatered people.

i suppose some people wont know the horrors of war until it happens on their own soil.
War is no good.


:huh: And as for Australia im an Australian but im not proud to be Australian the priminister locks up refugges and now wants to go to war, and get this he locks up iraqi refuggess which causes them great mental/physical harm, then he goes on about how Saddam is so cruel and wants to free iraqis from this regime,
He is certainly not "my pm".

Dont be fooled this war is about oil.

al_birkett
03-18-2003, 11:34 AM
The speech...

Made me clear its about the oil...

jetje is right .... all this war is about is oil and I wish everyone else could see this too. One of the first objectives of the allied attack is to &#39;secure the oil fields&#39; yeah I bet &#39;secure&#39; my ass , secure them from anyone else apart from america. you&#39;d think that once in the process of attacking iraq the allies america would try and &#39;secure&#39; all these chemical and biological weapons he is suppose to have hiding under his bed.

jetje
03-18-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Master YodaX@18 March 2003 - 05:15
I think it was a war declaration <_<
any wich ways it goes noone can deny that at least we&#39;ll be removing someone who does not deserve to live :angry:
BUSH is gonna be removed.... phew what a relief :rolleyes:


(Romeo187 @ 18 March 2003 - 11:38)
well... i was convinced already...


EVERYONE KNOWS he has these weapons... and nobody is doing bugger all.. they are doing something.. and that my friends is better than nothing...


Tom.,

To be honest Romeo187, i&#39;m not convinced at all. It&#39;s even worse i don&#39;t think Saddam has them.
They (US Governement) just tell you that so are scared from them. And will back up his doubtable choice...
Ig there were weapons, show them... your intelligence is that almighty isn&#39;t it.

But i can say you this after or during the war they will show up.... guess who&#39;s gonna put them there..&#33; <_<

tracydani
03-18-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by jetje+18 March 2003 - 13:19--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jetje @ 18 March 2003 - 13:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Master YodaX@18 March 2003 - 05:15
I think it was a war declaration <_<
any wich ways it goes noone can deny that at least we&#39;ll be removing someone who does not deserve to live :angry:
BUSH is gonna be removed.... phew what a relief :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
LOL


I missed the speech so can&#39;t say but...
I&#39;m not the most informed but I belive the war should happen. Seems there are valid reasons for it and if Saddam wanted to prevent it he would have cooperated with the U.N. much earlier. I just am not sure I belive it should happen without U.N. sanction. Then again, what good is it to try and get U.N. approval if someone can veto it because their vote carries more weight than anothers?

I am not so sure that putting oilfields ahead of the weapons is valid proof that the war is about oil either. I seem to remember a whole lot of damage being done (to people and the environment) when the fields were set to fire last time and it seems to be a good idea to prevent this from happening again if possible.
The weapons, many seem to agree exist but just don&#39;t seem to know exactly where. Can&#39;t really do much about them in the begginning if we don&#39;t know where they are(just gotta hope the first strikes take many of them out I geuss).

Anyway, I think that Bush going to war without U.N. approval is a bad idea(unless more of the countries that say they are in support back it up with action too). It seems as if we are willing to go along with the U.N. as long as it agrees with us. Not really a good way to run things in my opinion.

Just another poorly informed opinion.

One more thing. I belive we are handeling France and it&#39;s stand wrong. It seems we are trying to turn our country against France instead of dealing with a differance in policy/ideals. Seems I heard that the Senate dinning room renamed french fries to freedom fries, rediculous. This just seems tomake things worse instead of helping to deal with a problem.

ketoprak
03-18-2003, 01:11 PM
I&#39;m just trying to understand the logic underlying in this speech. And I think most of it is wrong.

Here&#39;s what I got from it :

1) There are high risks of acts of terrorism.

That&#39;s true. That was also true before 11.9.01.

2) Saddam Hussein is one of this risks because he has mass destruction weapons.

Maybe true (nothing proven yet). A lot of countries have these mass destruction weapons, & have a lot of them. North Corea, Russia, Pakistan, India...

3) Iraq have links with al-qaeda.

Maybe are there some contacts, but not more. Nothing has been proven yet. We were only given faked evidences.

4) Saddam refused to cooperate with the inspectors.

That&#39;s not what the inspectors say.

5) The Security council failed to disarm Iraq.

Who said so? The inspections were going on & were giving results. The Security council didn&#39;t want a war before it could be sure Iraq&#39;s disarment was impossible via other means (the inspections). The role of the UN is to seek peace, not to make inconsiderate wars.

6) The USA have the right to make that war without UN approval.

Untrue. There&#39;s no UN resolution that call for an automatic use of force against Iraq. Hitherto the war is illegal.



Now, I would like to ask: what&#39;s the cause of international terrorism? Isn&#39;t it the widening economic, social & cultural gap between the North & the South? Will that war lead to a growing sentiment of justice among the populations of the South ? The answer is : no&#33; The US are about to make their biggest mistake ever, & everyone will pay for it.

stoi
03-18-2003, 01:15 PM
Ive kept my mouth shut on this forum for a long time, and i suppose im still going to sit on the fence a little, even though i know what i think is the right thing to do and maybe this will give you some hints without me saying yes or no.

OK about the oil, America and Britain have very little to gain from gettin rid of sadam and getting a democratic government in, for a start if there is a lot of damage by the bombing in iraq, where do you think the money to rebuild it is going to come from, they are going to raise the oil prices even more to pay for it, so that means everyone will have to pay more for a barrel of oil than they do at the minute.

The biggest losers if sadam is toppled are Russia, France, Germany, because they get concessions on their oil, iraq gives rusia, france and germany oil for food and medicines, and its more than what america gets by a long way, i think they work it out that russia get the equilavent of &#036;20 a barrel of oil, whereas they sell it for about &#036;34 to other countries, thats not a bad mark up, and russia has these concessions for another few years, but only if sadam is still in power. Dont be blaming the Americans and the Brits for going to war over the oil, blame Russia, France and Germany, for trying to put a block on it so the 2nd resolution failed, if that had passed maybe they could have worked out an extension for peace and weapon inspectors but instead France Vetoed it so it would have failed anyway, so blame them for this war, not the americans and the brits.

But whatever you believe in, and whatever country you come from, please support all the troups that are there when they eventually do go in.

ketoprak
03-18-2003, 01:25 PM
Dont be blaming the Americans and the Brits for going to war over the oil, blame Russia, France and Germany, for trying to put a block on it so the 2nd resolution failed, if that had passed maybe they could have worked out an extension for peace and weapon inspectors but instead France Vetoed it so it would have failed anyway, so blame them for this war, not the americans and the brits.

Do you really believe what you say? The second resolution was about a war&#33; The alternative was between a war (with UN approval) or... a war (without UN approval).

And don&#39;t forget there&#39;s been NO vote at the UN (ie no veto). If there&#39;de be one, a veto would proibably not have been necesseray from Russia or France, as there was not a majority of the Council willing to vote for this war.


But whatever you believe in, and whatever country you come from, please support all the troups that are there when they eventually do go in.

I will support them as human beings, as I will support the people of Iraq. I will not support their cause.

I think that&#39;s what most Europeans think about it.

stoi
03-18-2003, 01:29 PM
I think that&#39;s what most Europeans think about it.


By the way i am british, so i guess that makes me american not european in your book :P

dwightfry
03-18-2003, 01:30 PM
If you are going to hate america, hate the government, not the people. Like all countries that have governments that are for the war, a majority of the civilians don&#39;t.

ketoprak
03-18-2003, 01:34 PM
By the way i am british, so i guess that makes me american not european in your book&nbsp;

Damn. I wouldn&#39;t like to be Brittish these days. Would certainly become a schizo. :o

stoi
03-18-2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by ketoprak@18 March 2003 - 13:34

By the way i am british, so i guess that makes me american not european in your book

Damn. I wouldn&#39;t like to be Brittish these days. Would certainly become a schizo. :o
so you used to be british in the old days then??????

And wtf you on about, about being a schizo, you putting all british ppl in the same boat as someone youve met or dont like?

dwightfry
03-18-2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by kAb@18 March 2003 - 04:08
i&#39;ve been convinced for a long time. his speech was good (i think it would&#39;ve been better if he had been sitting) and saddam needs to leave.

here (http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html) is a very good analysis of iraq to convince all you peacepeople that war is a must.
If anything, that Q and A made me more against the war. All the answers started with, "possibly" or "We don&#39;t know" etc. It showed me how uncertain we are about Iraq.

ketoprak
03-18-2003, 01:43 PM
And wtf you on about, about being a schizo, you putting all british ppl in the same boat as someone youve met or dont like?

No, I&#39;m talking about being devided between Europe & the US (commonwealth), devided between what my government does and what the majority of the citizen think.

Wouldn&#39;t like that.

merlin-1
03-18-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by jetje@18 March 2003 - 05:04
The speech...

Made me clear its about the oil...

quote... not literaly

- all that put fire in oilwells will be prosecuted


Thats not the way he said it: He asked that they not set fire to the oil wells as the oil is for the Iraqi people but anyone that does will be prosecuted.There is a report out about a subway system that sadam was building in Bagdad years ago and most think the majority of his weapons are in there.

I picked this up on another board and thought it interesting and a little funny it&#39;s a peace activist that could&#39;nt answer a simple question from an Iraqi caller on a talk show.

http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

jetje
03-18-2003, 02:19 PM
it is the order he mentioned them... btw you raeally believe that the oil is for the Iraqi people?

now it&#39;s from Saddam and his followers and then its Bushes and it&#39;s followers... The people are always just the sitting ducks...

MagicNakor
03-18-2003, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by ketoprak@18 March 2003 - 14:43

And wtf you on about, about being a schizo, you putting all british ppl in the same boat as someone youve met or dont like?

No, I&#39;m talking about being devided between Europe & the US (commonwealth), devided between what my government does and what the majority of the citizen think.

Wouldn&#39;t like that.
Hate to break it to you, but the US isn&#39;t part of the Commonwealth, and a large percentage of Commonwealth countries aren&#39;t supportive of this war.

:ninja:

ShareDaddy
03-18-2003, 02:30 PM
This war is not ABOUT oil, however as oil is the largest export of IRAQ I would see where you guys and gals might get the idea. However it is not about oil, it is about a dictator who has killed his own citizens and sponsored terrorism that has killed other nations citizens.

If it were about oil then you would see a US flag flying after the war and it would become another US held piece of land. This is not going to happen, it sickens me to think that you people continue taking the easy look at things and spouting the "OIL" reason. Removing Saddam will not increase the US oil depository, not one single barrel.

Kuwait is the single largest importer of IRAQI oil and they will continue to import the oil no matter who may be in power. Simply stating this conflict is about oil because it makes you feel better is not the right thing to do; this conflict is about right and wrong.

I know there probably is not a single person on this forum that was around during WWII, however there are a lot of people (of Jewish faith especially) that wish the US and its allies had taken out Hitler before he murdered millions. However that did not happen and the world watched or more true to real life closed their eyes in horror as Hitler slaughtered millions.

As we cannot go back in time and change what has transpired we can only try and do what is right now, and as Saddam has failed to meet the UN&#39;s resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction, then I feel it is time to put an end to it. As is the case with all conflicts, there will be casualties, however it could be much worse to let the man stay in power and possibly kill many more people than this conflict may.

That is it for me at this time, I may have more of a rebuttal shortly, need to take a break.

dem_ente0
03-18-2003, 02:38 PM
i think too is a war Declaration, but anyway lets hope the war stays donw there on iraq....

dwightfry
03-18-2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by ShareDaddy@18 March 2003 - 15:30
Simply stating this conflict is about oil because it makes you feel better is not the right thing to do; this conflict is about right and wrong.

You&#39;re right. It is about right and wrong. I believe that it is wrong for us to kill and be killed when Iraq is in a position that he couldn&#39;t do anything without the entire world going after him. It may be slower to do things the diplomatic way, but it is just as effective, and will cost less lives.

puremindmatters
03-18-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by kAb@18 March 2003 - 04:08
i&#39;ve been convinced for a long time. his speech was good (i think it would&#39;ve been better if he had been sitting) and saddam needs to leave.

here (http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html) is a very good analysis of iraq to convince all you peacepeople that war is a must.
I read the Q & A, I&#39;m not convinced.
I read the transcript of Bush&#39;s speech, and I am convinced now that he really believes that he is acting on behalf of a gremium he just slapped in the face.

In my eyes that is one small trip for a bad politician, but a giant leap backward for mankind.

ketoprak
03-18-2003, 03:48 PM
but the US isn&#39;t part of the Commonwealth

Oupss... I&#39;d better shut up sometimes (always, will you say). :unsure:

But I think you got me anyway.

DataMore
03-18-2003, 03:58 PM
The speech only made it official what we already knew a long time ago: there will be a war.

If Saddam really loved his people, he would just leave his country, and avoid a war. ;)
That would really show some character. ;)
Unfortunately I can&#39;t see that happen. :(

ketoprak
03-18-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by kAb@18 March 2003 - 04:08
i&#39;ve been convinced for a long time. his speech was good (i think it would&#39;ve been better if he had been sitting) and saddam needs to leave.
What the fuck is the difference with Bush sitting or standing?

Would it change anything on the war? Make it milder, smoother, lighter or whatsoever ?

This is not COMMUNICATION, this is WAR. And WAR needs REASONS.

And I didn&#39;t see any valuable reason in this speech. I only saw what the world allready knew before suddenly becoming real. And standing or sitting, it&#39;s the same absolute lack of logic. Even a 3 years child would have a better reasoning.

I think it&#39;s time for the people of the United States to revolt. Their president, not even democratically elected, is under the influence and will soon become a criminal.

summerlinda
03-18-2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by dwightfry@18 March 2003 - 14:30
If you are going to hate america, hate the government, not the people. Like all countries that have governments that are for the war, a majority of the civilians don&#39;t.
Is that so? Who elected those governments?

Btw, i&#39;m against the war, dont need to tell you why, its been told over and over and over again........

PS: I don&#39;t hate &#39;America&#39;, i only believe &#39;America&#39; is wrong on this one.

puremindmatters
03-18-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by ketoprak@18 March 2003 - 17:02
I think it&#39;s time for the people of the United States to revolt. Their president, not even democratically elected, is under the influence and will soon become a criminal.
Perhaps he should have 48 hours to leave the country first.

slick nick
03-18-2003, 05:40 PM
Can we put this bullshit about him gassing his own people to rest please? The Kurds live in the country but aren&#39;t his or Iraqi people. As far as people electing these governments some people voting for him and others didn&#39;t and believe he stole the election with all the irregularities and voting roles having people taken off so he could win. And as for what the U.S. and Britian have to gain I&#39;ve heard it&#39;s basically a compromise for Isreal&#39;s sake. The Palestinians get their state and an enemy of Isreal that threatens them is taken care of.

slick nick
03-18-2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by ShareDaddy@18 March 2003 - 15:30
This war is not ABOUT oil, however as oil is the largest export of IRAQ I would see where you guys and gals might get the idea. However it is not about oil, it is about a dictator who has killed his own citizens and sponsored terrorism that has killed other nations citizens.

If it were about oil then you would see a US flag flying after the war and it would become another US held piece of land. This is not going to happen, it sickens me to think that you people continue taking the easy look at things and spouting the "OIL" reason. Removing Saddam will not increase the US oil depository, not one single barrel.

Kuwait is the single largest importer of IRAQI oil and they will continue to import the oil no matter who may be in power. Simply stating this conflict is about oil because it makes you feel better is not the right thing to do; this conflict is about right and wrong.

I know there probably is not a single person on this forum that was around during WWII, however there are a lot of people (of Jewish faith especially) that wish the US and its allies had taken out Hitler before he murdered millions. However that did not happen and the world watched or more true to real life closed their eyes in horror as Hitler slaughtered millions.

As we cannot go back in time and change what has transpired we can only try and do what is right now, and as Saddam has failed to meet the UN&#39;s resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction, then I feel it is time to put an end to it. As is the case with all conflicts, there will be casualties, however it could be much worse to let the man stay in power and possibly kill many more people than this conflict may.

That is it for me at this time, I may have more of a rebuttal shortly, need to take a break.
Sponsored terrorism? Intelligence experts contradicted Bush on this. There&#39;s no evidence attesting to this and if you know of ome that&#39;s credible please post a link. That and you&#39;re point about him killing his own are two bullshit points people use to justify what&#39;s about to happen. According to this "Despite its violent tactics, MEK&#39;s strong stand against Iran-part of Bush&#39;s axis of evil-and pro democratic image have won it support of U.S. and European lawmakers." Lawmakers would be politicans right i.e. government people? The U.S. too supports terrorism then.

Just like in Afganistan there doesn&#39;t need to be a flag waving there. Someone we like will govern them and have policies friendly to our interest. that guy Karzi that&#39;s the president was a member of the same oil group as Cheney. People tried to deny an oil link their but there&#39;ll soon be an oil pipeline through there headed for east Asia isn&#39;t it isn&#39;t being constructed as we speak(I&#39;m a bit behind on current events. I don&#39;t watch the news or read papers much).

Your WWII analogy is way off because after the gulf war when people were revolting that was the U.S.s chance to get him out then. What did we do? I forget exactly but we made sure he said in power. he has nothing that can reach the U.S. and if he didn&#39;te it 12 years ago because he was told they&#39;d be nuked he&#39;s not going to give it away knowing he&#39;ll be nuked once it&#39;s found to have come from him. Either way the inspections should go on and they be disarmed that way. This move is just because no one was buying the U.S. Britian bullshit about Iraq so Bush said fuck em all we gon hogtie Saddam and get him out our way. But hey he didn&#39;t have a mandate to be President so why would he wait for one through the U.N.

merlin-1
03-18-2003, 06:17 PM
it is the order he mentioned them... btw you raeally believe that the oil is for the Iraqi people?



We might buy oil from them in the future but once a new goverment is in place the Iraqi people will benifit from their oil.What you don&#39;t seem to understand is we don&#39;t rely on the middle east for all our oil needs it does&#39;nt even add up to 50%.I have several clients that are Iraqi and they support the US in it&#39;s efforts to remove sadam which IMO is nothing more than a two bit dictator and a hitler want to be who could care less about his people.Even his own son is a freak who tortures,rapes and kills his own people with his fathers approval.

ketoprak
03-18-2003, 06:25 PM
That and you&#39;re point about him killing his own are two bullshit points people use to justify what&#39;s about to happen.

What follows may be in contradiction to what I wrote earlier. But it&#39;s not. What I read above make me feel important to add some usefull precisions.

I&#39;m opposed to this war, but I believe that Saddam has killed his own people : kurds, chiits, and any opposant to the regime, just as Staline did in the past in USSR. Can you please post a few links with arguments against that idea?

I think Saddam is a real threat to its own people and that most of them are happy to be &#39;liberated&#39; from him, be it by the USA alone. But I&#39;m opposed to this war because, if it may be good for Iraq, it&#39;s very dangerous for 1. credibility of the UN and international multilateral regulation, 2. regional security, 3. world security.

If Bush had been a better diplomat he could have got rid of Saddam without endangering our future.

jetje
03-18-2003, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by ShareDaddy@18 March 2003 - 16:30
This war is not ABOUT oil,
That&#39;s were i even more afraid of,

Read some articles about Bush, his daddy, chainey and some others have made a plan for total world domination. (They&#39;re building an empire....) These are just predicted 1st steps. Will look that up on the internet... where was it.... ;)

...yes i believe in conspiracy theories....

dwightfry
03-18-2003, 06:41 PM
Read some articles about Bush, his daddy, chainey and some others have made a plan for total world domination.

I wouldn&#39;t go that far. LOL. :lol:

Besides, there is no way that bush is going to be re-elected. That would give him 2 years to complete his plan. ;)

slick nick
03-18-2003, 06:52 PM
Just put "the new american century" in a search engine and you can find out what bush(or should I say those with their hand up his ass) have planned. That documents there plans on putting in place governments friendly to their agenda.

Fot the person asking for links showing he didn&#39;t kill his own I&#39;ll look to see. I don&#39;t dispute the fact he&#39;s killed Kurds who are who we&#39;re(the U.S) say he did when we talk about what he&#39;s done but they aren&#39;t his people. That propaganda is always thrown out there as the first argument and it&#39;s a bullshit one in my opinion. It being the base argument and being a hollow one makes what comes after it weak also. And a Presidents son who rapes his people? I bet that&#39;s more propaganda but I&#39;ll look.

j2k4
03-18-2003, 07:07 PM
Lots of propaganda to be consumed; more than fact. (It has a higher "FATHEAD" content than fact).
My Daddy always told me to smell Bullshit before tasting it.
If a "BULLSHIT" detector were part of a utility program everyone had access to, then I think it would be a case of "Neither we nor the Emperor are clothed".

Rocktron
03-18-2003, 07:08 PM
I just think that any kind of violence is wrong&#33;
Amerika is a country where the the little kids are growing up using guns... for "hunting" .. right&#33;
Bullshit man&#33;

In Amerika all the people can buy guns in almost every shop&#33;

If you carry 10 grams of weed, you will get molested&#33; But if you carry a gun you get it back&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; What&#39;s wrong?
The whole Gun Law&#33;&#33; That&#39;s wrong&#33;

Amerika has learned to have it, so they use it....

Fuck all aggressive means&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

The people of Irak are used to this kind of stuff&#33; They have been in WAR all of there lives&#33; They don&#39;t know any better&#33;
If the father of the house dies by a bomb he attached to his body, and killes 1000&#39;s of (American) people with it, he will be a Martyr&#33;&#33;&#33; And the rest of them will do the same&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
Be warned&#33; We are in deep shit&#33; THEY are not affraid of dying&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; All "Normal educated people are"

To the point...

Any war is wrong&#33; People die&#33; Children die&#33;

Even in this one.....

Crackedup
03-18-2003, 07:22 PM
Why didn&#39;t Bush Snr and his cronies finish off the job when they had the chance 12, yes 12 years ago? I don&#39;t doubt that Saddam is an evil tyrant, who has murdered, tortured and repressed his people before the Gulf War and ever since.

I don&#39;t really think the Bush gives a flying shit about the people in Iraq, as is probably the case, to an equal or lesser extent, with other world leaders. Whilst the US has every right to track down the terrorists, I am not convinced of the links to justify attacking Iraq at this time.

The USA is such a powerful nation that it doesn&#39;t believe it needs an international mandate to attack Iraq, especially when dealing with an often impotent body like the UN. I am not anti-American. Indeed I think we all owe a lot to many of their contributions to the world we live in. And what happened on 11 September was a terrible thing.

I&#39;m British and IMHO we should have given the weapons inspectors more time to come up with conclusive proof that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction. Tony Blair has alienated himself too far this time in maintaining &#39; the special relationship&#39; between the UK & US. I am against our troops taking part in any battles as it adds credibility to Bush&#39;s crusade. With the might of the US military he doesn&#39;t really need us there, despite our expertise in certain areas.

No, I&#39;m afraid that this IS about oil. George W and his team are one of the most insular administrations in modern history, They don&#39;t travel, don&#39;t entertain other world leaders and have pulled out of at least 5 international treaties since being in power. They are looking after their own and don&#39;t give a toss about anyone else. This is their right but I believe it is fundamentally wrong and shortsighted. This breeds resentment or jealousy or whatever you want to call it.

I do find it sad that so many US citizens, probably not the enlightened ones on this board, know so little about what&#39;s going on outside their shores. Perhaps it&#39;s part of the whole cultural thing. You know the &#39;second is the first loser&#39; thing and having a World Series sport in which the world doesn&#39;t take part.

You may like to read a very interesting article that is upcoming in 24 March edition of Newsweek:
The Arrogant Empire (http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0bl=-0&cp1=1)which covers somethings a lot better than I can.

The Great Dude
03-18-2003, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by kAb@17 March 2003 - 19:08
i&#39;ve been convinced for a long time. his speech was good (i think it would&#39;ve been better if he had been sitting) and saddam needs to leave.

here (http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html) is a very good analysis of iraq to convince all you peacepeople that war is a must.
Do you even realise how much this war is going to cost? Think about it, the world will change if this damn war starts.

Rat Faced
03-18-2003, 07:44 PM
Crackedup..........your link takes me to Microsoft.com

Can you correct that please?

Thanks.....

Crackedup
03-18-2003, 07:55 PM
Sorry - correct link inserted into original post.

evilbagpuss
03-18-2003, 08:24 PM
If the USA/UK start implementing regime change against other dictatorships who dont have any oil then I will do a complete U-turn. The problem is that the USA is currently supporting dictatorships in South America and in the past the CIA have helped topple democratically elected Gvts, Chile is a good example. Thats why I am so sceptical when Bush and Blair start taking the moral highground about Saddams evil ways. So, in my eyes, the war cannot be about morality.

The 10 year old "evidence" that Colin Powell assured us would be convincing was certainly not. So due to the lack of evidence on links with Al-Queda and ownership of WMD the war cannot be about those issues.

So what is left...?

I want Saddam out of Iraq and I feel that if civilian casualties can be kept to a minimum it may actually be worth it. The real problem is why the UK/USA are going to war. I simply dont trust their sincerity and possibly the most important issue of all is that Mulsims in the Arab world dont trust them either. If Osama wanted to create a Islam vs the Modern Day Crusaders mentality in the Middle-East... well he must be happy now.

The real crux of the matter in the Middle-East is the Israel/Palestine situation. There is some serious hypocrisy going on there. For example a few months ago Israel assasinated one man with a missile attack. It destroyed 4 apartment blocks of innocent people. A few days ago a 4 year old Palestinian girl was killed by Israeli troops. Israel, like Iraq, is also in breach of UN resolutions asking them to leave the occupied territorys. The hypocrisy is that we (UK/USA) sell Israel weapons and never condemn Israeli atrocities.

If the West can begin to deal with the Israel/Palestine situation in an even handed and fair way, i.e being equally harsh with atrocities committed by both sides, then we might be able to make some real progress. Until that happens terrorism will continue to rise. My main concern is that a war with Iraq at this moment in time will destabilise the Middle-East and create yet more terrorists. We need to get the moderate muslims onside, stop giving the Extremists proof that they are right and work together to deal with this issue once and for all.

ketoprak
03-18-2003, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by slick nick@18 March 2003 - 19:52
Fot the person asking for links showing he didn&#39;t kill his own I&#39;ll look to see. I don&#39;t dispute the fact he&#39;s killed Kurds who are who we&#39;re(the U.S) say he did when we talk about what he&#39;s done but they aren&#39;t his people. That propaganda is always thrown out there as the first argument and it&#39;s a bullshit one in my opinion. It being the base argument and being a hollow one makes what comes after it weak also. And a Presidents son who rapes his people? I bet that&#39;s more propaganda but I&#39;ll look.
Would you say that by killing German Jews, Hitler didn&#39;t kill its own people? Iraqi kurds and chiits are minorities in Iraq. For the Kurds, they&#39;re exactly in the position of the Jews, before Israel was created: a people without a nation. So you&#39;re just saying bullshit. And Hussein also kills sunnit Arabs, when they become too dangerous for him.

There is propaganda in this war: biased agruments, faked evidences. But don&#39;t see it evrywhere. There are also facts, that we have to deal with. Our stance against a war shouldn&#39;t blind us about the very bad situation in Iraq, it would be very dangerous and criminal.

slick nick
03-18-2003, 09:52 PM
Hitler did kill his own people because they were actual citizens of Germany. The Kurds on the other hand i&#39;m not certain that&#39;s the case. They are a group who were split between several countries purposely to stop them from being a force again. They want their own country. What&#39;s the circumstances this was done over? Was it just for fun? Or was it a military thing? I&#39;m aware women and children were killed and i&#39;m not trying to say it was right but to continue telling us "he gassed his own people" as though he did it to his actual citizens insatead of a nation within a nation with their own agenda is a different thing. This makes them unlike the Jews because they were living in Germany as citizens with rights and participating in society. Does Isreal kill and oppress there own people? Palestinians live in Isreal don&#39;t they? But they aren&#39;t the Isreali&#39;s people are they? End equation America doesn&#39;t care what he does to them because they&#39;ve allowed him to stay in power and if he would&#39;ve disarmed they way they and continue "killing his own people". To continue claiming this would be like illegal Mexican immigrants revolting in the American South West and them being gassed and people accusing us of gassing our own people. It doesn&#39;t hold water. And we have been blind all along to whats been going and there&#39;s certainly been no danger to us. Now that it suits an agenda though it&#39;s being milked. Killing people who are actually engaged in and planning to seced vs doing it because "he&#39;s a mad man" are two different things and continuing to tell the world that is a distortion of what&#39;s going on there.

Rat Faced
03-18-2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Crackedup@18 March 2003 - 19:22
Why didn&#39;t Bush Snr and his cronies finish off the job when they had the chance 12, yes 12 years ago? I don&#39;t doubt that Saddam is an evil tyrant, who has murdered, tortured and repressed his people before the Gulf War and ever since.

I don&#39;t really think the Bush gives a flying shit about the people in Iraq, as is probably the case, to an equal or lesser extent, with other world leaders. Whilst the US has every right to track down the terrorists, I am not convinced of the links to justify attacking Iraq at this time.

The USA is such a powerful nation that it doesn&#39;t believe it needs an international mandate to attack Iraq, especially when dealing with an often impotent body like the UN. I am not anti-American. Indeed I think we all owe a lot to many of their contributions to the world we live in. And what happened on 11 September was a terrible thing.

I&#39;m British and IMHO we should have given the weapons inspectors more time to come up with conclusive proof that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction. Tony Blair has alienated himself too far this time in maintaining &#39; the special relationship&#39; between the UK & US. I am against our troops taking part in any battles as it adds credibility to Bush&#39;s crusade. With the might of the US military he doesn&#39;t really need us there, despite our expertise in certain areas.

No, I&#39;m afraid that this IS about oil. George W and his team are one of the most insular administrations in modern history, They don&#39;t travel, don&#39;t entertain other world leaders and have pulled out of at least 5 international treaties since being in power. They are looking after their own and don&#39;t give a toss about anyone else. This is their right but I believe it is fundamentally wrong and shortsighted. This breeds resentment or jealousy or whatever you want to call it.

I do find it sad that so many US citizens, probably not the enlightened ones on this board, know so little about what&#39;s going on outside their shores. Perhaps it&#39;s part of the whole cultural thing. You know the &#39;second is the first loser&#39; thing and having a World Series sport in which the world doesn&#39;t take part.

You may like to read a very interesting article that is upcoming in 24 March edition of Newsweek:
The Arrogant Empire (http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0bl=-0&cp1=1)which covers somethings a lot better than I can.
Can I ask Americans to read this link posted by Crackedup?


I have tried to say what is wrong with US foreign policy many times, and ended up sounding anti-american (im not, im just bad with words).... the article here is written by an American (and i believe he is a &#39;conservative&#39; american.

He manages to say it all, in a way that you cant say is &#39;anti-american&#39; but will explain how the rest of the world feels at the moment.....and why.

ClubDiggler
03-18-2003, 11:41 PM
I agree, American foreign policy has not been very good over the years;
but this time lets go and take care of Saddam once and for all.

I don&#39;t agree with some of you who think this is about oil. Bush merely pointed out
in his speech that the oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people and that wealth is not to be
destroyed by Saddam. Maybe some of it can be used to rebuil the country.

I thought the speech was fair. I was never a big fan of Bush, but he&#39;s gotten a little better
over time. Clinton was much better at public speaking. Sometimes it is hard to take Bush
seriously; but I think last night everyone did...

Z
03-19-2003, 12:27 AM
WOW&#33; 50 responses. im impressed guys&#33; (cuz last night there wuz only 3.) :D
i think his speech was very well-written and he spoke very well, firmly, and clearly (which he doesnt often do).

another thing:

Do you think we are saving Iraqs citizens from Saddam? :huh:

This is another sort of underlying "excuse" although it does seem true, i think we are helping them even though some will inevitably die as a result (not just soldiers). Bush seems to emphasize this point (that Iraqis will be better off), even though its probably one of his lesser motivations.

What do u guys think? (im in canada by the way, 16yo w/ 8y in US and 8 in Canada).

Z
03-19-2003, 03:03 AM
crackedup. i read the article (written by an american).
it was very good. :)

ksmurf
03-19-2003, 04:00 AM
:ph34r: I have a real idiot for a Prime Minister. He refuses to assist our best friend, trading partner and ally. I am embarassed to say i am canadian. i think that they should have just taken Saddam out ten years ago. Pls make it quick and godspeed to the troops.

j2k4
03-19-2003, 05:03 AM
I read the "Arrogant Empire" link; the columnist is not a conservative, but nonetheless does a fairly good job of providing a reasonably accurate snapshot of the situation in the mideast and the perception of U.S. and it's foreign policy by other relevant countries. This is especially impressive as the story appeared in NEWSWEEK, which is not noted for having a conservative point of view.

But I have to ask: What would any one of you have the U.S. do to please you? Everyone has an opinion. If I (or anyone) could poll all who are reading this thread, I would probably find no common theme other than a negative feeling about the U.S. in general and George Bush in particular. (As an aside, i noticed some seem to have a strange affection for Bill Clinton, but there is another thread) Everyone thinks he stole the election in 2000, he lives to execute people in Texas, he doesn't suffer from "international sensitivity", and is a war-monger to boot.

My point is, you can't please everybody-if you tried, you'd be dead in the water, immobilized by dissenting opinion. So-George Bush is going to do what he thinks is right.

Those who decry the plight of the Iraqi people don't choose to entertain another alternative, which would be to turn up international pressure to force Saddam to leave Iraq voluntarily; no coalition forthcoming there.

Jacque Chirac's deals with Saddam need not suffer if Saddam leaves-why didn't he join in that effort? Would that not have had the effect of assuring the Iraqi people wouldn't suffer? Chirac is not suffering anyone's wrath for failing to "do the right thing".

Why is ALL the emnity reserved for America? I find it strange that in none of the threads I've followed is it suggested that ANY other nation could have acted effectively to alter or defuse the situation. Nobody at all has even raised the possibility. Why is that?

The U.S. has been waiting for the do-nothing U.N. to get off it's dead ass for more than a year-yet the dissenters-France, Russia, Germany, or anybody else-couldn't see the eventuality?

Yes, they did-but they chose to do nothing.

Z
03-19-2003, 05:09 AM
EVILBAGPUSS:
If the USA/UK start implementing regime change against other dictatorships who dont have any oil then I will do a complete U-turn.

im sorry? Afghanistan? North Korea (not yet)? Neither have oil. Which other regimes have the US tried to oust?
:huh:

MagicNakor
03-19-2003, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by ksmurf@19 March 2003 - 05:00
:ph34r: I have a real idiot for a Prime Minister.&nbsp; He refuses to assist our best friend, trading partner and ally.&nbsp; I am embarassed to say i am canadian.&nbsp; i think that they should have just taken Saddam out ten years ago.&nbsp; Pls make it quick and godspeed to the troops.

He has a backbone. I&#39;m extremely glad Canada isn&#39;t sending troops over to fight Bush&#39;s "crusade." And yes, he did refer to it as a crusade at one point. The UN was working. It just wasn&#39;t fast enough for the US.

Edit to add: Regarding other posts so that I don&#39;t take up countless spots:

lil_z: Afghanistan has oil. Roughly 95 million barrels left. It produces 300 barrels/day in the Angot oil fields.
Futhermore, when you&#39;re fighting in a city as big and heavily populated as Baghdad, there are going to be a horrendous amount of civilian causulties. I&#39;m going to wager that the normal, every-day citizen of Baghdad is going to defend his housing and his family. The Americans and the British that are going in there aren&#39;t just going to be fighting the military. If I&#39;m wrong, we&#39;ll see. But I doubt I will be.


ClubDiggler: Of course people took Bush seriously. You always take the man with a loaded gun seriously.


:ninja:

Z
03-19-2003, 05:20 AM
Chretien is just a follower (my opinion). i live in canada. if most countries hadnt opposed to bush&#39;s plan, he wouldnt have had enough courage to pull his head out of bush&#39;s ass.

now blair is another story...(i dunno about britain :P ).

edit to add:

magicnakor :
ty for pointing out afghanistans situation, but the fight there had nothing to do with oil. (Talibans refusal of turning in bin Laden and the human rights - or so they say...)
and yes i realize that there will be civilian casualties (was that response to me??). An
interview (on 20/20 was it?) with one of the military commanders stated, when asked if a stash of bombs or other military [devices] - for lack of a better word in my mind - is off limits to attacks, no, they are not off limits, but a decision must be made in each situation. he seems ready to bomb residential areas (though not necessarily to kill civilians, but not showing enough remorse if they have to do so).

i support ridding world of Saddam (can u say assassination? :P ) and until just today, i was undecided in my view of a war. but a war killing thousands of innocents (it will happen, no matter what they say) is unjustified no matter what (even after that speech). :o

healimonster
03-19-2003, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by al_birkett@18 March 2003 - 12:34

The speech...

Made me clear its about the oil...

jetje is right .... all this war is about is oil and I wish everyone else could see this too. One of the first objectives of the allied attack is to &#39;secure the oil fields&#39; yeah I bet &#39;secure&#39; my ass , secure them from anyone else apart from america. you&#39;d think that once in the process of attacking iraq the allies america would try and &#39;secure&#39; all these chemical and biological weapons he is suppose to have hiding under his bed.
I pity your ignorance.

From before the axes of evil speech, until a few months the words war and oil had nothing to do with each other and they still shouldn&#39;t. It is odd how this has become a war about oil only when the dissenting minority speaks their mind to the media. Only when it is the most sensational offense the opposition has against this attack. "Its about the oil and the gas prices" That is so much of a cliché it is ridicules. For any one that is keeping score and has followed this story for the past year they would know that any knowledgeable liberal in opposition of this war has never even uttered the word "oil" once. This is about terrorism. The terror that Saddam has inflected on his own people, and the potential for dealings with other terrorists that have clear and present motives against the United States.

I hate online rants, protesting, and standing on soapboxes. Opinions are like assholes, we all got one. But clearly missing the point and perpetuating misinformation is not acceptable.

j2k4
03-19-2003, 05:33 AM
I would not have thought I could be such a big fan of Tony Blair. The man is standing tall in a pretty stiff breeze.

Z
03-19-2003, 05:36 AM
yes blair is very courageous. maybe his image afterwards will turn out better. :P

MagicNakor
03-19-2003, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by lil_z@19 March 2003 - 06:20
Chretien is just a follower (my opinion). i live in canada. if most countries hadnt opposed to bush&#39;s plan, he wouldnt have had enough courage to pull his head out of bush&#39;s ass.

now blair is another story...(i dunno about britain :P ).

edit to add:

magicnakor :
ty for pointing out afghanistans situation, but the fight there had nothing to do with oil. (Talibans refusal of turning in bin Laden and the human rights - or so they say...)
and yes i realize that there will be civilian casualties (was that response to me??). An
interview (on 20/20 was it?) with one of the military commanders stated, when asked if a stash of bombs or other military [devices] - for lack of a better word in my mind - is off limits to attacks, no, they are not off limits, but a decision must be made in each situation. he seems ready to bomb residential areas (though not necessarily to kill civilians, but not showing enough remorse if they have to do so).

i support ridding world of Saddam (can u say assassination? :P ) and until just today, i was undecided in my view of a war. but a war killing thousands of innocents (it will happen, no matter what they say) is unjustified no matter what. :o
If he were such a follower, he would&#39;ve followed the US&#39; lead, as the US has far more impact on Canada than China, or Angola, or Guinea.

About Afghanistan, I was just commenting on the "Afghanistan has no oil." ;)

The civilian casualities wasn&#39;t in response to anyone, really. I just got off-topic.

:ninja:

Z
03-19-2003, 06:32 AM
magicnakor:
thats exactly my point. he seems like a follower most of the time, and this time b/c more countries are objecting, so is he.

btw, afghanistan is really not an oil rich country. they r very poor and contribute very little economically. they may have oil, but not like iraq.

al_birkett
03-19-2003, 07:50 AM
yes blair is very courageous. maybe his image afterwards will turn out better

Yes , he deserves some sort of respect for standing up for what he believes in ... even when he knows that he could be putting his job at risk, apparentley he made a gud speech last nite

PersianBulldog
03-19-2003, 08:59 AM
I saw the speech on TV, but is there a site where you can get the whole speech in text format? :unsure:

ketoprak
03-19-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by lil_z@19 March 2003 - 07:32
btw, afghanistan is really not an oil rich country. they r very poor and contribute very little economically. they may have oil, but not like iraq.
In Afghanistan it&#39;s about opium :lol: and haschich (thanks to the UN I can now get excellet Afghani haschich, which had disappear under the Taliban regime :lol: )

More seriously, I think oil has its part in this war, but it&#39;s not the essential motivation. It&#39;s much more important than the well-being of the Iraqi people. The main purpose is to reorganize the Middle East, in order to fight terrorism. It&#39;s a good idea, but it&#39;s highly probable that it will fail and have the exact opposite effect : an increase of terrorism. The US don&#39;t know a shit about the Middle East. I sincerly hope the Brits, who know it much better, will help them not to do to many mistakes.

ne1GotZardoz
03-19-2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by ketoprak@18 March 2003 - 14:25

Dont be blaming the Americans and the Brits for going to war over the oil, blame Russia, France and Germany, for trying to put a block on it so the 2nd resolution failed, if that had passed maybe they could have worked out an extension for peace and weapon inspectors but instead France Vetoed it so it would have failed anyway, so blame them for this war, not the americans and the brits.

Do you really believe what you say? The second resolution was about a war&#33; The alternative was between a war (with UN approval) or... a war (without UN approval).

And don&#39;t forget there&#39;s been NO vote at the UN (ie no veto). If there&#39;de be one, a veto would proibably not have been necesseray from Russia or France, as there was not a majority of the Council willing to vote for this war.


First, he&#39;s right. The trade embargos established by the UN 12 years ago were basically ignored by most countries.
France among them.

As for the UN vote, Bush was willing to adhere to the outcome, whatever it was, until France made it well known they would veto it no matter what the vote.
Why would France need to veto if the US did not have a majority vote?
And if France veto&#39;d, in my mind, THAT would go against the UN.
You cannot worm out of this. France proved that it was they who were not willing to go along with a UN resolution.

ketoprak
03-19-2003, 09:57 AM
France wanted the destruction of Iraq mass destruction weapons, which was going on fine with the inspections decided by the UN and didn&#39;t see the necessity of a war if the inspectors didn&#39;t say they couldn&#39;t work. That&#39;s all.

Moreover the USA needed 9 votes for its resolution, and has never been able to reach them. So it&#39;s not about France or Russia. (edit : and Russia said it would veto before France. It&#39;s just a very good excuse for the US & UK)

But we&#39;re used to be the favorite scapegoat of UK & sometimes of the US. So it doesn&#39;t matter. If you need one, please do.

Crackedup
03-19-2003, 10:24 AM
And what makes you so right healimonster? So Bush is going in there for the good of the world and because he feels it his duty to take out Saddam and his evil regieme? You are very naive not to see that he has a hidden agenda. Who will get the huge contracts for rebuilding Iraq? The arms industry needs wars to keep it going. And who was one of Iraq&#39;s major backers in the war against Iran?

Are you seriously telling us that Bush has no interest in the worlds second biggest oil supply....because if you are I&#39;m afraid you don&#39;t understand the way powerful governments and companies work. And I would still like to hear an answer as to why Bush Snr didn&#39;t finish the job off 12 years ago - that surely would have saved the lives of countless Iraqi&#39;s who have been tortured or killed in the meantime.

MagicNakor
03-19-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by lil_z@19 March 2003 - 07:32
btw, afghanistan is really not an oil rich country. they r very poor and contribute very little economically. they may have oil, but not like iraq.
I never said Afghanistan was an oil-rich country. 300 barrels a day isn&#39;t producing much at all. All I said was "Afghanistan has oil," which it does, to the person who said "Afghanistan doesn&#39;t have any oil," which is untrue.

:ninja:

Rat Faced
03-19-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by MagicNakor+19 March 2003 - 11:15--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor @ 19 March 2003 - 11:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--lil_z@19 March 2003 - 07:32
btw, afghanistan is really not an oil rich country. they r very poor and contribute very little economically. they may have oil, but not like iraq.
I never said Afghanistan was an oil-rich country. 300 barrels a day isn&#39;t producing much at all. All I said was "Afghanistan has oil," which it does, to the person who said "Afghanistan doesn&#39;t have any oil," which is untrue.

:ninja: [/b][/quote]
You forgot to mention the oil pipeline now being built through it.......which the Taliban wouldnt allow to be built. This will carry a LOT of oil.

It may be pure co-incidence that the President (?) of Afganistan and US Embassador there worked for the oil company building it......and people in the US administration are major shareholders in this company.

dwightfry
03-19-2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Crackedup@19 March 2003 - 11:24
And I would still like to hear an answer as to why Bush Snr didn&#39;t finish the job off 12 years ago - that surely would have saved the lives of countless Iraqi&#39;s who have been tortured or killed in the meantime.
The reason the the U.N. allowed the gulf war was because Iraq was taking over another country, (forgot which one). The U.S. could only fight to keep Iraq out of that country, so as soon as we won and got them out, their was nothing we could do. We weren&#39;t allowed to take any further actions.

That is what I was told anyways.

Rat Faced
03-19-2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by dwightfry+19 March 2003 - 18:24--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dwightfry @ 19 March 2003 - 18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Crackedup@19 March 2003 - 11:24
And I would still like to hear an answer as to why Bush Snr didn&#39;t finish the job off 12 years ago - that surely would have saved the lives of countless Iraqi&#39;s who have been tortured or killed in the meantime.
The reason the the U.N. allowed the gulf war was because Iraq was taking over another country, (forgot which one). The U.S. could only fight to keep Iraq out of that country, so as soon as we won and got them out, their was nothing we could do. We weren&#39;t allowed to take any further actions.

That is what I was told anyways. [/b][/quote]
There was a huge International Effort in Desert Storm...with the backing of the Arabian/Islamic Countries.

There would have been no backing from the Arabian/Islamic countries for a full invasion of Iraq. The UN and Arabian countries therefore insisted that Desert Storm stop at the Iraqi border.....as to go further would cause more problems than it solves.


Hmm.....bit like today really.

Z
03-19-2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by MagicNakor+19 March 2003 - 12:15--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor @ 19 March 2003 - 12:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--lil_z@19 March 2003 - 07:32
btw, afghanistan is really not an oil rich country. they r very poor and contribute very little economically. they may have oil, but not like iraq.
I never said Afghanistan was an oil-rich country. 300 barrels a day isn&#39;t producing much at all. All I said was "Afghanistan has oil," which it does, to the person who said "Afghanistan doesn&#39;t have any oil," which is untrue.

:ninja: [/b][/quote]
hey, dont get upset. im not an expert in this area, all im trying to say is that afghanistan is a pretty poor country, and their amount of oil does not help them out very much. Compared to iraq, the world depends on iraq for its oil.

BTW, please, would everyone with an opinion about bush&#39;s motivations and plans please read this article from newsweek: The Arrogant Empire (http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0bl=-0&cp1=1) originally posted in this thread my Crackedup. It is an excellent article which shows many different points of view. And its written by and American with a foreign name. (i cant say theres much bias in the article).
B)

ne1GotZardoz
03-19-2003, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@19 March 2003 - 19:47
There was a huge International Effort in Desert Storm...with the backing of the Arabian/Islamic Countries.

There would have been no backing from the Arabian/Islamic countries for a full invasion of Iraq. The UN and Arabian countries therefore insisted that Desert Storm stop at the Iraqi border.....as to go further would cause more problems than it solves.


Hmm.....bit like today really.
Thats not exactly true.
The ground forces may have stopped at the iraqi border, but our aircraft were giving Baghdad hell. :)

I&#39;m not really sure that the ground forces stopped there.
Does anyone else know? This calls for a bit of web searching.

MagicNakor
03-19-2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by lil_z@19 March 2003 - 22:24
hey, dont get upset. im not an expert in this area, all im trying to say is that afghanistan is a pretty poor country, and their amount of oil does not help them out very much. Compared to iraq, the world depends on iraq for its oil.
I&#39;m not upset. ;) Rarely do I get upset over forums. Just correcting a misconception. B)

Z
03-20-2003, 02:35 AM
magic nakor: okay, sorry. :)

the other guys:
about the gulf war, ya dwightfry and zardoz, the iraqis invaded kuwait (where the US is based now) and the US pushed them back. once they were contained, the US backed off, if they had pushed in further, there would have been severe casualties. (this is also just from what i am told, but how would ne1 know neways? :P )

my man otis
03-20-2003, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced+18 March 2003 - 23:38--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 18 March 2003 - 23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Crackedup@18 March 2003 - 19:22

I do find it sad that so many US citizens, probably not the enlightened ones on this board, know so little about what&#39;s going on outside their shores.&nbsp; Perhaps it&#39;s part of the whole cultural thing.&nbsp; You know the &#39;second is the first loser&#39; thing and having a World Series sport in which the world doesn&#39;t take part.

You may like to read a very interesting article that is upcoming in 24 March edition of Newsweek:
The Arrogant Empire (http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0bl=-0&cp1=1)which covers somethings a lot better than I can.
Can I ask Americans to read this link posted by Crackedup? [/b][/quote]
The article is very well written. I am a true believer in the repeating nature of history, that simple lessons hold true regardless of time and place. Major, singular powers in past history have faded for various reasons. It may happen to the United States. That is another issue for another time.

The issue now is the validity of the war.

The war is not about oil. Americans can care less about the price of oil. I drive a large SUV because I want to and can. If the price of oil rises, so be it. A 20% cost in the price of gasoline doesn&#39;t have a huge effect per person. In 10-15 years power cells will be running in most cars on the road so it won&#39;t matter. We&#39;ll be talking about &#036;0.25/gallon gasoline and giving loans to Middle Eastern countries that have failed to diversify their country&#39;s revenue stream.

The quote above, stating that it is sad that American&#39;s don&#39;t know what&#39;s going on outside of our shores, may be true to some. But the converse is also true - citizens of other countries don&#39;t know what&#39;s going on inside of our borders.

Hijacked planes destroying buildings 4 blocks from where I work everyday is nothing the United States is used to and certainly nothing we will accept. As the article so elloquently points out, there was a military response unlike any other seen in history. We have the equipment and the means to do so.

It is not our problem that other countries will not or cannot respond to terrorists in this manner. I see the "new" Manhattan skyline as I go to work every day. I fear that my office may be next. It can happen again and probably will, regardless of actions we take. But we sure as hell aren&#39;t going to sit around and wait for it to happen.

There will be remarks that the war costs too much, the inspections were working, etc. But you can&#39;t put a price on over 3,000 lives that were lost on that day and uncounted numbers lost to terrorism in the past. You can&#39;t wait to see what may happen, you can&#39;t wait to give terrorists time.

But what counts is my safety as an American citizen. Do what has to be and what will be done.

Z
03-20-2003, 04:03 AM
ok otis, but this war is not about terrorism at all. (or at least its not a response to 9/11).
i agree the article was very good indeed.
i also agree that Saddam should be taken care of. but inevitably killing any amount of innocents in the path cannot be justified in my view.

my man otis
03-20-2003, 04:13 AM
The war is about terrorism, though. Preemptive strikes to avoid future terrorist attacks on the US. Whether or not you trust Bush&#39;s word is another issue, but in his letter to Congress (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html) yesterday explicitly states

"acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." [emphasis mine]

The psy-ops the US military has been running have resulted in surrenders before the war actually begun. The innocents that will die will mostly be human shields, as Hussein has put many strategic military assets in civilian locales. I do fear a battle in the streets of Baghdad, and I do hope for minimal innocent deaths.

But if nothing is done now, how many innocents can die in a terrorist attack in the future? How many innocents have already been slaughtered under Hussein&#39;s reign? You have to expand the realm of impact here.

War isn&#39;t good. It certainly isn&#39;t justified in all cases, but here I do think it is. I respect your opinion, however, and see your point.

Z
03-20-2003, 04:20 AM
i realize what u r saying and saw the letter at the link. however, i really dont think a war will decrease the amount of hatred we see towards the US. if anything, it will increase the amount of terrorism.
i know many innocents have died under hussein and i realize that many innocents will die no matter what anyone says, it will happen. And again, this war will not prevent a future terrorist attack against ne1, and especially not against the US.

j2k4
03-20-2003, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by my man otis+20 March 2003 - 04:57--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (my man otis @ 20 March 2003 - 04:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Rat Faced@18 March 2003 - 23:38
<!--QuoteBegin--Crackedup@18 March 2003 - 19:22

I do find it sad that so many US citizens, probably not the enlightened ones on this board, know so little about what&#39;s going on outside their shores. Perhaps it&#39;s part of the whole cultural thing. You know the &#39;second is the first loser&#39; thing and having a World Series sport in which the world doesn&#39;t take part.

You may like to read a very interesting article that is upcoming in 24 March edition of Newsweek:
The Arrogant Empire (http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0bl=-0&cp1=1)which covers somethings a lot better than I can.
Can I ask Americans to read this link posted by Crackedup?
The article is very well written. I am a true believer in the repeating nature of history, that simple lessons hold true regardless of time and place. Major, singular powers in past history have faded for various reasons. It may happen to the United States. That is another issue for another time.

The issue now is the validity of the war.

The war is not about oil. Americans can care less about the price of oil. I drive a large SUV because I want to and can. If the price of oil rises, so be it. A 20% cost in the price of gasoline doesn&#39;t have a huge effect per person. In 10-15 years power cells will be running in most cars on the road so it won&#39;t matter. We&#39;ll be talking about &#036;0.25/gallon gasoline and giving loans to Middle Eastern countries that have failed to diversify their country&#39;s revenue stream.

The quote above, stating that it is sad that American&#39;s don&#39;t know what&#39;s going on outside of our shores, may be true to some. But the converse is also true - citizens of other countries don&#39;t know what&#39;s going on inside of our borders.

Hijacked planes destroying buildings 4 blocks from where I work everyday is nothing the United States is used to and certainly nothing we will accept. As the article so elloquently points out, there was a military response unlike any other seen in history. We have the equipment and the means to do so.

It is not our problem that other countries will not or cannot respond to terrorists in this manner. I see the "new" Manhattan skyline as I go to work every day. I fear that my office may be next. It can happen again and probably will, regardless of actions we take. But we sure as hell aren&#39;t going to sit around and wait for it to happen.

There will be remarks that the war costs too much, the inspections were working, etc. But you can&#39;t put a price on over 3,000 lives that were lost on that day and uncounted numbers lost to terrorism in the past. You can&#39;t wait to see what may happen, you can&#39;t wait to give terrorists time.

But what counts is my safety as an American citizen. Do what has to be and what will be done. [/b][/quote]
Eloquently stated, sir.
I&#39;ve been trying to get that very point across to several of our non-Yankee brethren; it&#39;s a tough go-glad to have you on my side.

j2k4
03-20-2003, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by lil_z@20 March 2003 - 05:20
i realize what u r saying and saw the letter at the link. however, i really dont think a war will decrease the amount of hatred we see towards the US. if anything, it will increase the amount of terrorism.
i know many innocents have died under hussein and i realize that many innocents will die no matter what anyone says, it will happen. And again, this war will not prevent a future terrorist attack against ne1, and especially not against the US.
I believe you&#39;re right, lil z, but only (hopefully) in the short run. We are, as otis said, doing everything with an eye towards weakening/mitigating/compromising/marginalizing/destroying terrorism. If you can&#39;t imagine it any other way, regard it as a practical exercise in international behavior-modification; in the long run, it will NOT have the negative effect many expect, because it can&#39;t. History-and logic-dictate it.

Z
03-20-2003, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+20 March 2003 - 06:56--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 20 March 2003 - 06:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--lil_z@20 March 2003 - 05:20
i realize what u r saying and saw the letter at the link. however, i really dont think a war will decrease the amount of hatred we see towards the US. if anything, it will increase the amount of terrorism.
i know many innocents have died under hussein and i realize that many innocents will die no matter what anyone says, it will happen. And again, this war will not prevent a future terrorist attack against ne1, and especially not against the US.
I believe you&#39;re right, lil z, but only (hopefully) in the short run. We are, as otis said, doing everything with an eye towards weakening/mitigating/compromising/marginalizing/destroying terrorism. If you can&#39;t imagine it any other way, regard it as a practical exercise in international behavior-modification; in the long run, it will NOT have the negative effect many expect, because it can&#39;t. History-and logic-dictate it. [/b][/quote]
what wont have a negative effect? the war? it will be good for those in iraq who do survive (the majority).
what do u mean "history and logic dictate it"? why cant it have a negative effect? i dont understand what u mean.
i didnt say the war was all wrong. the motivation is right. but the ends (freedom in iraq) doesnt always justify the means (innocents dead).
also, why do u seem to think that this will even have the slightest impact on terrorism? it has not been proven that iraq has ties with al qaeda, the main organization that the US is concerned with. (there was a link earlier i think in this thread about terrorism and iraq). just like afghanistan, taking down a government will not stop the international network of terrorism against places like the US. it has been proven tho that iraq harbors terrorists of other sectual (is it a word?) organizations which target places like iran or israel.

so overall, in the end will come good, but how can u feel good when u kill innocents? (even for a "good" means, or even tho many more could have died under Saddam). there are many pros and cons, thats why im on the fence about military action. i cant say if its necessary or not, but the US has made that decision.

SuperJude™
03-20-2003, 06:19 AM
Innocents (pics taken by me when I worked there), and not innocents as in "we hate Americans and know war is coming" but innocents as in went to work one day and never left:

http://webdesignerscentral.com/SUPERJUDE/wtc1.jpg
http://webdesignerscentral.com/SUPERJUDE/wtc3.jpg
http://webdesignerscentral.com/SUPERJUDE/wtc4.jpg
http://webdesignerscentral.com/SUPERJUDE/wtc6.jpg
http://webdesignerscentral.com/SUPERJUDE/wtc7.jpg
http://webdesignerscentral.com/SUPERJUDE/wtc10.jpg

Now I am not a "warmongering" American and I really hope they just kill Saddam and end the war, cause death is horrible on a large scale and I wish that on nobody other than those who say "Kill all Americans". I truly wish we were in countries in Northern Africa where they train terrorists, or Saudi Arabia which acts like an ally while funding terrorism.

But maybe this is all a reminder to the rest of the world not to screw with our borders.

As much as people complain about the states, don&#39;t forget this:

You think Russia, China or even FRANCE would ever wait this long to invade another country? Of course not, yet they cast the first stones of judgement with dirty hands.

-SJ™

j2k4
03-20-2003, 06:30 AM
SuperJude-
We seem to be massing here-feels good.

lil z-
Could I kindly suggest you re-read the last 6-7 posts? Then think hard for a bit before you post again-I really want YOU to understand all this. Forget about links and shit-you lived here, you NEED to get this.

Z
03-20-2003, 06:33 AM
SJ - now u have to remember that terrorists do not belong to a single nation, and they definately wont be stopped by destroying one (or two). (how many times have i said that??). being in africa or saudi instead prob wont do much for terror.
how is this a reminder not to screw with our borders? they screw with the borders everyday (i wont even mention mexico :P ). why do u wish death to those who say kill all americans (actually, what am i saying?? they r obviously extremely ignorant and brainwashed). innocents are innocents (im not talking about "kill all americans" ppl here). iraq has tons of innocents too, and iraqis, or people from the middle east, are not necessarily terrorists (im not quite sure u said that, but just clearing this up) and do not necessarily want bad for america. u cant be so general in these topics. i am a descendent of Pakistan. what does that mean? nothing.
and as for russia, china, and france, why do they have "dirty" hands just because of their judgement? they just have strong opinions (or maybe a little more in the case of france). im not exactly sure what u mean by this.
please make sure u leave bias out of this, even though 9/11 (extremely severe) happened in the US.

SuperJude™
03-20-2003, 06:36 AM
A lot of the world really doesn&#39;t understand us I&#39;m coming to find. People I chat with then say things about "Americans" that I simply know to be untrue. We are the most diverse country on the planet.

I don&#39;t see people rushing the move into China or Russia, and take away the Alec Baldwins of the world, France either (nice place to visit though I heard).

War and death are horrible, but I will not turn my back on the fact that the people actually doing the fighting are my fellow countrymen, of ALL persuasions thank you very much.

-SJ™

Z
03-20-2003, 06:41 AM
j2k4 - i do get this&#33; stop being so biased&#33; i know 9/11 was harsh, but do u realize how other countries feel about the US? read the damn article if youre not clear&#33; tons of people on this forum have stated these opinions for u&#33; do U get it?&#33;

Terrorism will NOT stop by tackling the taliban, taking out saddam, or acting against any other national gov&#39;t. iraq is more about a dangerous dictator than terrorism. terrorists are not big old obvious targets to hit. PLEASE realize that acting against an entire nation (although not purposefully killing innocents) WILL kill innocents and WONT stop terrorists&#33; does that mean nothing to you??

guys, im trying to put forth all the views on these topics and im trying not to be biased, but it seems like u guys ARE&#33; take another view, and be open-minded. its not easy, and u prob wont like to do it, but try.
im NOT saying 9/11 is justified and NO terrorists have a right to do what they do, but u cant keep going back to 9/11 and using that as an excuse to fight a war which really has little to do with it.

u guys r confusing the war on terrorism (which included afghanistan) with this one. NOT the same thing, just cuz theyre both in the middle east.

Z
03-20-2003, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by SuperJude™@20 March 2003 - 07:36
A lot of the world really doesn&#39;t understand us I&#39;m coming to find. People I chat with then say things about "Americans" that I simply know to be untrue. We are the most diverse country on the planet.

I don&#39;t see people rushing the move into China or Russia, and take away the Alec Baldwins of the world, France either (nice place to visit though I heard).

War and death are horrible, but I will not turn my back on the fact that the people actually doing the fighting are my fellow countrymen, of ALL persuasions thank you very much.

-SJ™
i dont get what ure trying to say. YES, the rest of the world is biased too&#33; every1 needs to see all the viewpoints to get the right idea of whats going on. then u can tell why this war is justified or why its wrong.

Debby
03-20-2003, 08:45 AM
Hi All&#33;

I&#39;m Australian, and I had an opinion about all of this before I started reading all of your talk.
Now I&#39;m more confused then ever.

Does it really matter what any of us think now.......It&#39;s started, and we are left to clean the mess at the end. SO SAD.

my man otis
03-20-2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by lil_z@20 March 2003 - 07:41
Terrorism will NOT stop by tackling the taliban, taking out saddam, or acting against any other national gov&#39;t.&nbsp; iraq is more about a dangerous dictator than terrorism.&nbsp; terrorists are not big old obvious targets to hit. PLEASE realize that acting against an entire nation (although not purposefully killing innocents) WILL kill innocents and WONT stop terrorists&#33;&nbsp; does that mean nothing to you??
Ok lil_z, trying to be open-minded here...what will stop terrorism? A legitimate Palistinian state? Bush has already stated that the US would support that.

If combating terrorism isn&#39;t going into caves in Afghanistan and toppling those that support the killing of American civilians, what is?

Let&#39;s put his in perspective - The roots of terrorism are unfortunately already there and have grown thick and deep. Sure we would love to reverse time and figure it all out - scream out to the Germans to not negotiate with terrorists after they slaughtered Israeli wrestlers at the Olympics. But you can&#39;t reverse time, can&#39;t change what has happened. Sure we were fighting the same enemy with bin Laden in the 80s. But that cannot be changed. And I will admit that the US isn&#39;t all innocent in this. No country is in all things.

We have to be concerned about how to solve the problem now and in the future, not what happened in the past that is already set in stone. Would you feel better if Bush said "We wish we stayed in Afghanistan after the Russian-Afghan war to help rebuild the country."? It&#39;s not going to happen but of course I&#39;m sure some of the administration (past & present) wish Reagan did. The course of history would be drastically different if that happened.

Just trying to understand those that say this isn&#39;t the answer.

j2k4
03-20-2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by lil_z@20 March 2003 - 07:41
j2k4 - i do get this&#33; stop being so biased&#33; i know 9/11 was harsh, but do u realize how other countries feel about the US? read the damn article if youre not clear&#33; tons of people on this forum have stated these opinions for u&#33; do U get it?&#33;

Terrorism will NOT stop by tackling the taliban, taking out saddam, or acting against any other national gov&#39;t. iraq is more about a dangerous dictator than terrorism. terrorists are not big old obvious targets to hit. PLEASE realize that acting against an entire nation (although not purposefully killing innocents) WILL kill innocents and WONT stop terrorists&#33; does that mean nothing to you??

guys, im trying to put forth all the views on these topics and im trying not to be biased, but it seems like u guys ARE&#33; take another view, and be open-minded. its not easy, and u prob wont like to do it, but try.
im NOT saying 9/11 is justified and NO terrorists have a right to do what they do, but u cant keep going back to 9/11 and using that as an excuse to fight a war which really has little to do with it.

u guys r confusing the war on terrorism (which included afghanistan) with this one. NOT the same thing, just cuz theyre both in the middle east.
I don&#39;t believe I&#39;m being biased, as you say.
What we are currently engaged in WILL have a NEGATIVE effect on terrorism.
That is beyond dispute; while there MAY be some terrorist activity in the short run, what we do in Iraq WILL have a "chilling effect" on terrorism.

I did read "The Arrogant Empire"-I stated my opinion on it several posts back. I am and (and have been) VERY well aware of what other countries think of the U.S. and it&#39;s actions. To them, I say "If you don&#39;t like it, you owe it to yourself to wait and see how things turn out". Thats what WE are going to do.

We&#39;re also behind the establishment of a Palestinian state; we hope this will have the effect of weakening Hezbollah and Hamas and make them irrelevant; by doing this,we are ALSO attacking terrorism, but in another way.

Watch your T.V.-are we bombing willy-nilly through Iraq? I&#39;d say at the moment-11am DST-we&#39;re acting as the models of restraint, although that may change.

I&#39;ll also go out on a limb and say our next "terror target" should be Qaddafi in Libya, but I&#39;m not privy to the order of attack; but keep your ears open, you&#39;ll be hearing his name in the future.

Also-and I feel this to be my most important point of all-a functioning knowledge of history is VERY helpful in forming opinions about ANYTHING, and cannot be substituted for, or replaced by, the mere reading of "LINKS".
If I had the time and/or the inclination, I could demonstrate how many of the most vocal(?) posters to this subject do nothing more than that before spouting off here.

In any case, I&#39;m proud of YOU, and I hope you don&#39;t mind my saying that; you started this, and look what you have wrought. You are blessed with a BRAIN, while many others have to make do with just a keyboard.

puremindmatters
03-20-2003, 04:51 PM
So you are saying attacking sovereign countries without provocation or UN mandate will actually improve your image in that region?

Or in the world, for that matter?

dwightfry
03-20-2003, 05:15 PM
America is the strongest nation in world. If we want something, we would have no problem getting it....to an extent. One by One all the other nations in the world will hate us, and just as we wish that the citizens of Iraq would lead a revolt against their government, All other nations will lead a revolt against us. This war was the first step in our own destruction, and a mighty big one if you ask me. Granted, we do have other governments backing us on this war, but it isn&#39;t the governments that matter, they would back us up if we decided that war isn&#39;t an option. The leaders of these countries will leave power and a citizen will take it&#39;s place. A vast majority of the world&#39;s citizens fear us, or hate us. The odds are, any leader that comes into power in the next 10 years will have a grudge against us.

Whether americans feel this war is right or wrong, it doesn&#39;t matter. What matters is what the rest of the world thinks, and the world feels that we are being aggresive and selfish, and we are abusing our power. They have seen our bad side, and it scares them. We should not have a bad side. We should tell them what we would like to do, and if they disagree, ask them what they think we should do, and continue doing it until they decide that it isn&#39;t working. We must treat them as our equals, nobody likes feeling like they don&#39;t matter, and they will do something about it.

We fought the revolutionary war to break away from our oppressors, now the bush administration is becoming the oppressors for the entire world. The world is screaming out for us to stop, and we are ignoring them. We may end up paying high prices for this ignorance.

I support our troops in the sense that I don&#39;t want them die and I don&#39;t want Sadam to rule over Iraq any longer. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION FOR PUTTING OUR TROOPS IN THAT POSITION&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

j2k4
03-20-2003, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by puremindmatters@20 March 2003 - 17:51
So you are saying attacking sovereign countries without provocation or UN mandate will actually improve your image in that region?

Or in the world, for that matter?
Don&#39;t know if your question was directed my way, but I&#39;ll respond anyway:

Certain situations arise wherein concerns about "image" recede to a secondary status; the U.S. (and the U.K.) believe the problem of Saddam, his repression of his people, his flouting of U.N. sanctions, and his connections to terrorism cause our concern to rise to a level that supercedes worries about our reputation, at least in the short term. Efforts will be made afterwards to repair our reputation, but I am not a diplomat, so I can&#39;t address that. I believe our immediate concerns will be borne out and vindicated by the outcome of the war.
Be patient-that is what&#39;s left to us for the time being.

puremindmatters
03-20-2003, 06:17 PM
Yes, it was directed at you. I don&#39;t think that you are understanding the psychology of terrorism very well, nor the mentality of people in the middle east. It&#39;s not about charismatic or oppressive leaders of any given country, terrorism is about attacking superior enemies in order to hurt him with any means possible (for a just and noble cause). You can take out all current leaders, that will only create martyrs and more hate, and for every leader you take out you create 10 more.
You should ask your English allies, they have a bit more experience with that - see IRA, or the Israelis for that matter.

edit: grammar

my man otis
03-20-2003, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by puremindmatters@20 March 2003 - 19:17
Yes, it was directed at you. I don&#39;t think that you are understanding the psychology of terrorism very well, nor the mentality of people in the middle east. It&#39;s not about charismatic or oppressive leaders of any given country, terrorism is about attacking superior enemies in order to hurt him with any means possible. You can take out all current leaders, that will only create martyrs and more hate, and for every leader you take out you create 10 more.
You should ask your English allies, they have a bit more experience with that - see IRA, or the Israelis for that matter.

edit: grammar
This touches upon a point that needs to be brought up.

You are right...Americans are probably not in touch with the "psychology of terrorism" as you put it. Before 9/11/01, we just saw it on TV. I don&#39;t want to speak for all Americans, but I&#39;ve tried to understand Middle Eastern views and opinions but have come up empty.

If the psychology of terrorism is to kill and maim and hurt us, what are we to do? What to do then? Sit back and let it happen, let it fester, take the chance that more American civilians will die? Or negotiate and justify their killing and murder? That is clearly out of the question IMHO. What is the solution besides removing the threat, first by diplomacy, then if that doesn&#39;t work, thru force?

Maybe that&#39;s the rift - other countries have experienced terrorism and have not, or could not, deal with it in this manner. (?)

Simply stating that the current course of action won&#39;t work w/o saying what will work doesn&#39;t help Americans understand opinions outside of their country.

edit: And to say that terrorism is meant to hurt for "a just and noble" cause is infuriating drivel. I could use the same arguement about today&#39;s events. That phrase is so subjective it is rendered meaningless.

Rat Faced
03-20-2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz+19 March 2003 - 22:45--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 19 March 2003 - 22:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Rat Faced@19 March 2003 - 19:47
There was a huge International Effort in Desert Storm...with the backing of the Arabian/Islamic Countries.&nbsp;

There would have been no backing from the Arabian/Islamic countries for a full invasion of Iraq. The UN and Arabian countries therefore insisted that Desert Storm stop at the Iraqi border.....as to go further would cause more problems than it solves.


Hmm.....bit like today really.
Thats not exactly true.
The ground forces may have stopped at the iraqi border, but our aircraft were giving Baghdad hell. :)

I&#39;m not really sure that the ground forces stopped there.
Does anyone else know? This calls for a bit of web searching. [/b][/quote]
Our aircraft have never stopped &#39;giving them hell&#39; since Desert Storm.

I was only talking about the Ground Troops....you cant &#39;invade&#39; somewhere poorly from the air (with the possible exception of Granada.......oops, bit of politics) ;)

puremindmatters
03-20-2003, 06:59 PM
That&#39;s exactly what I mean: It is difficult for you to understand. What you see on TV, is what it looks like, what suffering it causes and how wrong it probably is. Once you are enraged and outraged, you don&#39;t want to hear why they did it, you just want someone punished for what they did.

What you still don&#39;t want to hear is that these people think they are right, have a right to do what they do, and do it for a greater good.
Those were my references to the IRA - they believed the English had no right being in their country, so they struck them with any means possible.
So are the Palestinian terror groups - they believe that the Israeli have no right doing what they are doing, and attack them with any means possible.
Bin Laden and other terrorist groups believe that the US have no business being in the middle east, and strike you with any means possible. In their eyes, it&#39;s a just and noble cause. In your eyes it&#39;s a just and noble cause to "liberate" countries of your choice, whether they want it or not, because you have the military means to do it.

I don&#39;t blame anyone for believing in what they believe, or dying for that. I just think it&#39;s a bit naive to think that you can fight something like terrorism by attacking sovereign countries which may or may not have anything to do with the attacks of 9/11.

If you want to fight it, you should care for removing the root causes and not the symptoms. And you sure don&#39;t do that with weapons.

Rat Faced
03-20-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+20 March 2003 - 18:00--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 20 March 2003 - 18:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--puremindmatters@20 March 2003 - 17:51
So you are saying attacking sovereign countries without provocation or UN mandate will actually improve your image in that region?

Or in the world, for that matter?
Don&#39;t know if your question was directed my way, but I&#39;ll respond anyway:

Certain situations arise wherein concerns about "image" recede to a secondary status; the U.S. (and the U.K.) believe the problem of Saddam, his repression of his people, his flouting of U.N. sanctions, and his connections to terrorism cause our concern to rise to a level that supercedes worries about our reputation, at least in the short term. Efforts will be made afterwards to repair our reputation, but I am not a diplomat, so I can&#39;t address that. I believe our immediate concerns will be borne out and vindicated by the outcome of the war.
Be patient-that is what&#39;s left to us for the time being. [/b][/quote]
You can replace the phrase in the Brackets with Tony Blaire.

The Majority of the UK is against the war.


Unfortunatly, due to our system of Government, even if EVERY elected member of Parliament was against the war, Mr Blaire could still use the Royal Perogative and declare war.

As it is, Mr Blaire is unlikely to stay leader of the Labour Party after this session of Parliament.

A lot of Labour MPs are facing de-selection over supporting him, and the ones that arent (listening to the opinions being voiced) will not be voted in again while.....and i quote "That Murdering Bastard and his Cronies are in control of the Party"

This quote is one of many Ive been getting from MEMBERS of the Labour Party...in their Stronghold (The North East of England)........I believe the &#39;floating voter&#39; is even more outraged.

Im a Union activist, and have often campaigned for the Labour Party....after receiving these comments on the streets, well even some of the &#39;New Labour&#39; people of our constituancy party are asking very awkward questions of our MP.

It looks like he may join the many that will be out of a job come the next election..... and quite frankly, like a lot of my Trade Union colleagues (and the Trade Unions fund the Labour Party) I am seriously thinking of leaving the Party and voting LibDem.....they seem to be the best bet.

At least they tell you UP FRONT how they are going to rip you off....and are in favour of a war ONLY with UN sanction.

j2k4
03-20-2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by puremindmatters@20 March 2003 - 19:59

If you want to fight it, you should care for removing the root causes and not the symptoms. And you sure don&#39;t do that with weapons.
Okay-here&#39;s YOUR chance to convince me.

Let&#39;s hear it; tell me how?

1) I want to know what the root causes are.

2) I want YOU to tell me how to address/fix the problem.

my man otis
03-20-2003, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by puremindmatters@20 March 2003 - 19:59
What you still don&#39;t want to hear is that these people think they are right, have a right to do what they do, and do it for a greater good.
Those were my references to the IRA - they believed the English had no right being in their country, so they struck them with any means possible.
So are the Palestinian terror groups - they believe that the Israeli have no right doing what they are doing, and attack them with any means possible.
Bin Laden and other terrorist groups believe that the US have no business being in the middle east, and strike you with any means possible. In their eyes, it&#39;s a just and noble cause. In your eyes it&#39;s a just and noble cause to "liberate" countries of your choice, whether they want it our not, because you have the military means to do it.

I don&#39;t blame anyone for believing in what they believe, or dying for that. I just think it&#39;s a bit naive to think that you can fight something like terrorism by attacking sovereign countries which may or may not have anything to do with the attacks of 9/11.

If you want to fight it, you should care for removing the root causes and not the symptoms. And you sure don&#39;t do that with weapons.
Don&#39;t misunderstand me. I don&#39;t think it is a "just and noble cause to "liberate" countries of your choice, whether they want it our not, because you have the military means to do it.". Not one bit. Contrary to what other countries think, the US is not imperialistic and has no measures on land or oil in the Middle East. The American people would be outraged. To be frank, nobody give a damn about it, except to ensure that it doesn&#39;t endanger the US and the free way of life in general. We want nothing to do with the place. Too hot and dry&#33; ;)

What I do think is that it is a just and noble cause to protect Americans. That&#39;s what I feel Americans care about.

Of course I realize that these people think they are right. They feel that they are so right they are willing to die for the cause and bring other people with them. But if terrorists, IRA, Palestinians, et. al. think they are so right, how much good do they feel they are doing for their cause now? Small victories to be sure.

It&#39;s a vicious cycle that we are in, certainly.

SuperJude™
03-20-2003, 07:26 PM
I would be curious here if those who are so "educated" that they know somehow about fighting terrorism would maybe postulate a better method other than attack?

Now that has nothing to do with Iraq, that statement, but man people love to tell us Americans how little we know.

Sorry, I myself may know just a little bit about the effects of terrorism and to me some of you people look naive as hell in your armchair statements.

Don&#39;t get offended by that statement if it doesn&#39;t concern you, straight up. However I keep hearing so many negative things about Americans that I have decided to keep quiet for months here mostly about this, but not today. Sorry folks, today I want to hear no more bullshit about things people who know nothing tell me I know nothing about when in fact I sure as hell do know exactly what death and tragedy look like. That is why I have made the statements before I have made which I am not going to quote.

I&#39;ll save the quoting for people who don&#39;t read entire threads and jump to conclusions, cause there are some people bound to make that mistake with me, completely miss the point.

The point were made, but again, I support our troops and I wonder how the world would feel if the US behaved like, I dunno, Russia, China or Germany have been known to act in the past.

Odd how those with the bloodies hands wish to point fingers. Russia is against war? Now when did that happen? Hmmmmm.

War has started, so maybe some decent counter opinions would be well received?

I found a great quote by somebody called Flashbunny, aptly stating a lot of my feelings about people on this matter:


By [email protected]:
There are two distinct camps in the current anti-war movement. First, there is group that makes an intellectual and constitutional argument against military action in Iraq. Some of these are Libertarians and strict constitutionalists who argue that pre-emptive action is not allowed under the constitution, and, citing things like George Washington&#39;s farewell address, say we should avoid foreign entanglements and remain more as isolationists. These are the people with whom you can have a long, intellectually stimulating discussion while debating the pros and cons of your relative position.

However, the vast majority are the "No Blood For Oil" / "Never met an opportunity to bash a republican president they didn&#39;t like" crowd. Sadly, their positions are rooted in emotionalism. Either based in fear or just plain hatred, their debating techique is shouting slogans and calling their detractors &#39;Nazis&#39;.

Describes a lot of my fellow Americans which really should show just how fucked up this world is, while the rest of the world judges all Americans they seem to have no idea of what is really going on in our borders.

If that&#39;s true stop judging, cause it&#39;s useless.

-SJ™

my man otis
03-20-2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by al_birkett@18 March 2003 - 12:34

The speech...

Made me clear its about the oil...

jetje is right .... all this war is about is oil and I wish everyone else could see this too. One of the first objectives of the allied attack is to &#39;secure the oil fields&#39; yeah I bet &#39;secure&#39; my ass , secure them from anyone else apart from america. you&#39;d think that once in the process of attacking iraq the allies america would try and &#39;secure&#39; all these chemical and biological weapons he is suppose to have hiding under his bed.
Just rereading thru this thread.

This is complete nonsense. Oil is not the reason. The reason they want to secure the oil is to pay for the rebuilding of iraq so American taxpayers don&#39;t have to. There has already been a trust fund set up to keep the proceeds of oil sales in for the benefit of the citizens of Iraq. (I can see it now, "sure, the &#39;benefits&#39; of the people of the US I bet.") Don&#39;t be so naive to think that the US can&#39;t just buy the whole damn country if they wanted to.

For all non-Americans, let&#39;s be clear on this point. In fact, we have huge oil reserves in Alaska that we are protecting because they lie above a national park. We&#39;ll probably go and dig that out.

You probably also think France and Russia isn&#39;t into this for the love of peace and diplomacy, right? And not the economic ties they have with Hussein?

Don&#39;t be naive - "it&#39;s all about oil". No American gives a shit about oil.

Rat Faced
03-20-2003, 07:54 PM
OK guys.

You all know that im anti-war.

But its happened OK?

You can all stop arguing about it......at least wait until its over before the disection starts...

Lets just all hope its over quickly, with minimum casualties and our boys (and some of our members) can come home.


And remember.....its the politicians, not the troops.....so support your soldiers, its a tough job. :angry:

:(

puremindmatters
03-20-2003, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+20 March 2003 - 20:12--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 20 March 2003 - 20:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--puremindmatters@20 March 2003 - 19:59

If you want to fight it, you should care for removing the root causes and not the symptoms.&nbsp; And you sure don&#39;t do that with weapons.
Okay-here&#39;s YOUR chance to convince me.

Let&#39;s hear it; tell me how?

1) I want to know what the root causes are.

2) I want YOU to tell me how to address/fix the problem. [/b][/quote]
1) I think they are under the impression that the US has and still does interfere with conflicts which aren&#39;t theirs, to serve their own and just their own interests (at that particular moment in time). The Iraq was your ally once, the Taliban were your allies once.

They don&#39;t like the support for Israel in their conflict, which they feel might have enabled Israel to prolong the conflict, whereas otherwise a solution might have been found.

They feel that you are trying to impose your way of life and believes on them - which is basically undermining their own belief system, and stifling their own attempts of creating societies they feel are natural and just.


- just before you start flaming me, those aren&#39;t my opinions, but that&#39;s what I gathered when speaking to a few Saudis and Palestinians which I wouldn&#39;t count to the more extremestic wings, and they sure weren&#39;t terrorists.

2) I personally think the time for super powers on this planet are over. I believe that the UN should have more power, that the veto right should be abolished and that this should be the only gremium to have the right to intercede in conflicts. The time for crusades were over after the middle ages. If democracy is the best possible politcal system (and so it would seem) it would prevail sooner or later. The politics before the nineties had some sort of weird logic to it, mostly referred to as the balance of terror. There is no-one left to balance the power the US holds other than a world community or the wisdom not to wield it blindly and callously.

So basically, I would say if democracy and tolerance is what you believe your society is based on, understand and tolerate the differences in mentality, religious, economic and political structures in the world, and subject to the democratic principles governing the UN by strengthening and not undermining them. If there has to be a police force in this world, there is no reason why the US shouldn&#39;t be part of it, but it can&#39;t be law-giver, police, judge and jury at the same time.

I&#39;m sure that is not quite the answer you were looking for, but if I had any better ones, I would have probably stayed in politics.

SuperJude™
03-20-2003, 08:33 PM
The UN? Are you kidding me?

Okay then- the UN peacekeepers where in Kosova when the killing started, and they stood there. The UN was in Rwanda when the killing started, and they just stood there. Matter of fact seems like the UN is just a bunch of hand wrangling politicians who can come upon no decent solutions.

Didn&#39;t the UN create Israel? People blame the Israelis and Americans for that, but it was the UN. Who then can&#39;t seem to find anyway to make Palestinians stop blowing themselves up. If they stopped there would already be a Palestinian state.

In a perfect world we really would be a League of Nations, a United Nations what have you, but frankly that which makes people politicians seems to preclude that from being realistic.

Chew on that the next time you root ferverently against some sports team. It&#39;s like that in life too, you root for you and yours, and that is what the UN seems to be all about.

Also- sure America has been allies with crap regimes, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE GODDAMN WORLD. So stop casting stones, or are we not aware that China and Russia are owed billions by the Iraqis?

Politics, just like all this talk at these boards from people sitting with no fear in their countries, while a lot of us Americans have actually been afraid for the first time. Afraid and then judged by callous minded windbags.

-SJ™

Z
03-20-2003, 09:02 PM
WOW&#33; u guys did a ton of discussing while i was at school. :P however, i didnt take the time to read it, but i did read the response to me by J2K4:

ok look. more than half the world is opposed this war. it is obvious that it is creating an even harsher image for the US (even tho the US thinks that in the end the image will improve). fighting terrorism about hatred against religious or other ethnic groups (ie. in israel) cannot be stopped easily (tho nor can any terrorism). "Kill all americans". think about why these ppl have this view. what image r they receiving? over the years the US has made many crucial mistakes regarding its foreign policies. "now im your friend and u should go fight iran. now i hate u and we will take u down." (puremind already stated this) this happened about afghanistan too, when they were fighting the soviets. the problem is the US&#39;s interaction with the rest of the world. (i hate to mention this again, but that article addressed this as well). countries dont like being treated as though they are inferior (whats that word again??). countries like steady allies. the US will probably never have another steady, long-term ally except for britain and canada. Bush made it even worse (now im talking from the article :P ). Clinton imposed several treaties around the world and now bush has stopped and withdrawn. he really didnt seem to have a care about israel (even tho he says he supports a palestinian state, he is reluctant). he is actually not familiar with the rest of the world at all. didnt he actually say once: "why does the world hate us?" (im not exactly positive). the way to stop hatred and fear of the US is like making a friend with with someone who admires yet fears you and does not want to be on your side. world interaction is absolutely necessary. not "do as we say or else". its all about how the us treats the rest of the world. Not all, but many americans are somewhat ignorant on how the rest of the world views the states. "look, where else can u come from nothing and become a millionaire?". true (also canada), but its not necessarily hatred of the people (tho they r seen as arrogant, i dont know many who r), but the government. the US needs to seriously revise their international policies and interactions, make ammends with the world, and create a good, wholesome image for themselves. Many americans (not necessarily u) think their country is the greatest and wonder why no one else thinks so. come on, like i said before, take another view. (im talking in general, not particularly to u j2k4).

also, thanks for the remark about my brains, well, u know, i can really help it. ;) :D

puremindmatters
03-20-2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by SuperJude™@20 March 2003 - 21:33
The UN? Are you kidding me?

Okay then- the UN peacekeepers where in Kosova when the killing started, and they stood there. The UN was in Rwanda when the killing started, and they just stood there. Matter of fact seems like the UN is just a bunch of hand wrangling politicians who can come upon no decent solutions.

Didn&#39;t the UN create Israel? People blame the Israelis and Americans for that, but it was the UN. Who then can&#39;t seem to find anyway to make Palestinians stop blowing themselves up. If they stopped there would already be a Palestinian state.

In a perfect world we really would be a League of Nations, a United Nations what have you, but frankly that which makes people politicians seems to preclude that from being realistic.

Chew on that the next time you root ferverently against some sports team. It&#39;s like that in life too, you root for you and yours, and that is what the UN seems to be all about.

Also- sure America has been allies with crap regimes, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE GODDAMN WORLD. So stop casting stones, or are we not aware that China and Russia are owed billions by the Iraqis?

Politics, just like all this talk at these boards from people sitting with no fear in their countries, while a lot of us Americans have actually been afraid for the first time. Afraid and then judged by callous minded windbags.

-SJ™
So your solution is that any given country can do what they want, attack who they want when it feels right and proper, or are at least powerful enough that no-one could stop them?

You can argue with islamic world about their perceptions about the US, as I said, I was recounting what I heard in several discussions I attended. I think terror is as wrong as any military conflict, which isn&#39;t an act of self-defence.

Sorry, about so far the US seemed to be part of the UN (until now) and has started several campaigns with their approval. They were member of the UN when the Israel state was created and had the right to veto.

This is the point which really confuses me in your argumentation - the US is still part of the UN, and if you say it is to weak, who is reponsible for that? The fact that there are different countries with different opinions, or that is a political gremium? And if the desire for military conflict is decreasing in most countries of the world, and that is reflected in that gremium, that is wrong?
Are you saying, fuck the politicians, let the military handle the world affairs again?

Rat Faced
03-20-2003, 10:05 PM
Anyone read this?

http://michaelmoore.com/


Thought you might find it interesting as its on topic...posted in the chatroom by &#39;Former&#39;



The UN Security Council, although brilliant in theory has a major flaw.........it has no teeth of its own. The councils members (apart from the 5 permanent members) rotate, and are often open to &#39;Bribery&#39; (in the form of Foreign Aid) from others to buy votes.

The fact that even this failed to win a Majority of Security Council Votes (so no Veto&#39;s were actually needed) says something of the strength of feeling from the rest of the world on this issue. Personally, I dont think the 5 permanent members should have a veto (or even that the 5 members that are permanent should be).......and that it should go on a straight vote....but thats a different topic.


The population of the USA is about 250 million? Out of a world poplulation of 4 Billion.

Out of those 250 million, a lot are also against the war.

The US Government has the MIGHT to enforce what IT wants, but doesnt have the RIGHT. This is what pisses the rest of the world off.

It spouts about Democracy, but doesnt pay it lip service in the international arena.

To put it into terms you understand......

Its like the White Supremisists in the USA doing what they want in the USA, while the rest of the USA is helpless to stop it.....The fact that they do it even though opposed, doesnt win them any points with the population at large...it just pisses people off more.


But PLEASE..........can we save this debate until AFTER the war????

There is SOD ALL that either faction can do about it now......so lets not turn this into another Vietnam for the troops huh?

Its the politicians that screw things up, not them.....the least we can do now is NOT hit their moral while they are fighting....its a hard enough job, without thinking the world hates you for it...even your own people.

Z
03-20-2003, 10:13 PM
where u from rat? :huh:

Z
03-20-2003, 10:15 PM
well the thing is, rat, that bush thinks this will produce a better image. even tho a personal vedetta is partly reason. doesnt look likely that a better image will come, even if the people are given more freedom, like in afghanistan...

ClubDiggler
03-20-2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by puremindmatters+20 March 2003 - 21:01--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (puremindmatters @ 20 March 2003 - 21:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -j2k4@20 March 2003 - 20:12
<!--QuoteBegin--puremindmatters@20 March 2003 - 19:59

If you want to fight it, you should care for removing the root causes and not the symptoms. And you sure don&#39;t do that with weapons.
Okay-here&#39;s YOUR chance to convince me.

Let&#39;s hear it; tell me how?

1) I want to know what the root causes are.

2) I want YOU to tell me how to address/fix the problem.
1) I think they are under the impression that the US has and still does interfere with conflicts which aren&#39;t theirs, to serve their own and just their own interests (at that particular moment in time). The Iraq was your ally once, the Taliban were your allies once.

They don&#39;t like the support for Israel in their conflict, which they feel might have enabled Israel to prolong the conflict, whereas otherwise a solution might have been found.

They feel that you are trying to impose your way of life and believes on them - which is basically undermining their own belief system, and stifling their own attempts of creating societies they feel are natural and just.


- just before you start flaming me, those aren&#39;t my opinions, but that&#39;s what I gathered when speaking to a few Saudis and Palestinians which I wouldn&#39;t count to the more extremestic wings, and they sure weren&#39;t terrorists.

2) I personally think the time for super powers on this planet are over. I believe that the UN should have more power, that the veto right should be abolished and that this should be the only gremium to have the right to intercede in conflicts. The time for crusades were over after the middle ages. If democracy is the best possible politcal system (and so it would seem) it would prevail sooner or later. The politics before the nineties had some sort of weird logic to it, mostly referred to as the balance of terror. There is no-one left to balance the power the US holds other than a world community or the wisdom not to wield it blindly and callously.

So basically, I would say if democracy and tolerance is what you believe your society is based on, understand and tolerate the differences in mentality, religious, economic and political structures in the world, and subject to the democratic principles governing the UN by strengthening and not undermining them. If there has to be a police force in this world, there is no reason why the US shouldn&#39;t be part of it, but it can&#39;t be law-giver, police, judge and jury at the same time.

I&#39;m sure that is not quite the answer you were looking for, but if I had any better ones, I would have probably stayed in politics. [/b][/quote]
All that sounds peachy but I don&#39;t think terrorists
deserve the level of tolerance that you are talking about.

There is a time for talking and there is a time for fighting.

Now, we talked with UN/Saddam for the last twelve years since the
last war with Iraq and a whole lot of UN resolutinos later; here we are.

The final line was drawn.

You can&#39;t accuse the U.S. for not trying&#33;&#33;&#33;

SuperJude™
03-20-2003, 10:30 PM
puremindmatters:
So your solution is that any given country can do what they want, attack who they want when it feels right and proper, or are at least powerful enough that no-one could stop them?

You know what? You seem really well worded and all that, I&#39;m sure your quite educated, but it&#39;s really funny to see what you can discern from anothers text. No dude, your wrong, sorry, but not every assumption you blindly make is truth. Not every country should do what it wants and frankly I&#39;m not getting drawn into some arguement laid our like that, which just begs of a response you can pounce on. The thing is here, the war has already started right? So it is what it is, and while people like you assume and debate it doesn&#39;t really mean you are any more right than the people you judge.

I would quote my "I&#39;m no warmondering American" but there it is. Most of our country isn&#39;t and that&#39;s why they now have journalists "embedded" with the troops, since the arguements assumptive liberals like you kick are basically "War for Oil" and "Killing of Innocents". So what if you find out that the war is not about oil and killing innocents? I personally stated my beliefs, so maybe take the time to page back and have another read and not try to cast me in the mold of the warmongering American you seem to be hoping to argue with.

Not everything is an verbal joust there buddy.


puremindmatters, again with foot in mouth:
You can argue with islamic world about their perceptions about the US, as I said, I was recounting what I heard in several discussions I attended. I think terror is as wrong as any military conflict, which isn&#39;t an act of self-defence.

I don&#39;t go to conferences so I&#39;m not really sure what kind of Islamic people you claim to know. See here in America, we actually have Muslim people who live and work here, they want to be here, and are happy to have the opportunity to achieve what people can here. I mean people do continue to come to this country in droves remember? Whatever those people "think" of us means what? Just opinions. YOu seem to put a lot of belief into what people say man, not always a smart choice. Maybe in the end we the people of the world are all closer to eachother than our leaders, but war happens.

Not sure what fantasy world you live in but war seems to be as much a part of humanity as water. Do I like that? No. Did I or the Americans cause it? No. Fact is war happens, and if you could accept that fact, cause look at the news&#33; It is fact&#33; So if it happens under legally accepted terms of combat so be it. Wasn&#39;t me who came up with those guidelines, but if it is done that way, then support those fighting. To put the idea of terrorism and the idea of my friends over there right now in the same sentance is just fucking stupid dude, really, think about what you say.


puremindmatters, apparently on a roll now:
This is the point which really confuses me in your argumentation - the US is still part of the UN, and if you say it is to weak, who is reponsible for that? The fact that there are different countries with different opinions, or that is a political gremium? And if the desire for military conflict is decreasing in most countries of the world, and that is reflected in that gremium, that is wrong?
Are you saying, fuck the politicians, let the military handle the world affairs again?

The UN is weak. I just gave you glaring examples of that. The UN refusing to take action in Kosovo till the Americans and Brits showed up gives me no confidence in them having more power. Sure talking is better than fighting, but let&#39;s not forget, when Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot killed all those people you know how they did it? With words. They gave orders based on beliefs. So no, I don&#39;t always think talking is the solution. If it were up to people like you we would still be doing nothing on this planet, and it has pretty much been shwon thus far that Afghanistan is better off without the Taliban has it not?

All countries should have an opinion, and they do, but does having an opinion make somebody right? While people argue, things happen, the world changes, and then one day you look up and see that.

Good god, WTF is wrong with you? What the fuck makes you think I like the idea of killing and death? I should hope you would understand here that I saw death and I know how terrible it is, it is something actually a lot of Americans feel. We don&#39;t want war and death, and yet one day it came to our doorstep.

Yet people base judgements on what they want to believe. Most Americans are not gung ho, it&#39;s just that our people of multiple ethnic origins are over there fighting and I do 100% support them.

I really hate when people online type things like "So are you saying".

Read what I said. Obviously I didn&#39;t ever say that, so I can only be left with the conclusion that you are one to assume things you shouldn&#39;t about people. I only hope for our people to be okay, and for whoever says "Kill All Americans" to see that that blind hate may not be worth the cost.

We can debate all day long here, but the war already started. I think that was about the total sum of my statements. Support the troops and hope a new day dawns, while ignorant people with nice words like you sit in judgement of a 250 million person population based on, once again here, assumptions.

You have no idea of my true and real thoughts since you are some guy at some message board who I never chat with.

-SJ™

Z
03-20-2003, 10:30 PM
true clubdiggler, on some aspects

SJ- too long&#33; :P

j2k4
03-20-2003, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by puremindmatters+20 March 2003 - 21:01--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (puremindmatters @ 20 March 2003 - 21:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -j2k4@20 March 2003 - 20:12
<!--QuoteBegin--puremindmatters@20 March 2003 - 19:59

If you want to fight it, you should care for removing the root causes and not the symptoms. And you sure don&#39;t do that with weapons.
Okay-here&#39;s YOUR chance to convince me.

Let&#39;s hear it; tell me how?

1) I want to know what the root causes are.

2) I want YOU to tell me how to address/fix the problem.
1) I think they are under the impression that the US has and still does interfere with conflicts which aren&#39;t theirs, to serve their own and just their own interests (at that particular moment in time). The Iraq was your ally once, the Taliban were your allies once.

They don&#39;t like the support for Israel in their conflict, which they feel might have enabled Israel to prolong the conflict, whereas otherwise a solution might have been found.

They feel that you are trying to impose your way of life and believes on them - which is basically undermining their own belief system, and stifling their own attempts of creating societies they feel are natural and just.


- just before you start flaming me, those aren&#39;t my opinions, but that&#39;s what I gathered when speaking to a few Saudis and Palestinians which I wouldn&#39;t count to the more extremestic wings, and they sure weren&#39;t terrorists.

2) I personally think the time for super powers on this planet are over. I believe that the UN should have more power, that the veto right should be abolished and that this should be the only gremium to have the right to intercede in conflicts. The time for crusades were over after the middle ages. If democracy is the best possible politcal system (and so it would seem) it would prevail sooner or later. The politics before the nineties had some sort of weird logic to it, mostly referred to as the balance of terror. There is no-one left to balance the power the US holds other than a world community or the wisdom not to wield it blindly and callously.

So basically, I would say if democracy and tolerance is what you believe your society is based on, understand and tolerate the differences in mentality, religious, economic and political structures in the world, and subject to the democratic principles governing the UN by strengthening and not undermining them. If there has to be a police force in this world, there is no reason why the US shouldn&#39;t be part of it, but it can&#39;t be law-giver, police, judge and jury at the same time.

I&#39;m sure that is not quite the answer you were looking for, but if I had any better ones, I would have probably stayed in politics. [/b][/quote]
I appreciate your taking the time to try to answer me. I expect you are more civil than alot of the people posting here. I DON&#39;T FLAME-except Zardoz sometimes; that boy can get under my skin at will. Luckily, I am fireproof LOL.

Diplomacy and negotiation are fine, honorable things.

I think, though, that terrorism, and the threat thereof, is an impediment to the above processes that cannot be tolerated. I believe it&#39;s existence feeds the vitriol that precludes a lot of what COULD happen-Israel/Palestine case in point.
It is for this reason I don&#39;t object to the use of military force in Iraq. Say whatever you like about Iraq&#39;s links, or lack of same, to terrorism. I&#39;ll even grant for the sake of this discussion that the military option isn&#39;t too graceful.
But if this action gives other dictators (think Qaddafi) pause in supporting terrorism, would that lend to it&#39;s worth? Terrorism could not survive without state sanction.
Bonus-the Iraqi people are free, and stability is enhanced in an otherwise unstable region.
I think, if the U.S. wasn&#39;t regarded as the only superpower left, there would be alot less griping. If I remember correctly, the U.S.S.R didn&#39;t even try to justify invading Afganistan, and the outcry then was led by the U.S., as was the aid effort. These things escape people now.

Z
03-20-2003, 11:51 PM
true, but terrorism can survive without state sanction.

j2k4
03-21-2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by lil_z@21 March 2003 - 00:51
true, but terrorism can survive without state sanction.
How, exactly?
They need money to train.
They need money to terrorize.
They need places to train.
They need places to sleep.
Without the aid of a a state, they would be "homeless".
Say what you will about the homeless, they are not terrorists.

What if terrorists had the emnity of all states?

puremindmatters
03-21-2003, 12:13 AM
@ SJ - I was trying to understand your point of view. I cannot and do not judge you for what you are and what you aren&#39;t. I read your arguments and try to comprehend what you are saying. One thing I learned is never to attack people for their views, but question them if I find them questionable. A lot of what you accuse me I supposedly interpreted into your views, I simply haven&#39;t - I was asking, to get clarity. That is how I learned to discuss - if something seems odd to me, I ask if that is what the people meant.
Basically, what I said is that the UN is certainly not what it could be. That it is an attempt to find something like a global consensus to deal with crisis situations adequately and sensibly - whether it lived up to that up to now or not is a different question. My other question was, who is the UN? Isn&#39;t the US a part of it, and responsible for the way it shapes up just as all other members are?

So, what I was asking was: What are the alternatives? We are in a rather unique situation now. There is on country on this planet, namely the US, which holds more military, economic and politcal power than any other country ever before. Before there was some sort of balance when we had the USSR. But now this has changed. There is one country which could do what they want without being seriously challenged by any other country in the world. So if you are saying, and that is just my attempt to interpret what I could read about your views, that we all should just trust that whatever that country does is right and warranted, I do not feel comfortable. I cannot see that any set of politicians (of which you are apparently not so fond yourself) will make the right decisions at all times. If you say, the UN shouldn&#39;t have their spoke in decisions our government makes, that is just a toothless debating club, you can discard when the decisions don&#39;t agree with you, then I would say - where does that lead? It would make it as pointless as I presume you think it is. No progress would have been made since WW2. Is that really the case?

My other question was, how can you strengthen it? Agree to uphold its decisions and principles, or pick the ones you like and discard the others? Look at the way your democracy works. It works because of a set of rules which is being followed, enforced and administered. If that wasn&#39;t the case, it would be anarchy. The UN is based on the same set of principles. And if their strongest members are not willing to follow the rules, uphold the principles, how can it possibly work?

And to all the others who didn&#39;t quite get my other point - the US is projecting an image, their actions are being interpreted by friends and foes.
Whether those perceptions are right or wrong is not for me to judge. All I was saying is, that you should ask yourself why you have enemies, why people in the middle east resent your involvement rather than discount them all as a bunch of criminals and weirdos which need to be wiped off this earth. And my other question was, isn&#39;t this current war making that perception worse, and would that be the same, if it was backed by the UN?

Z
03-21-2003, 12:53 AM
pure mind:

And to all the others who didn&#39;t quite get my other point - the US is projecting an image, their actions are being interpreted by friends and foes.
Whether those perceptions are right or wrong is not for me to judge. All I was saying is, that you should ask yourself why you have enemies, why people in the middle east resent your involvement rather than discount them all as a bunch of criminals and weirdos which need to be wiped off this earth. And my other question was, isn&#39;t this current war making that perception worse, and would that be the same, if it was backed by the UN?

thank you. this is exactly what i was trying to say before.

j2k4 - No&#33; they dont need money to train. they dont need money to terrorize. these organizations are all over the world&#33; destroying a government which supplies terrorists with money and such (some places in africa) would have an impact on terrorism, but it certainly wouldnt abolish it. suicide bombers in israel need to be supplied with a bomb. the governments are not the main source of funds for terrorism. there is so much dirty money floating around, black markets, etc. that a government is not necessary to provide terror money. training camps may be necessary. and it is scary to think that we cant find and dont destroy these places. i dont know... but i do know that taking any amounts of gov&#39;ts (more than 2 of which is not going to happen) will not stop global terrorism, and will increase the amount of hatred towards the US.

j2k4
03-21-2003, 01:40 AM
lil z-
I stand by my post.


Here&#39;s something interesting:
Dearborn, Michigan, U.S.A. is home to the largest population of ex-pat Iraqis in the U.S.; I will make the assumption their commentary has credibility here.

They, through their community leaders, wish it to be known they support U.S. efforts. They realize the war is necessary, and hope Saddam is toppled, so they can return home and live in peace. They are working with U.S. authorities to set a frame-work for re-building and running Iraq as soon as they can return there after the war is over.
They all left Iraq because of Saddam&#39;s oppression, and consider themselves lucky to have made it to the U.S.

Of course, I suppose since they made it here, instead of, say, France, and some of them have actually become American citizens, they have no credibility?

Check the FOXNEWS website.

Z
03-21-2003, 01:43 AM
j2k4 -
ok great. but what exactly are u trying to say or prove?

foxnews...hahaha&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol:
thats almost worse than CNN&#33; :P

j2k4
03-21-2003, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by lil_z@21 March 2003 - 02:43
j2k4 -
ok great. but what exactly are u trying to say or prove?

foxnews...hahaha&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol:
thats almost worse than CNN&#33; :P
Oh-I forgot-You only believe what you read on links.

I tried.

Poor, poor, Iraqis-never get to go home now. American now-no credibility.

Z
03-21-2003, 03:45 AM
ahh whatever. u dont make much sense neways :P

it depends greatly on what the links are. these seem like legit sites, so i will go by them. personal web pages are prob worse than CNN&#33; (look, cnn is the worst of the big news&#39;, then fox. [haha, still laughin :P &#33;]
and the american news is definately the most biased on these subjects, so u really cant trust all of it and just go and take the news&#39; point of view.

j2k4
03-21-2003, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by lil_z@21 March 2003 - 04:45
ahh whatever. u dont make much sense neways :P

it depends greatly on what the links are. these seem like legit sites, so i will go by them. personal web pages are prob worse than CNN&#33; (look, cnn is the worst of the big news&#39;, then fox. [haha, still laughin :P &#33;]
and the american news is definately the most biased on these subjects, so u really cant trust all of it and just go and take the news&#39; point of view.
I&#39;m glad you are no longer undecided.

Don&#39;t let anybody talk you out of your point of view.

tkc204
03-21-2003, 04:47 AM
Props to all the ppl out there figthing for this country... Bush i dont know if he knows that iraq has weapons but they must have something while we the u.s are attacking... GOOD LUCK TO THE US and all the countries hellpping....


Hey maybe well get free gass...

Z
03-21-2003, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+21 March 2003 - 05:44--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 21 March 2003 - 05:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--lil_z@21 March 2003 - 04:45
ahh whatever.&nbsp; u dont make much sense neways :P

it depends greatly on what the links are.&nbsp; these seem like legit sites, so i will go by them.&nbsp; personal web pages are prob worse than CNN&#33; (look, cnn is the worst of the big news&#39;, then fox. [haha, still laughin :P &#33;]
and the american news is definately the most biased on these subjects, so u really cant trust all of it and just go and take the news&#39; point of view.
I&#39;m glad you are no longer undecided.

Don&#39;t let anybody talk you out of your point of view. [/b][/quote]
im sorry? im undecided/decided about what now?
whats my point of view? im taking every point of view. just cuz im persistent about what ive been talking about (i dont remember now :P ) doesnt need to draw sarcasm (or whatever that tone/mood was).
aight then. :P

j2k4
03-21-2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by lil_z@21 March 2003 - 06:26
aight then. :P
Ebonics?

I was referring to the post with which you started this-you were casting about for opinions, then; now you&#39;re not.

Z
03-21-2003, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+21 March 2003 - 15:28--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 21 March 2003 - 15:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--lil_z@21 March 2003 - 06:26
aight then. :P
Ebonics?

I was referring to the post with which you started this-you were casting about for opinions, then; now you&#39;re not. [/b][/quote]
no actually, i said what do u think. i never said what do i think. :P
u never answered my question on what im undecided about??

ebonics? no that would be : aight den, bredren. :lol:

ClubDiggler
03-21-2003, 10:18 PM
What time is it?

What Time is it? (http://www.funforwards.com/flash/september02/saddam.swf)


:ph34r:

j2k4
03-21-2003, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by lil_z@21 March 2003 - 23:10
no actually, i said what do u think. i never said what do i think. :P
u never answered my question on what im undecided about??

ebonics? no that would be : aight den, bredren. :lol:
Yes, I recall "What do U think?"

It would not occur to me to ask you what you think.

I&#39;ll try this once again: your initial post indicated you thought the speech was "pretty convincing"; then asked what others thought.

Between then and now, you have done some reading, on your post and other links-I merely sought, in light of the anti-war sentiments you&#39;ve coughed up in more recently, confirmation that you are no longer seeking other&#39;s opinions and now consider yourself "fully-informed".

AIGHT=Ebonics-sorry-Ask any real African-American.

Z
03-21-2003, 10:44 PM
okaaay, AIGHT&#33; :P i said he was pretty convincing, but i cant change my mind? he was convincing, but that doesnt mean im convinced&#33; look at all the pages of somewhat informed posts&#33; i have changed my opinion back and forth, and am still on the fence.
and of course im seeking others opinions&#33; keep em comin&#33; tho most of them seem to be the same damn thing, uninformed and biased as hell (but i guess thats what makes it an opinion right?&#33;).
several people have come here with intelligent responses, why have u guys stopped?? :huh:

btw: aight = ebonics, i concede. :P

(and how do u know im not black?) :huh:

Rat Faced
03-21-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by lil_z@21 March 2003 - 22:44
okaaay, AIGHT&#33; :P i said he was pretty convincing, but i cant change my mind? he was convincing, but that doesnt mean im convinced&#33; look at all the pages of somewhat informed posts&#33; i have changed my opinion back and forth, and am still on the fence.
and of course im seeking others opinions&#33; keep em comin&#33; tho most of them seem to be the same damn thing, uninformed and biased as hell (but i guess thats what makes it an opinion right?&#33;).
several people have come here with intelligent responses, why have u guys stopped?? :huh:

btw: aight = ebonics, i concede. :P

(and how do u know im not black?) :huh:
If thats aimed at me then thankyou.......if not then i&#39;ll still tell you.


The War is on....I may not agree with it, but they are MY countrymen out there...and its not THEIR fault they are there, its the politicians.

The least I can do is stop posting anything that may damage their moral.....I just want it over with as quickly as possible..

I have to support the troops.

I have a number of friends amongst them, and there are also members of this board (who, although i do not know them personaly, I consider friends) amongst them.


When its all over.....THEN I will start in again, about the next thing.

Probably not this, as you cant unspill the milk.............

Z
03-21-2003, 11:04 PM
word. (what, too black for ya j2?).
or would u prefer true dat&#33; :P

j2k4
03-21-2003, 11:58 PM
.

j2k4
03-22-2003, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by lil_z@21 March 2003 - 23:44



(and how do u know im not black?) :huh:
You mentioned earlier you were Pakistani.

I ain&#39;t tryin&#39; to pick a fight, lil z-merely seeking clarification. Don&#39;t let it bother you.

Z
03-22-2003, 04:02 AM
i wont, i think this insightful topic is closed. war (or should i say attacks) is/are underway. im actually kind of in shock at the amount of devastation that will arise from this event. the whole fuckin city is gonna be destroyed (along with the rest of the country).i didnt really think about it like that before. i mainly thought of the innnocents, and it looks like a whole lot more innocents are dead than i thought. do u think they will actually rebuild it with the oil money like they say, or start and then never finish, like afghanistan. (wait, did they in afghanistan?). and more choas now with the turks trying ta get a shot in with this oppportunity of weakness. spur of the moment thinking by them (or was this a plan all along?). sorry for all those kurds who will get slaughtered for no reason.
so i guess the topic should not be closed. :P

ClubDiggler
03-22-2003, 04:34 AM
Ping Pong...

Get it?



:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :unsure: :unsure: :blink:

Z
03-22-2003, 04:55 AM
no...

j2k4
03-22-2003, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by lil_z@22 March 2003 - 05:02
i wont, i think this insightful topic is closed. war (or should i say attacks) is/are underway. im actually kind of in shock at the amount of devastation that will arise from this event. the whole fuckin city is gonna be destroyed (along with the rest of the country).i didnt really think about it like that before. i mainly thought of the innnocents, and it looks like a whole lot more innocents are dead than i thought. do u think they will actually rebuild it with the oil money like they say, or start and then never finish, like afghanistan. (wait, did they in afghanistan?). and more choas now with the turks trying ta get a shot in with this oppportunity of weakness. spur of the moment thinking by them (or was this a plan all along?). sorry for all those kurds who will get slaughtered for no reason.
so i guess the topic should not be closed. :P
Keep your ears and eyes peeled for genuine facts-I don&#39;t know what (if any) news source you trust, but I don&#39;t believe in any case we&#39;ll get the goods before we see some kind of reporting from Baghdad.
I think, on balance so far, things are going relatively cleanly, I hope I don&#39;t miss my guess.
The Turkey incursion is a bit of a surprise, and indicative of an intelligence failure/breakdown. Definitely bears watching-although the Kurds have been treated poorly by Saddam, they are, as a group, very unpredictable. The fact we are aware of the mutual animosity between themselves and the Turks, as well as Baghdad, doesn&#39;t help us, they&#39;ve always exhibited the traits of a cornered snake.

It&#39;s still early days-

Z
03-23-2003, 12:41 AM
yes everyone is viewed as unpredictable. my guess in baghdad: the iraqis wait it out and then use chems or a huge unpredicted force of republican guards to create a devastating amount of casualties.
i really hope they bomb the hell out of those military bases b4 they get there.

j2k4
03-23-2003, 01:40 AM
What do you think of the violence and disruptiveness of some of the protesting? I was talking with my wife earlier; she wondered why there is no coverage of some of the supportive rallies (I really hesitate to say pro-war; don&#39;t like the way it sounds)? It occurred to me the our liberal media would love to televise such an event with no sound-just a voice-over comparing it to Hitler&#39;s rallies, complete with accompanying film clips for comparison. I&#39;ve seen perhaps 1% of the coverage devoted to peaceful demonstrations, the rest to the protesters who REALLY WANT YOUR ATTENTION, DAMMIT, and will obstruct you and everything else until they&#39;re hauled off to the slammer. I can&#39;t find an emoticon to symbolize a dumbass-put it on the wishlist with your nekkid woman :lol:

Z
03-23-2003, 01:49 AM
well really, youd think CNN would be showing these "pro-war" rallies, but that might cause too much of an uproar about the media (like people dont see it already?&#33;). (id ont even get CNN, and im glad) i like to get the coverage on this from BBC newsworld or ABC, not as biased as american. seriously tho, no govts care a shit about protests in the international spectrum, even if most of the world takes part. protests are only good for local wrongs or misjudgements. and actually, all the protests we see are in fact anti-war, it overwhelms the others by a huge amount (well over here at least, in the middle east they might want it but cant say it out loud - or is that just how we see it??) and create a good/bad image for the people/govt and their morals.

also, the pics in iraq of surrenders and heartwarming welcomes by the iraqis for the coalition. i agree that tons want saddam out and now probly feel safer cuz theyre away from baghdad (all his real minions are in the city), but do ya think this is exagerrated? and also 8000 surrendering?? was that confirmed? i dunno, but are we getting too much bias over here on the way iraqis now recieve us? whadya think?

j2k4
03-23-2003, 02:29 AM
I only heard 2000 surrendered-too early to tell about the happy greetings.
I did get a kick out of the Iraqi citizen whacking Saddam&#39;s picture with his sandal (this is "horrendously" insulting over there).

ketoprak
03-23-2003, 12:53 PM
SHUT DOWN YOUR TELEVISION&#33;

Everything is controlled by the army. There&#39;s no way to know what&#39;s true and what&#39;s not.

Close your eyes and use your brain. That&#39;s the only thing to do.

j2k4
03-23-2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by ketoprak@23 March 2003 - 13:53
SHUT DOWN YOUR TELEVISION&#33;

Everything is controlled by the army. There&#39;s no way to know what&#39;s true and what&#39;s not.

Close your eyes and use your brain. That&#39;s the only thing to do.
I can use my brain with my eyes (and ears) open.

Whether or not the T.V. is on is of no import.

Z
03-24-2003, 01:58 AM
ok j2 now what about the english plane being shot down. whadya think?

j2k4
03-24-2003, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by lil_z@24 March 2003 - 02:58
ok j2 now what about the english plane being shot down. whadya think?
I think it&#39;s a goddamn shame and heads should roll-

What do you think about our P.O.W. s?

War IS hell.

My fingers remain crossed and I continue to pray.

Z
03-24-2003, 02:38 AM
how did they get the pows? ambush on the shippers?
i think if bush threatens about the pows being safe, theyll hurt them. theyre gonna have a tough fight in baghdad. i predict many casualties. fuckin idiots. bomb those fuckin military bases NOW&#33; (im not usually like this, but theyre not civilians, so ah well). (i dont know what im thinkin lately, ive changed i lil).

u see they know theyre gonna lose, but instead of surrendering, theyre gonna kill as many of us as possible first. damn saddam. they needed to get someone in there and just snuff him, and all the imposters. i wanna play hitman2 now. :P

j2k4
03-24-2003, 11:54 AM
[]

j2k4
03-24-2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by lil_z@24 March 2003 - 03:38
how did they get the pows? ambush on the shippers?
i think if bush threatens about the pows being safe, theyll hurt them. theyre gonna have a tough fight in baghdad. i predict many casualties. fuckin idiots. bomb those fuckin military bases NOW&#33; (im not usually like this, but theyre not civilians, so ah well). (i dont know what im thinkin lately, ive changed i lil).

u see they know theyre gonna lose, but instead of surrendering, theyre gonna kill as many of us as possible first. damn saddam. they needed to get someone in there and just snuff him, and all the imposters. i wanna play hitman2 now. :P
Apparently they ambushed what they call "follow-on" support-in this case, a maintenance company that was behind the main battle column.
I think like you they have to take &#39;em when and where they can, but I think Saddam has his forces and strategies arrayed in such a way as to cause maximum loss of life, because, as you say, he can&#39;t win.

I hope the "humanitarian aid" is well-escorted.

I have one more thing:
Have you ever heard the sixties phrase "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make any noise?"
I have a corollary:
If an event occurs, and the media doesn&#39;t report it, does it actually happen?
I find it helpful to keep this and it&#39;s reverse in mind when ingesting any media output.

Rat Faced
03-24-2003, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+24 March 2003 - 02:23--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 24 March 2003 - 02:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--lil_z@24 March 2003 - 02:58
ok j2 now what about the english plane being shot down.&nbsp; whadya think?
I think it&#39;s a goddamn shame and heads should roll-

What do you think about our P.O.W. s?

War IS hell.

My fingers remain crossed and I continue to pray. [/b][/quote]
I disagree.

Heads should roll over other Blue on Blue (but accidents DO happen, you have to bear this in mind) but not this one.

Patriot is an AUTOMATIC defence system. The accident should be investigated, i agree....however unless the Patriot had been set up incorrectly (unlikely...it fired and there are failsafes), then the mistake is in the communications systems.

ie No one is likely to be at fault with this one.


As to the POWs, my prayers are with them.......but Mr Bush is the one that started this particular TYPE of propaganda (which is against the Geneva Convention) with a certain Camp in Afganistan, and then another in Cuba.

If you condemn Hussain for this, you also have to condemn Bush for doing the same (with many more Prisoners).

Ive been doing that for a long time now :(

Z
03-24-2003, 09:29 PM
but we keep the prisoners according to the geneva convention, dont we?. (i dunno about the taliban in cuba). thats what they say. apparently we give them proper food and medical help. this is what they want us to think, and i would like to continue to think this. it is a possiblity that the iraqis will do the same, but doubtful. i posted a short article in the lounge about the POWs from the gulf war. we&#39;ve got way more POWs, so theyre gonna keep as many as possible, but saddam wont care bout them after. we&#39;ll give them back. will they?

Rat Faced
03-24-2003, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by lil_z@24 March 2003 - 21:29
but we keep the prisoners according to the geneva convention, dont we?. (i dunno about the taliban in cuba). thats what they say. apparently we give them proper food and medical help. this is what they want us to think, and i would like to continue to think this. it is a possiblity that the iraqis will do the same, but doubtful. i posted a short article in the lounge about the POWs from the gulf war. we&#39;ve got way more POWs, so theyre gonna keep as many as possible, but saddam wont care bout them after. we&#39;ll give them back. will they?
George Bush refuses to consider them POWs, despite a ruling from Geneva.


Granted, I dont believe for a second they were ever treated, or will be treated, worse than Coalition POWs...(indeed a lot better)... all of the leading authorities still claim they have been abused of their basic Human Rights.

They have been &#39;paraded&#39; in front of the worlds Media in the same way as the current crop of US prisoners...so in this at least, Bush cant really complain.


Im sure that any Iraqi&#39;s captured will be treated according to the Geneva Convention, we have already been told they will be POWs....or will they?

Have you seen any of them on TV? I believe i have, as part of the general reporting.

Question:

Isnt this also against the Convention, unless their faces are blanked out? You can still identify them, even if its not the &#39;parading&#39; that Iraq is guilty off.

This is a general question...as quite frankly i have no idea...but it certainly would appear so.

If not....then where does the &#39;Freedom of the Press&#39; stop, and &#39;Propaganda&#39; begin?

Z
03-24-2003, 09:50 PM
well u really cant apply freedom of the press to this situation. its being controlled, and they also like to tell us that we are seeing more here than ever before (including the vietnam war). true? i dont think so. and geoge bush refuses to call them POWs? what are they, refugees?&#33; thats funny. they are fuckin bound and lined up on the beach w/ no shoes. but i think we are helping them. did u read the article i posted? wow, thats brutal. we dont do that. no matter what they say about the afghanis. oh no, we have no roof in cuba&#33; ahh, the sun&#33; fuck we have human rights, but the iraqis will lie about this. they (americans) will get brutalized and torchered. some r gonna die. we need ta raid dat shit&#33; its all propaganda, for us and them. even tho they already have a terrible image with their govt. they have patriotism only cuz we&#39;re invading&#33; not cuz of saddam&#33; :angry:

MagicNakor
03-24-2003, 09:58 PM
A number of them are already dead.

Sometimes watching news other than American helps in getting the whole picture.

:ninja:

Z
03-24-2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@24 March 2003 - 22:58
A number of them are already dead.

Sometimes watching news other than American helps in getting the whole picture.

:ninja:
r u tryin to be a smartass? i dont live in the us. i watch BBC newsworld for dis shit. i live in canada. that article is canadian. how many r dead? where did u see this? i havent watched it today so...
and how do they know for sure?? :huh:

MagicNakor
03-24-2003, 10:20 PM
No. I&#39;m not trying to be a smartass.

I live in Canada, as well.

I don&#39;t know how many are dead. Five, perhaps?

If people really want to know, send me a PM and I&#39;ll give you the link.

The footage isn&#39;t exactly..allowed..by the Geneva convention.

:ninja:

Z
03-24-2003, 10:22 PM
really? is it real footage tho?? its not from the news...
wow, thats kinda scary.
:P

MagicNakor
03-24-2003, 10:36 PM
It is real footage. It&#39;s not from American news. It&#39;s off Al-Jazeera.

:ninja:

Z
03-24-2003, 10:43 PM
ok thats gotta be like CNN here&#33; but still, probly real. :P

soopaman
03-25-2003, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@24 March 2003 - 22:58


Sometimes watching news other than American helps in getting the whole picture.




If you want another good online news source try:

" mprofaca.cro.net "

It has excellant links to other media sources as well. Let me know what you think.
:)

MagicNakor
03-25-2003, 12:36 AM
Seems to be alright. Convenient for those who want a bunch of links to different countries&#39; news, although I&#39;m rather limited on time right now and wasn&#39;t able to thoroughly check it out.

:ninja:

Z
03-25-2003, 10:48 PM
havent checked it out yet. thanks tho. :P

WebCheF
03-28-2003, 08:04 AM
For the record, Media has no friends in the U.S. ther are BIG Corps, but the media itself is searching for something of a device to show or reveal the reality of a subject.

Most media will look for lies of the Gov. and mis lead infromation.

That is what the Freedom of Press does for a Democracy.

Read, See, and Hear what you want, but media gives information and opinions, you do the rest....

The U.S. would love to air the misuse of any laws by it&#39;s own Gov&#39;t

But that&#39;s just my view.

WebCheF
03-29-2003, 04:08 AM
For the record, Media has no friends in the U.S. ther are BIG Corps, but the media itself is searching for something of a device to show or reveal the reality of a subject.

Most media will look for lies of the Gov. and mis lead infromation.

That is what the Freedom of Press does for a Democracy.

Read, See, and Hear what you want, but media gives information and opinions, you do the rest....

The U.S. would love to air the misuse of any laws by it&#39;s own Gov&#39;t

But that&#39;s just my view.

Z
03-29-2003, 06:50 AM
guy ure real annoying. i didnt even read your post.

j/j. :P

WebCheF
03-29-2003, 07:28 AM
Lil&#39;z, I was just goofin, I didn&#39;t mean any disrespect.