This Picture Breaks My Heart

[zhelynd]

Please help pray for those who suffered in the war

http://img.top81.com.cn/2/112816.jpg

EDIT: changed this to a link, it is rather graphic. NikkiD

[Whoolley]

It's just sick to post that here.

[imported_computerfreak76]

that pic isnt that bad, but it really didnt affect me at all, guess ive seen too much at rotten.com and bangedup.com.

[Z]

i agree. u should say something in the title. thats gruesome! :P
how do u know thats even from iraq? that could be some suicide bomb or something.
(yes i see the turban).

[NikkiD]

I changed the pic to a link, although I feel the pain portrayed, it is rather graphic.

[zhelynd]

sorry if you found this picture gruesome

I found this picture from another forum, the person who posted this picture
claimed that it is done by the Americans.

However i think what he said is not creditble enough, so I didn't mention it's
American but it's due to war and conflict.

[sAdam]

with no background info, its just some random tragedy completely out of context. what was the point in posting this?

[eng60340]

if you watch the bbc world news.
you will be shown this picture.
unfortunately the picture is cropped such that the injured leg is not shown...


i am pretty pissed with the way cnn is reporting the news.
bbc is a little better.
but i feel that i am not getting the full unbiased picture most times..

too bad i dunno arabic else the al jazeera might be a good alternative.

btw. there's an english version of the website for al jazeera.. unfortunately it is not online now..
probably taken down by the govt.

so much for freedom of speech.

[kAb]

Originally posted by eng60340@25 March 2003 - 23:37
i am pretty pissed with the way cnn is reporting the news.
bbc is a little better.
but i feel that i am not getting the full unbiased picture most times..

too bad i dunno arabic else the al jazeera might be a good alternative.

btw. there's an english version of the website for al jazeera.. unfortunately it is not online now..
probably taken down by the govt.

so much for freedom of speech.
wow. you're pretty anti-establishment.

obviously CNN is reporting only what they are allowed to report, we don't really want the iraqi military to know where are troops are going.

and i don't see why you complain, the fact that you can keep tabs on each battle that occurs, and know the outcome of it in a matter of half hours, is a huge leap in reporting comapared to vietnam or something like that.

al jazeera is the most biased news station ever. i can&#39;t see how it would be better than CNN <_<

and don&#39;t jump to conclusions like "probably taken down by the government" because anybody can translate the al jazeera main page. and if it WAS taken down by the govt., it was probably because they were urging iraqis to fight against the U.S., whereas it would be strategy to take it down.

[alan36uk]

All news in whatever country is edited to a degree.
I myself try not to watch too much as its very upsetting.
I have never seen such pictures on uk television and I hope it
stays that way.The world is in enough turmoil as it is without innocent
children seeing such graphical images.

[Huh?]

That&#39;s pretty fucking sick man. Geeze. :o ;) :blink:

[alan36uk]

Originally posted by Huh?@27 March 2003 - 00:31
That&#39;s pretty fucking sick man. Geeze. :o ;) :blink:
What is ??????

[Huh?]

Not your post, the picture. That&#39;s pretty sick. :blink: :blink:

[the-ninja69]

That is really gross that is fucked up. that leg thing is damn gross omg u sick fucks.

[eng60340]

perhaps you expect war to be

1) US soldiers giving candies to smiling starving iraqi children
2) US putting out oil fires
3) US clearing mines

i would like to point out that NONE of this need to take place if US has been a little more diplomatic.

the truth is.
war is ugly, messy business.

it should be avoided as much as possible.

the way i see it, this war is unjust, illegal and immoral

the iraqis have compromised time and again.
(what ?&#33; you want to check our palaces ? NO &#33; .. ummm. very well then)
(what ?&#33; you want us to disarm our missiles ? NO &#33; .. umm very well then)
and etc.

the goal post just keeps shifting with each compromise.
...
Most of the world can see that it is US that is pushing for war.

.. and now they just want the world to see the nice side of war ?

*disgusted *

[Z]

theres no nice side to war. the us is almost regretting this now. major casualties are comin. tho they cant back out cuz look what it took ta get there. the surrendered soldiers have been let go and are goin back to fight. they dont like saddam, but theyve been invaded. the us wanted it to go quick, but it wont. shit baghdads gonna be demolished completely. more of those pics ta come. (please dont post ne more).
:ph34r:

[soopaman]

Originally posted by eng60340@26 March 2003 - 08:37
if you watch the bbc world news.
you will be shown this picture.
unfortunately the picture is cropped such that the injured leg is not shown...


i am pretty pissed with the way cnn is reporting the news.
bbc is a little better.
but i feel that i am not getting the full unbiased picture most times..

too bad i dunno arabic else the al jazeera might be a good alternative.

btw. there&#39;s an english version of the website for al jazeera.. unfortunately it is not online now..
probably taken down by the govt.

so much for freedom of speech.

There is a site on the web that has an English Language version of Al-Jazeera T.V. it&#39;s called :

mprofaca.cro.net

If I was any good with a computer I&#39;d post a link, but I&#39;ve just got in from work and I&#39;m fuckin&#39; knackered&#33;&#33;

I posted this adddress in another thread the other day, it&#39;s a massive site 500,000 pages, plus it has excellant links to other news resources. I&#39;d give this site a look if I were you. Hope this helps a bit.

By the way, the posted picture was pretty gory but I&#39;ve seen worse in my time. Pictures of bulldozers at Auschwitz, Belsen, etc. The Japanese occupation of Manchuria.

I think the coverage of the war on British T.V has been very disappointing, but it&#39;s more evenhanded than C.N.N which I catch on satellite. C.N.N seems to only see it from the American point of view. .News should be unbiased, a difficult thing nowadays. :(

[MagicNakor]

It&#39;s been a very long time since there&#39;s been a long war. In all seriousness, most of you probably don&#39;t remember one. Most of what&#39;s "known" about war is now from Hollywood movies, video games, and old footage, perhaps to a lesser extent certain books, but they too are falling into disuse.

Lest we forget.

:ninja:

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by soopaman@27 March 2003 - 09:20
I think the coverage of the war on British T.V has been very disappointing, but it&#39;s more evenhanded than C.N.N which I catch on satellite. C.N.N seems to only see it from the American point of view. .News should be unbiased, a difficult thing nowadays. :(
News has never been unbiased. To get an unbiased opinion takes sifting through many different sources, filtering out that bias, and soaking the truths in, in which case you apply your personal bias to it.

:ninja:

[soopaman]

Originally posted by MagicNakor+27 March 2003 - 09:26--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor @ 27 March 2003 - 09:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--soopaman@27 March 2003 - 09:20
I think the coverage of the war on British T.V has been very disappointing, but it&#39;s more evenhanded than C.N.N which I catch on satellite. C.N.N seems to only see it from the American point of view. .News should be unbiased, a difficult thing nowadays. :(
News has never been unbiased. To get an unbiased opinion takes sifting through many different sources, filtering out that bias, and soaking the truths in, in which case you apply your personal bias to it.

:ninja: [/b][/quote]

I did say "should be unbiased" I didn&#39;t say it wasn&#39;t&#33;&#33;
I do try to read at least 4 Daily newspapers, watch a couple of hours of news a day (both national and international) and read through reams of shit on the net. You are right to say that you should make your own mind up, I agree entirely. Maybe some of the "younger" or "less read" members should consult more than the first image that hits their retina, or at least think about it for a bit&#33;&#33;

:flame:Flame On&#33;&#33;&#33;:flame:

Or if you&#39;re called Zardoz spew the first inanities that come into your, for want of a better word, mind. A mind which seems to thrive on provocation and attention&#33;&#33;

Cheers.

:ninja:

[ketoprak]

I should say that French television is doing this time an excellent job, maybe because the country is not involved in the war. They use sources from both sides, they criticize the images they receive, they put them in the context of the ongoing &#39;psychological war&#39;.

It&#39;s the first time I see them doing their job seriously. If you understand French, you should watch the news on TV5, even if you disagree with the disastrous position of our government.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by soopaman@27 March 2003 - 09:44
...I did say "should be unbiased" I didn&#39;t say it wasn&#39;t&#33;&#33;...

A misinterpretation then. ;) Since you had said previously news should be unbiased, and that this was difficult in today&#39;s era, it suggested that at one point it was unbiased. Good that you read a lot, though. :)

:ninja:

[puremindmatters]

I think that it is very important that especially young people see that war means suffering, that it is not a video game and what the word "casualties" really means.

As a mere figure, they might look as acceptable or unavoidable as we can comprehend or think to comprehend.
As a picture like this, you start to understand what it really means. Another important thing to understand is that soldiers being killed and maimed are also human beings, with families and futures which are destroyed - they are victims too.

As long as we manage to close our eyes to the real face of war we manage to justify it more easily. That of course is why the US media aren&#39;t particularly keen on pictures like that and are not showing them, for they feel it would give the wrong message and could undermine the morale and support for the troops - the BBC is a little more balanced and has more trust in the ability of their viewers to form their own opinions.
Some of the arabic stations are trying to balance out what they perceive as lopsided reporting of the western media.
None of the media coverage can really show and give you a feeling for what war is really like. You would have to be there. No picture of a destroyed building can give you an idea of the feelings of people who were next to the building when it exploded who might not have been hit or injured physically, especially if they are children. Read the UNICEF reports.

Memories of WW2 still haunt people who have lived through it, although it happened more than 50 years ago. I know that from personal experience, since I have dealings with many elderly people through my line of work. My mum for instance has been raped as a 14 year old by 12 Russian soldiers and had to flee from her place of birth, never being able to return, her boyfriend has survived Stalingrad and was a POW for 5 years thereafter. He has told me that no movie of Stalingrad can tell you what it feels like if one of your friends is slowly bleeding to death in your arms. That they were on the wrong side doesn&#39;t matter. The wounds the war has inflicted on them have never healed completely. War is not troop movements, victories and defeat. It&#39;s a human tragedy, created by people who tell us what is unavoidable, necessary and just in their view. It is faceless and abstract as long as manage to keep it that way. For those who have to live through it, it is something else. No-one has asked the "casualties" if they were willing to pay that price for what others think was necessary to procure their freedom.

I hope and pray that the war will be over soon and that everyone makes an effort to understand what is happening without closing their eyes and hearts.

[soopaman]

If you want a couple of good, relevant books to read try these:

BioHazard by Ken Alibek

Unholy Babylon by Adel Darwish and Gregory Alexander

BioHazard is written by the former Head of the Soviet Bio Weapons Programme. He says, and I&#39;m paraphrasing here, that after the break-up of the Soviet Union at least a 1/3 of his research scientists went to work for Saddam Hussein. Other than that, the book is so fucking interesting and really quite scary. On a related subject try The Hot Zone by Richard Preston about U.S Bio Weapons research. Another very scary book.
Unholy Babylon is about the Wests support both blatant and covert in the years preceding the Gulf War and after it. Quite thought provoking.

Is there a books section on this Forum? If not, why not? Computers, Music, Games and Films ain&#39;t everything&#33;&#33;

:ph34r:

[ketoprak]

Talking about books and Stalingrad... you should read Vassily Grossman&#39;s &#39;Life and Destiny&#39; (not sure of the English title). It&#39;s a very good novel about war & about dictatorial systems.

[ParanoiA-]

I don&#39;t know what some ppl spect to see, but this is a war. Maybe that censure in the states and manipulated information doesn&#39;t allow them to see the full picture. There won&#39;t be any doubt to shoot innocent ppl or send a bomb to the market to kill civilians. That&#39;s the truth.

Edit: typo

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by soopaman@27 March 2003 - 10:45
...Is there a books section on this Forum? If not, why not? Computers, Music, Games and Films ain&#39;t everything&#33;&#33;

:ph34r:
There may be soon. :D

:ninja:

[kAb]

Originally posted by eng60340@26 March 2003 - 23:47
perhaps you expect war to be

1) US soldiers giving candies to smiling starving iraqi children
2) US putting out oil fires
3) US clearing mines

i would like to point out that NONE of this need to take place if US has been a little more diplomatic.

the truth is.
war is ugly, messy business.

it should be avoided as much as possible.

the way i see it, this war is unjust, illegal and immoral

the iraqis have compromised time and again.
(what ?&#33; you want to check our palaces ? NO &#33; .. ummm. very well then)
(what ?&#33; you want us to disarm our missiles ? NO &#33; .. umm very well then)
and etc.

the goal post just keeps shifting with each compromise.
...
Most of the world can see that it is US that is pushing for war.

.. and now they just want the world to see the nice side of war ?

*disgusted *
i don&#39;t expect war to be any of those three, however, aid is being delivered to starving iraqi children <_<

all of this must take place, as saddam does not provide food to his people, and is extremely stalinist. why did it take so long to let inspectors in? o wait, to hide everything.

there are no iraqis giving their input about the war, let me tell you why. Most of them greet the war, but if they were to say that, they would be publicly executed. a woman who waved to british forces was hung in the middle of the city. there are no protests, because if you disagree with saddam, then you are killed. why do the iraqis have 3000 chemical suits and nerve gas antidotes? surely they aren&#39;t expecting the U.S. to use nerve gas, who would use it then? o wait... maybe saddam, who would also use it on his own people.

i&#39;m sure you didn&#39;t read all that, but whatever, get a stronger defense and then reply.

edit: o and the english aljazeera site was hacked by hackers in protest of them showing the executed POW&#39;S, the site was replaced with and american flag :lol:

we have hundreds of Iraqi POW&#39;S, but we don&#39;t publicly execute them or execute them at all <_<

[eng60340]

some points to take note.
i agree.

1) saddam is a dictator
2) saddam used WMD on his people 12+ yrs ago
3) saddam had and still has WMD.

-----
but that doesn&#39;t justify a war that could potentially
1) kill many civilians because of guns/missiles
2) kill many civilians because of lack of water/food/hygiene/disease
3) destroy infrastructure of iraq

what has our saddam done in the past 12 years ?
he is in a box. trying his best to take revenge..
but he can&#39;t &#33; cos the US has brought UN inspectors to disrupt his progress&#33;

--
guess who will be paying for the war cost at the end of the day ??
probably lots of american companies will get lucrative transport,reconstruction, oil contracts..

i suspect the iraqi pple will have to pay for the cost of the invasion, rebuilding of infrastructures etc. to "thank" the invaders for liberating them.


this war is an invasion.

the iraqi people do not welcome democracy that comes from the wings of tomahawk missiles &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

..
i assert that there is a better way to deal with iraq rather than war. it&#39;s costly (dollars/lives) and also.
1) it does not solve the root cause of american resentment
2) gives precendent for america&#39;s to "liberate" ANY nation they don&#39;t like
3) will probably result in more terrorism. ( unless america can DESTORY and subjugate ALL rogue nations... more wars? )

[kAb]

Originally posted by eng60340@27 March 2003 - 16:30
but that doesn&#39;t justify a war that could potentially
1) kill many civilians because of guns/missiles
2) kill many civilians because of lack of water/food/hygiene/disease
3) destroy infrastructure of iraq

what has our saddam done in the past 12 years ?
he is in a box. trying his best to take revenge..
but he can&#39;t &#33; cos the US has brought UN inspectors to disrupt his progress&#33;

--
guess who will be paying for the war cost at the end of the day ??
probably lots of american companies will get lucrative transport,reconstruction, oil contracts..

i suspect the iraqi pple will have to pay for the cost of the invasion, rebuilding of infrastructures etc. to "thank" the invaders for liberating them.


this war is an invasion.

the iraqi people do not welcome democracy that comes from the wings of tomahawk missiles &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

..
i assert that there is a better way to deal with iraq rather than war. it&#39;s costly (dollars/lives) and also.
1) it does not solve the root cause of american resentment
2) gives precendent for america&#39;s to "liberate" ANY nation they don&#39;t like
3) will probably result in more terrorism. ( unless america can DESTORY and subjugate ALL rogue nations... more wars? )
1) Civilians are killed publicly on a daily basis for their opposing views of saddam (their children to)
2) if iraqi men do not enter the war, their familes are executed and then they are executed
3) civilians die on a daily basis because of lack of food/water/hygiene/disease
4) there is no infrastructure of iraq.

America is currently trying to take on the responsibility of rebuilding iraq (they actually don&#39;t want any help). and since America is the largest economy of the world, this will happen easily. there is an oil for food program where any oil that american companies buy, the money must be used to provide food to the iraqi people.

1) most of the other countries hate America because they are JEALOUS
2) who said america doesn&#39;t like iraq? america doesn&#39;t like saddam and his army in control of iraq. many countries need liberating to a democracy
3 if you don&#39;t do anything, the threat of terrorism is even higher.

[Z]

atta boy.

[zhelynd]

Originally posted by kAb@28 March 2003 - 04:42
1) Civilians are killed publicly on a daily basis for their opposing views of saddam (their children to)
2) if iraqi men do not enter the war, their familes are executed and then they are executed
3) civilians die on a daily basis because of lack of food/water/hygiene/disease
4) there is no infrastructure of iraq.
===================================
=====================================

Iraq is definitely not the only country exercising dictatorship, freeing the iraqis people from the "evil hands" of saddam is a terrible excuse. Because if US is so rightous, maybe Bush should also get rid of North Korea, free Tibet, and overthrow some other mid-east and african governments.

The only reason Iraq is so signaficant to the US is because of the oil, Columbia is a country overrun by drug lords and terrorists, did the US ever give a shit about that?

And from my point of view, other countries hate america not because of jealousy, it&#39;s because of america&#39;s aggresive foreign policy. And thats what causes hatred and terrorism, people sacrifise their lives to blow up the twin towers, you won&#39;t do that unless you are being pushed to the edge of a cliff. (and i never meant what the terrorists did is right)

[fallenknight308]

War is hell&#33; The civilian populations suffer the backlash of combat, the stray bullets, bombs, ect.
An old proverb says: "when a stampede of cattle charges, it is only the grass that suffers"
I too agree our foreign policy is to blame for the anger that these people feel.
bin laden stated that if we back their enemy (israel) we are an enemy as well.
I truly hope this will all be over quickly, but I have feeling it won&#39;t be, we could
be fighting pockets of resistance in iraq for months or more&#33; :o

[kAb]

columbia is a scary place, i think that is why the U.S. is avoiding it. what can the U.S. do about it? the whole battle would be gureilla warfare and thousands of americans would be killed

terrorists kill themselves cause they&#39;re fuckin retards. they think that they get to fuck virgins in heaven if they kill americans.

[Ardor]

columbia is a scary place, i think that is why the U.S. is avoiding it. what can the U.S. do about it? the whole battle would be gureilla warfare and thousands of americans would be killed

That&#39;s the point isn&#39;t it? The US only attacks where it profits them in some way. In other words, this war is not related to freeing Iraq at all, rather to creating a base for further business with middle-east.


terrorists kill themselves cause they&#39;re fuckin retards. they think that they get to fuck virgins in heaven if they kill americans.

Yes (All ) religion is a very simplistic way of looking at life. But when are people the most religious? When times are bad, during death, harsh conditions, etc. The Middle-East is a surpressed area of the world. Not only by the dictators running the different countries, but also by the West supporting those dictators. Saddam is by far not the only one, but one of the only who refuses to work with the US. You&#39;ll notice that in Bush&#39;s &#39;Axis of Evil&#39; all the governments have some sort of anti-american sentiment.

They are portrayed as dictators, but sanctions (imposed by the West) make it relatively easy to supress one&#39;s people. Read Raed&#39;s Blog (http://dearraed.blogspot.com/), the account of an Iraqi citizen reflecting on the war and it&#39;s reasons. He talks about the effects of sanctions on the Iraqi people.

You may ask on how the West profits on surpressed nations. In order to keep oil-prices low, the resources used (labour) to excravate oil, needs to be as low as possible. By giving people education they will cost more and bring instability to the rest of the world. By giving them an education, they may start to specialise in services, offer competition to Western companies, also not in the interest of the West.

Somebody here mentioned that TV is not showing everything, in order not to protect the Army&#39;s position. That is partially correct, but it is also used to keep American support high. Last time I checked the sentiment is 66% for. It needs to remain that high, making Bush&#39;s campaign of death legitimate in the eyes of the American people.

Just my 2 cents...

[Rat Faced]

why do the iraqis have 3000 chemical suits and nerve gas antidotes? surely they aren&#39;t expecting the U.S. to use nerve gas, who would use it then? o wait... maybe saddam, who would also use it on his own people


Probably the same reason EVERY ARMY IN THE WORLD is equiped with NBC suites and Antropine.........and im talking every soldier here.


Even the National Guard in the USA and the TA in UK have them....and probably every other reserve force in the world. Its standard issue gear.


If they only found 3000, out of all those Iraqi&#39;s they have captured, it actually shows that the Iraqi&#39;s are NOT prepared for chemical/bio attack.


God i hate Black Propaganda; using your logic the Coalition forces MUST be gonna use chemicals...as they have about 250,000 NBC suites and millions of shots of Antropine.

[zhelynd]

Hey I heard that appx. 60% of frontline soldreds in the US army are black is that true?

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by zhelynd@26 March 2003 - 01:01
Please help pray for those who suffered in the war

http://img.top81.com.cn/2/112816.jpg

EDIT: changed this to a link, it is rather graphic. NikkiD
That should not have been posted here.

Its pretty bad. Thanks NiKKiD for changing it to a link.

Its not disturbing though.
Sad but not disturbingly so.
The child is alive in that photo and can be saved.

There was a video though of an afganistan field exocution of a russian soldier that is quite disturbing. hauntingly so.

I wish I had never seen it because the image will stay with me the rest of my life.

An Afganistani was demonstrating how easy it is to kill a man.
He had a young, (18, 19), russian soldier pinned to the ground by holding his foot on the soldiers head.
While another Afgan watched and a third one filmed, he took a razor sharp field knife and easily pushed it down into the side of the soldier&#39;s throat behind the jugular and windpipe.
The soldier was begging for his life the whole time and when the knife plunged in, you heard the gurgled sound of a surprised soldier who suddenly realized he would certainly die.
Then the afgan cuts forward through the rest of the windpipe and jugular and the video ends.
There is another video that uses part of that one with the remainder faked, which attempts to show that the original was faked.
If you ever see the original, you will know it was not fake.
The most gruesome movie cannot duplicate this. Even with the best computer animation.

And who would want to?

The video looked to be either a terrorist training video or possibly an attempt to show the enemy what to expect.

In either case, I will never let my son see it, or even mention its existance.

Nor anyone I care about.

I mention it here because I think it is important for the world to know the evil we are up against.

I&#39;d be willing to bet that Bush has seen this video.

Saddam and his regime are part of a dieing mentality in the world.
Not the middle east...The World.

A mentality that believes that this kind of action against human beings is acceptable, ever.

I have said in other posts that All is fair in Love and War.

I don&#39;t believe that Should be true, but I think our Military leaders need to stop focusing on whether or not the Baath party is following acceptable conventions, and get on with the war.
Geneva violations are best left for the politicians to deal with.

Soldiers should simply be prepared for anything.

Peace

[kAb]

Originally posted by Ardor@29 March 2003 - 04:56
That&#39;s the point isn&#39;t it? The US only attacks where it profits them in some way. In other words, this war is not related to freeing Iraq at all, rather to creating a base for further business with middle-east.
places like columbia are useless to try to fix. they aren&#39;t a threat to us. they don&#39;t have nerve gas missiles. places like iraq are a huge threat to us, and we have the chance to stop it.

take a look at ivory coast, in the past few months things have gotten crazy. the peace corps were in there, but they were pulled out because of how dangerous things were about to get. now every day is a huge gun battle, and trying to set up a government there would be suicidal.

So in a way, the U.S. liberates countries in the order of their interest. but you can&#39;t deny that the iraqi people need liberating.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by kAb+29 March 2003 - 18:19--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kAb @ 29 March 2003 - 18:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ardor@29 March 2003 - 04:56
That&#39;s the point isn&#39;t it? The US only attacks where it profits them in some way. In other words, this war is not related to freeing Iraq at all, rather to creating a base for further business with middle-east.
places like columbia are useless to try to fix. they aren&#39;t a threat to us. they don&#39;t have nerve gas missiles. places like iraq are a huge threat to us, and we have the chance to stop it.

take a look at ivory coast, in the past few months things have gotten crazy. the peace corps were in there, but they were pulled out because of how dangerous things were about to get. now every day is a huge gun battle, and trying to set up a government there would be suicidal.

So in a way, the U.S. liberates countries in the order of their interest. but you can&#39;t deny that the iraqi people need liberating. [/b][/quote]
Very well said, Kab.

We can&#39;t fix all the problems in the world all at once.
But we have to begin somewhere.
Iraq is a good place to start this time.

Things would change alot if more people would worry about the things they can fix and stop wasting time with things that are beyond their ability.

Peace to you dude

[Ardor]

Originally posted by kAb@30 March 2003 - 00:19
So in a way, the U.S. liberates countries in the order of their interest. but you can&#39;t deny that the iraqi people need liberating.
Well that&#39;s all I&#39;m saying. But let&#39;s get it straight, liberation is not no.1 on the agenda, Iraq does NOT have weapons that could reach the US, and it is not the moral war the way so many and Bush like to portray it. That is just plain self-deceit in order to justify the war.

Here&#39;s an interesting theory for the war: 2 years ago Iraq changed the currency for her Oil from &#036;&#036; to €€. Other Arabic Nations have been considering to change as well or have already changed. As a result the US economy became disadvantaged compared to Europe. The Euro has been rising, and the Dollar sinking, reccession hits, America needs a solution.

Like magic, the WTC gets hit. Reasons go unexplored, instead any action towards the &#39;terrorist&#39; nations becomes legitimized and the Bush & Co. have their solution: Appease the American tourists by bombing Afghansistan where Osama may (&#33;) be hiding, and then go after the real target, the guy who&#39;s been financing terrorism in Palestine (Bush has many Jewish voters), the guy who tried to kill Bush senior in 1993, the guy who dares to sell his oil for Euros&#33;

Then, when Cheney (who mysteriously got the contract 6 months ago&#33;) restores the oil-plants, somehow sets it up that oil is traded in Dollars again and gone is the recession and the world is at peace. In the meantime, Israel, knowing that Bush will not go against them and his American-Jewish voters/money, allows the selling of vaccation-homes on the occupied West-Bank territories (True story&#33;) and we are back where it started.

Feel free to slag a theory, for that is all it is&#33; But don&#39;t sell me the sh*t about being liberators, because that is also just another unproven theory&#33;

It&#39;s a sad day for humanity when Patriotism (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=58085) really has become a different word for fascism (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=28083) ie. not accepting the views of others.

[eng60340]

We can&#39;t fix all the problems in the world all at once.
But we have to begin somewhere.
Iraq is a good place to start this time.

---------
statements like this.. is not good.

i hope this is not how you truly feel.
cos&#39; if a lot of americans feel this way.

a lot of countries could be invaded under the pretext of liberation.

.....
i watched the news. bbc calls it war in iraq.
mnbc calls it operation iraqi freedom

.... very sad. very very sad. :(

==
it&#39;s fortunate that the war is not so successful.
if it were. then bush would be bolstered and proceed to invade countries
like iran,syria,korea. and what not.

i don&#39;t know much about history.
but i think the japanese still think that wwii occured because the japanese were liberating the South east asian from their colonial masters.

---

i used to be quite pro american.
nowadays. i rejoice when i hear americans suffer setbacks.

it&#39;s not that i support saddam. but i just feel that the amercian arrogance need some restrain.
(i am not the only one..i was surprise when a friend of mine also expressed similiar rejoice sentiments; he too was pro US in the past)

Clinton was a great president who has created goodwill and budget surplus for US. Bush... well. He squandered everything.
Let&#39;s hope MR COWBOY will not get re-elected and normality will return to the world.

[kAb]

:angry: :angry: yes i&#39;m sure the u.s. government did sept 11 to raise the dollar.

i spit in your face ardor.

as for you english60340:

many countries must awaken to the new world of democracy and equality.

I completely agree with ne1GotZardoz&#39;s statement that Iraq is a good place to start (i&#39;m glad to see someone else that is also as sensible as me).

but eng60340, what would happen if we just sat back and didn&#39;t do anything? We allow Iraq to get more WoMD, he uses them against major U.S. cities. And according to what you want, we still don&#39;t do anything, and they will not attack us? BULLSHIT. They hate us (mostly because they don&#39;t live here), and they continue to kill innocent civilians. And then Saddam continues to slaughter his own people.

Have you ever studied Stalin? compare him to Saddam and it is scary at how closely related they appear. Their actions are almost completely identical. The only reason Saddam is not killing as many people as stalin is because there are less in Iraq. The U.S.A. had the chance to stop Russia, but it would result in the Earth&#39;s destruction. Saddam is doing the same thing, but it won&#39;t result in the Earth&#39;s destruction. Tell me, do we allow Saddam to continue?

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by eng60340@29 March 2003 - 22:35
We can&#39;t fix all the problems in the world all at once.
But we have to begin somewhere.
Iraq is a good place to start this time.

---------
statements like this.. is not good.

i hope this is not how you truly feel.
cos&#39; if a lot of americans feel this way.

a lot of countries could be invaded under the pretext of liberation.

.....
i watched the news. bbc calls it war in iraq.
mnbc calls it operation iraqi freedom

.... very sad. very very sad. :(

==
it&#39;s fortunate that the war is not so successful.
if it were. then bush would be bolstered and proceed to invade countries
like iran,syria,korea. and what not.

i don&#39;t know much about history.
but i think the japanese still think that wwii occured because the japanese were liberating the South east asian from their colonial masters.

---

i used to be quite pro american.
nowadays. i rejoice when i hear americans suffer setbacks.

it&#39;s not that i support saddam. but i just feel that the amercian arrogance need some restrain.
(i am not the only one..i was surprise when a friend of mine also expressed similiar rejoice sentiments; he too was pro US in the past)

Clinton was a great president who has created goodwill and budget surplus for US. Bush... well. He squandered everything.
Let&#39;s hope MR COWBOY will not get re-elected and normality will return to the world.
Eng,

Are you suggesting that its a GOOD thing for a regime to believe terrorism is &#39;ok&#39;?

And that we should just, &#39;let them be&#39;, because it&#39;s their choice to torture people?

Are you suggesting that Saddam is the "good guy" in this?

That the Fedayeen is persuing some noble cause as it stakes a man out on a street and cuts out his tongue?

Are you one of those people who looked the other way when my father was drunk and used a leather belt like a whip? Beating me until I bled then some more for good measure?

Do you quietly turn off your light, close your door and go back inside your one room apartment when you see a drugged out mother push her daughter down the stairs because &#39;the kid just wouldn&#39;t shut up&#39;?

Do you turn up your radio to drown out the screams of a housewife who is being raped upstairs by a guy who has been watching and waiting for just the right moment?

It is fortunate for you that not everyone is so apathetic.

Otherwise, you would not be so safe in your private world.

Peace to you.
Everyone needs peace.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by Ardor@29 March 2003 - 21:09
Iraq does NOT have weapons that could reach the US
Hmmm...Someone has selective memory here.

You have convieniently forgotten about 9/11.

You have forgotten about the anthrax letters.

Pity for you that no-one else has.

Peace

[eng60340]

read this folks.
http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNatio...nalysis301.html (http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/Today/Comment/News_Analysis301.html)

News_Analysis
Sunday, March 30, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUNNY BINDRA
They see no blood but chessboard

And so we have a war. If you listen to American President George W. Bush, this is a noble war, indeed. It is about freeing Iraqis from the shackles of a cruel dictator. It is about creating a model for democracy in the Middle East. It is about eliminating terrorism from its roots.

Don’t listen to this stuff too early in the morning; you may lose your breakfast. If you believe America is merely reacting to the horrific, unprovoked terrorism emanating from Arab nations, here’s something interesting to consider. The author George Monbiot recently chronicled the activities of the Project for the New American Century, a pressure group established by, among others, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and Paul Wolfowitz. These gentlemen are now high-profile members of the US Government, and have been instrumental in orchestrating the lead-up to the war.

More than five years ago, these men urged the "removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power". They stated, even then, that "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."

In 2000, their inner plan was seeing light. A confidential report said: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." The wider strategic aim was "maintaining global US pre-eminence".

These people are in power now, and their elevation made this war truly inevitable. Saddam is merely a pawn whose previous atrocities made him an easy target. September 11 provided the excuse and the means to rally Americans behind this madness. Iraq is merely step one. The ultimate goal is ‘full-spectrum dominance’ by the US. America will feel the backlash to this leadership for generations to come.

Britain is another country that has been championing the war. Listen to Prime Minister Tony Blair: "These tyrannical states do not care for the sanctity of human life". And: "(We shall) put the money from Iraqi oil in a UN trust fund so that it benefits Iraq and no-one else". I believe him; don’t you?

Consider the activities of an earlier British Government in Iraq. The Guardian newspaper revealed recently that a chemical plant that the US says is a key component in Iraq’s chemical warfare arsenal was secretly built by Britain in 1985. Documents show that ministers in Mrs Margaret Thatcher’s government knew that the Falluja 2 chlorine plant was likely to be used for mustard and nerve gas production. Yet, the ministers secretly gave insurance guarantees to the British company involved. Why? Because, said Mr Paul Channon, then Trade minister: "A ban would do our other trade prospects with Iraq no good".

And so Saddam went on to develop lethal gases and use them on Kurds and Iranians. And the British ministers sat back and commended themselves on protecting British trade prospects.

So when their leaders speak to us of "the sanctity of human life", we know to which humans they refer: as the war broke out last week, the Queen of England excelled herself in saying that she would be praying for the British troops involved.

You’ll forgive me, then, for taking the words of these oh-so-righteous moralisers with truckloads of salt. How they wax lyrical in their moral crusade now, when the same demon Saddam was their favourite Arab in the 1980s&#33; How gallantly they come dashing in on their white chargers to rid the world of evil&#33; The same evil they were busy installing and supporting not so long ago.

Let’s state facts. This war is about flexing US muscles. It is merely a warm-up exercise in a bigger game. It is the pre-cursor to total domination of the Middle East and its oil reserves. Iraq is a pitifully easy target on which to practice.

As for Messrs Bush and Blair’s concern for the Iraqi people: please. They do not give a flying damn about those unfortunate Arabs. We were told the same thing about the even more unfortunate Afghans: That they had to be bombed to smithereens in order to liberate them from an evil regime. That the US’s main concern was the well being of the ordinary people. But having effected the regime change, does the US care about the poor old Afghans?

World Bank President James Wolfensohn recently bemoaned the lack of aid money flowing in to help rebuild Afghanistan. Such is the lack of US concern for that blighted and barren land that the drug lords are taking over again. The Taliban at least banned the cultivation of opium; today, Mr Wolfensohn estimates that three-quarters of all European heroin comes from Afghanistan. Poor Afghanistan: It has no oil, you see. The Americans flattened it and moved on.

The sad thing is that the people who orchestrate these wars feel no personal repercussions. The likes of Bush and Blair have never seen combat, have never lain under a bed wondering if the sound of the screaming missile overhead is the last thing they will hear. But they happily despatch their troops to do these monstrous things on their behalf. To the families of those who meet a grisly end, they offer the meaningless comfort that their sons died in a noble cause. To the bombed-out Afghans and Iraqis, they offer food and medicine. It’s that easy to wipe out the stain.

When you and I stare at the TV screen and see the carnage, we feel something. We see that blood-soaked child in the arms of its screaming mother, and we want to cry with her.

They see no blood and hear no screams. They see only a chessboard, on which they play their games of domination.

Who will protect us from these people? We must protect ourselves. This war has the lowest level of international support since Vietnam. It is co-ordinated by a motley crew of reprobates: some unhinged by the smell of power, others just dangerously stupid. We must stand up and be counted in our opposition to them. Booker-Prize winning writer Arundhati Roy put it well: "Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them."

Mr Bindra is a writer and management consultant in Nairobi.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by eng60340@30 March 2003 - 00:17
read this folks.
http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNatio...nalysis301.html (http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/Today/Comment/News_Analysis301.html)

News_Analysis
Sunday, March 30, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUNNY BINDRA
They see no blood but chessboard


Writers and pundits.

Conspiracy theories.

And still, Saddam&#39;s regime kills innocent children with grenade launcher in the streets when their parents try to get them to safety.

I am sorry for you sir.

In the light of truth, you still have your head stuck in underlying themes.

There are always underlying themes.

Don&#39;t you know anything about yourself?

Everything you do has several different motivations, benifits and drawbacks.

A worm benifits a farmer by loosening the soil.

When writers write about the lowly worm, that is what they refer to.
Do you think the worm is thinking about the good he does for the farmer as he busily digests the tiny microbes and decaying plant matter in the soil?

Just because there are other benifits to our liberation of Iraq does not mean that is the main theme.
Doesn&#39;t even mean Bush considered it before he was questioned on it.
It only means those benifits exist and a writer somewhere recognized them.
There are many reason for wanting stability in the middle east.
And yes. Of course they benifit us.
They benifit the whole world.

Except of course for you and Saddam Hussein&#39;s regime.

Peace

[xandariel]

I think it&#39;s time for Americans to wake up and smell the stink of their so-called moral righteousness. It is extremely nauseating to hear yet another time the moral need for what they do. Does Bush think people are stupid and that they can&#39;t hear the irony in what he says?


Are you suggesting that Saddam is the "good guy" in this?


No, we&#39;re saying that right now, U.S. is the bad guy, the worst possible kind, the kind that pretends to be kind and good while doing the most heinous of acts. "I don&#39;t want to do this but&#33;"

I don&#39;t for one second believe that U.S. is doing this to save that "raped housewife." It seems that U.S is just waiting to have a go at her himself.

The worst of it is that you people BELIEVE all this... propagandistic CRAP by the US government in the face of the obvious (refer article posted by eng about oiless Afghanistan). It is worse than terrorism. You&#39;re never in the wrong are you? Of course not, if they are not with you, they are retards.


terrorists kill themselves cause they&#39;re fuckin retards. they think that they get to fuck virgins in heaven if they kill americans.


See what I mean? Thank you for illustrating my point about the arrogance, ignorance and immaturity spewed by many Americans.

[kAb]

Originally posted by xandariel@29 March 2003 - 21:45
See what I mean? Thank you for illustrating my point about the arrogance, ignorance and immaturity spewed by many Americans.
its true&#33;&#33;

look it up. like i did.

how is my hating them make me arrogant, ignorant, and immature? those motherfuckers kill people everyday. Have you also forgotten about sept. 11?

[zhelynd]

Kab, I think you lack the understanding of people&#39;s intention.

People don&#39;t kill themselves to blow up the world trade center because they are jealous of Americans. Think of that you guys have military bases all over the world, pushing others to do the "american way", and intervening other countries&#39; internal affairs, this is why some part of the world hated the americans so much.

If Americans refuse to look into these facts, they will face many more 9-11 to come in future years wether saddamn or bin ladden is alive or dead.

[puremindmatters]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz+30 March 2003 - 06:14--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 30 March 2003 - 06:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ardor@29 March 2003 - 21:09
Iraq does NOT have weapons that could reach the US
Hmmm...Someone has selective memory here.

You have convieniently forgotten about 9/11.

You have forgotten about the anthrax letters.

Pity for you that no-one else has.

Peace [/b][/quote]
Well, I would assume sending WMD by mail wouldn&#39;t prove particularly effective.

I know that this conception is wide-spread amongst Americans, but how do you think this war can make you feel safer in the future as far as terrorist attacks are concerned? I think what you achieved so far is to enrage the Arabs even more, who cannot take part in the conflict because their governments prevent them from doing so. People filled with frustration and hate are usually an excellent pool for terrorists to draw sources from, be it volunteers or support. Bin Laden is no Iraqi, and his terrorists are an international bunch, recruited from all parts of the region.

Since 1991 the Iraqi military was reduced to 1/3 of its original size. You can clearly see by the disadvantages in conventional battles that they had no chance of modernising their weaponry. So the weapons embargo was effective on the large scale. There were no targets in the area he could have attacked with the force he had - when he attacked Iran and Kuwait unsuccessfully before he was in a completely different position. There were no signs whatsoever that he planned to do so.

The only reason to attack him which cannot be denied is that he is a cruel, ruthless dictator who is suppressing the larger part of the population in his country. It may be true that this tyranny cannot be overthrown by the people of Iraq on their own - there was the chance to support them when they had risen in 1991, but no-one did. I find the whole business of trying to justify this conflict using the behaviour of the regime now pretty lame - everyone knew before that he was ruthless and didn&#39;t care much about human life. The current attempt to make him look like a terrorist because of the tactics his fanatics employ is like poking an already beaten dog with sticks and then saying: Didn&#39;t we tell you that he bites?

Most decent people in the world would readily agree if you asked them whether it&#39;d be better to remove a ruthless dictator from power or leave him to it. But most people thought that in this particular instance this wasn&#39;t enough to warrant the war we are seeing now, and the way it is developing will certainly not change their opinion.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Well, I would assume sending WMD by mail wouldn&#39;t prove particularly effective.


A dirty bomb is a weapon of mass destruction.

In the case of 9/11, the creativity of terrorists turned 3 planes into weapons of mass destruction.

The anthrax was, I would assume, suppose to work much better than it did.

Thank God it was so ineffective.

According to plans that were discovered after 9/11, the terrorists even had plans for releasing biological or chemical agents by crop duster.

When you say WMD, what are you refering to?



I think what you achieved so far is to enrage the Arabs even more, who cannot take part in the conflict because their governments prevent them from doing so. People filled with frustration and hate are usually an excellent pool for terrorists to draw sources from, be it volunteers or support. Bin Laden is no Iraqi, and his terrorists are an international bunch, recruited from all parts of the region.

We are in agreement on this point.
I never wanted us to go to war with Iraq.
The peace process seemed to be working.
Suicide bombings had stopped for the most part.
Iraq was making an attempt to open its doors to us.
Seemed that way anyway.
But terrorists don&#39;t work for free.
Suicide bombers don&#39;t kill themselves without some major motivation.
Saddam&#39;s regime DID and DOES fund terrorism.
That some Arab individuals, buisinessmen mostly, also funded and I&#39;m sure still do, terrorism, does not lessen the fault of Saddam.
You cannot close your eyes to that or the atrocities that are occuring right now in Iraq.
You cannot point the finger at the U. S. and believe that suddenly makes Saddam innocent.
And in those other countries where funding for terrorism comes from, the governments are not the source of the problem.
They are helping track down the sources and cut the funding off.


Since 1991 the Iraqi military was reduced to 1/3 of its original size. You can clearly see by the disadvantages in conventional battles that they had no chance of modernising their weaponry.


Again, I agree that this war was unnecessary.
Most people agree with you that the inspections had the appearance of being effective.
But we ARE at war now.
It was a mistake to pull out the last time but the UN requested it and we at that point were only there in support of the UN resolution.
If Chirac had not said "VETO" to whatever we proposed, the UN would still be a valid entity in this affair and we most likely would not be at war.
The U. S. was willing to go along with the UN order until Chirac in effect, took the vote away from the UN and put it on himself.
One man.
Not a group of men coming to an agreement.
One man dictating the outcome before they have even counted the vote.



The only reason to attack him which cannot be denied is that he is a cruel, ruthless dictator who is suppressing the larger part of the population in his country. It may be true that this tyranny cannot be overthrown by the people of Iraq on their own - there was the chance to support them when they had risen in 1991, but no-one did. I find the whole business of trying to justify this conflict using the behaviour of the regime now pretty lame - everyone knew before that he was ruthless and didn&#39;t care much about human life.

Again, we were following UN instructions when we pulled out of Iraq before.
Not our choice.
Pretty much everyone in this country agreed that we should have finished the job then.
The UN stopped us because they did not want to be responsible for overthrowing a government.
Don&#39;t use that as a reason not to be at war this time.

Do you have any children?

If you let your son/daughter off easy the first or second time they do something they shouldn&#39;t, with a warning, does that mean you have to do the same thing the next time.
I&#39;m sorry dude but your point is not valid.



Most decent people in the world would readily agree if you asked them whether it&#39;d be better to remove a ruthless dictator from power or leave him to it. But most people thought that in this particular instance this wasn&#39;t enough to warrant the war we are seeing now, and the way it is developing will certainly not change their opinion.

But we ARE at war now.
You can&#39;t go back and undo what is done.
Now, looking forward from this point, what do YOU think the effect would be of us pulling out prematurely again?

Peace

edited because I forgot to remove the main quote box

[Chilly]

Originally posted by zhelynd@26 March 2003 - 06:01
Please help pray for those who suffered in the war

http://img.top81.com.cn/2/112816.jpg

EDIT: changed this to a link, it is rather graphic. NikkiD
If it breaks your heart why would you post it on here for us to view it knowing the graphic nature of the picture. <_<

I think it is very disturbing, and should be taken down. <_<

[puremindmatters]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@30 March 2003 - 13:18
A dirty bomb is a weapon of mass destruction.

In the case of 9/11, the creativity of terrorists turned 3 planes into weapons of mass destruction.

The anthrax was, I would assume, suppose to work much better than it did.
A dirty bomb? Sorry, I&#39;m not sure what you are referring to.
That was my point - you don&#39;t need a base as a terrorist, trying to import weaponry of any kind into a country with such strict import laws like the US would be stupid. You could most likely build your own biological or chemical weapons in the US, if you really wanted to and had the money. I don&#39;t think anything more than periferal knowledge of the organisation and funding of Bin Laden&#39;s group has been obtained.
Whether or not Saddam funded terrorists, has never been proven, nor any involvement in the events of 11/9. On the contrary, the reports of alleged meetings between Ata and the Iraqi intelligence had been retracted thereafter - still no-one remembers that.

Who did the anthrax thing is still unclear. Given the small scale and disorganised approach I wouldn&#39;t think there was any connection to the Bin Laden group at all. I just think it is a little easy to say because Saddam is evil, he naturally had to be involved in all evil things in this world.

On the other points we seem to agree - but a lot of people here seem to think that what is happening now is giving the war more justification.
It doesn&#39;t, and that was the point I was trying to make - and equally a lot of people seem pretty chuffed that Saddam manages to drag out the war - that doesn&#39;t prove the fact that it was unnecessary either, just that it could be and is already costly for all involved. I would have preferred the fantasy of the Iraqi people cheering to their liberators after a short struggle rather than my own predictions of a long bloody war come true. I think we haven&#39;t seen the worst of it yet.

It&#39;s too late to pull out.

edit: forgot your last question

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by puremindmatters+30 March 2003 - 07:55--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (puremindmatters @ 30 March 2003 - 07:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -ne1GotZardoz@30 March 2003 - 13:18
A dirty bomb is a weapon of mass destruction.

In the case of 9/11, the creativity of terrorists turned 3 planes into weapons of mass destruction.

The anthrax was, I would assume, suppose to work much better than it did.
A dirty bomb? Sorry, I&#39;m not sure what you are referring to.


It&#39;s too late to pull out.

edit: forgot your last question [/b]

<!--QuoteBegin--ne1GotZardoz@30 March 2003 - 13:18
A dirty bomb is a weapon of mass destruction.

In the case of 9/11, the creativity of terrorists turned 3 planes into weapons of mass destruction.

The anthrax was, I would assume, suppose to work much better than it did.
A dirty bomb? Sorry, I&#39;m not sure what you are referring to.
[/quote]

Dirty bombs have nuclear material but do not produce a nuclear explosion.
They scatter radiation over a smaller area that can increase depending on wind and other weather events.


It&#39;s too late to pull out.


I wish that it was not.

Peace

[eng60340]

QUOTE

Most decent people in the world would readily agree if you asked them whether it&#39;d be better to remove a ruthless dictator from power or leave him to it. But most people thought that in this particular instance this wasn&#39;t enough to warrant the war we are seeing now, and the way it is developing will certainly not change their opinion.

---

But we ARE at war now.
You can&#39;t go back and undo what is done.
Now, looking forward from this point, what do YOU think the effect would be of us pulling out prematurely again?

-----

that doesn&#39;t make the war right.

the first step is to acknowledge that the war is wrong to begin with.
then try to find a good solution to the already started war..

BUT A LOT of pple still think that the war is right to begin with.

:angry:

[puremindmatters]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@30 March 2003 - 13:18
Again, we were following UN instructions when we pulled out of Iraq before.
Not our choice.
Pretty much everyone in this country agreed that we should have finished the job then.
The UN stopped us because they did not want to be responsible for overthrowing a government.
Don&#39;t use that as a reason not to be at war this time.

Do you have any children?

If you let your son/daughter off easy the first or second time they do something they shouldn&#39;t, with a warning, does that mean you have to do the same thing the next time.
I&#39;m sorry dude but your point is not valid.


This is a bit confusing: If it was wrong to overthrow a government then, and the US agreed (on of the main reasons was that it was generally believed that Iraq as a state with a bad dictator would be preferable to ensuing chaos, another that Iran would come out stronger) is it right now?
Fact of the matter is that so far this isn&#39;t covered by international law - in that instance the US adhered to it, now it has chosen to break it.

To be honest, I am not sure what is preferable - if we say it is right for the US to intervene, we will have quite a few problems on our hands if another country chose to do so with the same justification or non-justification. I still think to support an exisiting struggle, which has been politics of the US in many other countries before, would be a different matter than trying to create one by invading a sovereign country. That is why I would say it would be better if the UN had an instrument or the opportunity to intervene - but it is of course bound by the international law (amongst many other things which shouldn&#39;t be).

And sadly, I don&#39;t have children - but I worked with children, so I see what you are getting at.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by puremindmatters@30 March 2003 - 08:19
This is a bit confusing: If it was wrong to overthrow a government then, and the US agreed (on of the main reasons was that it was generally believed that Iraq as a state with a bad dictator would be preferable to ensuing chaos, another that Iran would come out stronger) is it right now?
Fact of the matter is that so far this isn&#39;t covered by international law - in that instance the US adhered to it, now it has chosen to break it.

To be honest, I am not sure what is preferable - if we say it is right for the US to intervene, we will have quite a few problems on our hands if another country chose to do so with the same justification or non-justification. I still think to support an exisiting struggle, which has been politics of the US in many other countries before, would be a different matter than trying to create one by invading a sovereign country. That is why I would say it would be better if the UN had an instrument or the opportunity to intervene - but it is of course bound by the international law (amongst many other things which shouldn&#39;t be).

And sadly, I don&#39;t have children - but I worked with children, so I see what you are getting at.

This is a bit confusing:&nbsp; If it was wrong to overthrow a government then, and the US agreed (on of the main reasons was that it was generally believed that Iraq as a state with a bad dictator would be preferable to ensuing chaos, another that Iran would come out stronger) is it right now?&nbsp;
Fact of the matter is that so far this isn&#39;t covered by international law - in that instance the US adhered to it, now it has chosen to break it.

My apologies up front to the British for the small Robin Williams joke I am about to use here.

In respect to the UN wanting to send inspectors in a second time because the problems in Iraq were not solved by inspections the first time, is kinda like a british bobby (cop) trying to arrest an armed robber with a billy club.

"Stop...or I&#39;ll say &#39;Stop&#39; again."

That we didn&#39;t do something doesn&#39;t mean it shouldn&#39;t have been done. And if it should have been done, but was put off because people hoped it would go away, that does not diminish the need to do it.
Nor does it make it wrong when it finally does get done.

Again though, I wish we had continued waiting.
But I am not privy to the same level of information the president or prime minister are.

And since we don&#39;t share most of our intelligence with other countries&#39; leaders for fear of a leak, unfortunately neither does anyone else.
Or maybe fortunately. I don&#39;t know.

Peace

[Ardor]

Originally posted by kAb@30 March 2003 - 05:25
:angry:&nbsp; :angry:&nbsp; yes i&#39;m sure the u.s. government did sept 11 to raise the dollar.
i spit in your face ardor.
I never suggested that the US government manufactured sept. 11th. Where do you get that from? Or do you just read what you want to read? I did say that sept.11 legitimizes any war against a &#39;terrorist&#39; nation, and I also said that the REAL reasons for sept.11th go unexplored. Anything else I labeled a theory. Can you broaden your mind just enough that there may be other reasons for war, then what your President tells you. He&#39;s not God you know?

And I do not spit in your face, nor did I make that suggestion. I criticise the American Government, NOT the American citizens or citizens of any other nation. Just like there is a difference between Saddam and the Iraqis, Sharon and Israelis, etc. It&#39;s governments who make the decison to wage war, it&#39;s governments who gave the order to gass Jews, it&#39;s governments that made laws regarding racial segregation, it&#39;s governments that made laws giving women no or less rights than men, it&#39;s governments who label file-sharers as terrorists, and governments who support the DMCA.

The point being, that governments don&#39;t always get it right. You see the RIAA-website getting hacked every other day, which in a way is terrorism. It is terrorism, because RIAA labels it so. The reasons are ignored and RIAA continues what they do, in a misguided sort of way. I am argueing that there are reasons for sept.11th as well as the suicide bombings in Israel. I am also argueing that it is not as simplistic as Israel and the US puts it. If you support war as the only solution to terrorism, then logically war must be the only solution to fighting P2P. Do we want a free society where we solve our problems peacefully, or do we want the Danish Terrorsquad standing in front our door one day and asking for 5000 bucks per mp3?


(ne1GotZardoz @ 30 March 2003 - 06:14)

(Ardor @ 29 March 2003 - 21:09)
Iraq does NOT have weapons that could reach the US
Hmmm...Someone has selective memory here.
You have convieniently forgotten about 9/11.
You have forgotten about the anthrax letters.
Pity for you that no-one else has.
Peace

I&#39;m sorry but anyone could mail a letter containing a poisonous substance, and anyone could take over a plane and crash it into a building. As a matter of fact a turkish madman hijacked a plane last week, shall we now bomb Turkey? The point is that terrorism is undertaken by a group of people, not a specific country. A government like the Taliban, may support this publically, but it is not relevant to what Iraq is accused of. Iraq is accused of possessing long-range chemical or nuclear missiles that could be a danger to America. None of this has been uncovered yet&#33; Ever heard of the phrase &#39;Innocent until proven guilty&#39;? Think of the UN inspectors as the impartial jury, and then think of a society where you are guilty until proven innocent.

OK I said what I said, and I believe I said it peacefully. Feel free to disagree, but I believe in my right to freedom of speech, as much as anyone else&#39;s. I do not include spitting in each other&#39;s faces in this freedom.

Peace onto everyone in the whole wide world&#33;

[kAb]

Ardor:
(this is your quote)


The Euro has been rising, and the Dollar sinking, reccession hits, America needs a solution.

Like magic, the WTC gets hit


I cant see how P2P connects to people DYING.

If you&#39;re going to compare something, at least compare it to something reasonable.

[chev24grd]

This pic makes me sad. War has been waged since the dawn of time. There will never be peace as long as there is a difference of opinion. Pray for a quick end to this war. We will prevail.......Sadam must fall

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by Ardor+30 March 2003 - 17:45--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ardor @ 30 March 2003 - 17:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--kAb@30 March 2003 - 05:25
:angry: :angry: yes i&#39;m sure the u.s. government did sept 11 to raise the dollar.
i spit in your face ardor.
I never suggested that the US government manufactured sept. 11th. Where do you get that from? [/b][/quote]
Uh...Ardor...I think it was the post where you said The U. S. needed a solution and miraculously, the WTC happened.
Not too many ways to read that dude.

Sorry.

[kAb]

The Euro has been rising, and the Dollar sinking, reccession hits, America needs a solution.

Like magic, the WTC gets hit.

there you go ardor. read it.

i meant to post this earlier but the forum kept fucking up.

[sred2003]

man this is crazy. ppl posting that american press is only giving one side of the war and that maybe al jazeera would be better? are you kidding me. and why dont you show pictures of some of the vicious and disgusting things saddam has done TO HIS OWN PEOPLE. like how he puts humans through metal shredders or cuts out there tongues in their town square and lets everyone watch them bleed to death or tortures peoples children right in front of them to make them talk. some people were just waiting for images like that so they could point their fingers at america. and of course the gassing of his own people. i cant help the fact that people dislike america. i do know that we are doing the right thing by removing saddam and his regime and disarming them of WMD. i will never change any of your minds, of course but i must point out how absurd some things people say are.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by sred2003@31 March 2003 - 01:26
man this is crazy. ppl posting that american press is only giving one side of the war and that maybe al jazeera would be better? are you kidding me. and why dont you show pictures of some of the vicious and disgusting things saddam has done TO HIS OWN PEOPLE. like how he puts humans through metal shredders or cuts out there tongues in their town square and lets everyone watch them bleed to death or tortures peoples children right in front of them to make them talk. some people were just waiting for images like that so they could point their fingers at america. and of course the gassing of his own people. i cant help the fact that people dislike america. i do know that we are doing the right thing by removing saddam and his regime and disarming them of WMD. i will never change any of your minds, of course but i must point out how absurd some things people say are.
Its not about changing people&#39;s minds, sred.

Its about people needing to stop hiding behind the past.

Or holding up another countries indiscretions to justify your own sadistic behavior.

Its about getting people to recognize Saddam&#39;s regime as the worst that humanity can offer, and letting them know that its wrong to tolerate that behavior.

They accuse us of clutching at any straw of information about them.

Quite the contrary is true.

They pick up on any small detail or our actions to justify their sadism.

We have quite a list building up, of their war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I&#39;m pretty sure our soldiers who were POWs are dead.

Why have they not allowed the Red Cross in to see them?

You wish to know why we are not posting pictures of what they have done though?

Its our own fault.

We closed that box on ourselves when we pitched a fit about the geneva convention, and them showing our POWs on tv, and our dead.

Up until that point, we were showing everything.
Even down to the POWs we have under guard.

Now we are suffering the consequences of that by not being able to show the man who died in the street with his tongue out, for example.

You&#39;re right.

War is crazy.

But it has begun.

Lets get it over with.

Peace dude

[eng60340]

ref ne1gotzardoz latest post.

keep thinking like that. and more wars will follow.
all in the name of american&#39;s humanity.

--
perhaps US should invade the other arab countries too.
the last i heard. they too are dictators that suppress their citizens

and may be you can have a swipe at iran and syria
invade them so that you can obtain the invoices proving that they supplied arms to iraq.

--
i wonder now. all these talk about for humanity...
why aren&#39;t the pope and the rest of the securtiy council/citizen of the world/UN supporting humanity ?

violence solves nothing.
enflame the arabs.
be prepared to be bombed in your backyard.

iraq is not a baby. it&#39;s a nation.
nation have a longer memory than a baby.
and it&#39;s not possible to disintegrate a nation unless you are considering genocide.

tell the iraq pple who&#39;s next of kin died because of the war that you are there to liberate them
tell them they should rejoice and welcome the US troops.

...
if you think this invasion will suppress terrorism .. think again
to do that effectively
US must conquer the globe and surplant the rogue nations&#39; leadership with american friendly ones
and whether these rogue nations have tyrannical leaders is secondary concerns so long as they are pro US.

---
as for anthrax in a letter..
i believe it&#39;s an american prank.
.. maybe US should consider invading herself.
and catch that prankster.
---

[ThE_MP3_G0d]

Originally posted by eng60340@26 March 2003 - 08:37
i am pretty pissed with the way cnn is reporting the news.
bbc is a little better.
but i feel that i am not getting the full unbiased picture most times..

too bad i dunno arabic else the al jazeera might be a good alternative.

btw. there&#39;s an english version of the website for al jazeera.. unfortunately it is not online now..
probably taken down by the govt.

so much for freedom of speech.
There is an English version of the Al Jazeera on the net....not censored(officially anyway) but rather hackers have had it down for a long time. I saw a post on a sercurity site(I can&#39;t recall which at this moment) about thier site being attacked (a "massive DDoS attack") and clicked on the link to the Al Jazeera site and it was up. The "news" I found there was very...wierd. I have read news reports with similar kinds of "spins" but jeez...retain some sort of credability here folks. If some of the things they had on their site was true, the Allies have already lost. Yes the Western media may focus on what the military wants them to but goodness.... anyone with an IQ at all would find the majority of what they had to say was utter El Toro Caca. The only article which had me curious was where they were discussing the possible Genova Convention violations by BOTH COUNTRIES. In the article they discussed that the US claimed that Iraqi forces violated it by showing videos of prisoners...I don&#39;t really have the entire convention memorized..... but that somehow the video was embarrasing or demeaning to the POWs and that was a violation of the convention. The Iraqis have claimed that the US has done the same thing to Iraqi POWs. I for one have seen like 10000 videos depicting Iraqi POWs being "herded" by US forces...none of them seemed "embarrased" or "demeaned" ....whatever the hell that would be... (do they like pull their pants down or what?? what exactly is in violation of that convention?)

but if anyone has the video of the US POWs that the US is calling a violation PLEASE SHARE IT. This is the one post on that entire site I can reasonably believe (with some proof). (edited April 2...and no...it&#39;s not a late joke) I was able to obtain videos of Iraqi TV. I will share them for the sake of knowledge, but I refuse to post a hash unless requested by forum admins to do so. I can say without a doubt that I am quite angry over what I saw. Yes, as I said in this post before, I have seen many, many Iraqi POWs being herded by US and Brittish forces but never before have I ever witnessed anything like that being done by them. The videos I saw had very, VERY graphic images of troops KIA.... and they even went to the extent of having some Iraqi FAG move the bodies so you were left with no doubt as to their identities or wounds...this is a disgrace..I can not find a place in my heart for any people that would tolerate this type of behaviour...End of edit

thx everyone...but especially Nikkid for removing that pic.....and no...that pic could be a result of something not even remotely associated with war...

[Ardor]

No, I did NOT say that the US flew into the WTC, it is the way YOU read it&#33; Magic can also be used in &#39;The man stood outside in the rain, and LIKE MAGIC, lightning hits&#39;. Did the man create the lightning? NO but it can be READ like he should not have stood in the rain.
But if that made you angry, you definitely won&#39;t like what I have to say next ;-)

OK the following is a rant on what I think about current events.

America has become a fascist state, dependant on propaganda and influencing public opinion at home. Whilst it should be a democracy, it has a federal state, seperate from the state(s) and difficult to put on a leash.

An example of propaganda would be &#39;Precision Missiles&#39;. When Rumsfeld gave his little speech about how this war would be like none before and we can&#39;t imaging how precise missiles have become, only government-buildings would be hit, the civilian infrastucture would be held intact&#33;

This reminded me of a commercial for washing-powder: &#39;Wash&Clean has the all improved formula. It wil clean that dirt of your clothes, while preserving and restoring colours prefectly. It is a washing powder like never experienced before. Out now&#33;&#39; You know what I do, when I see a commercial? I switch the channel&#33; Because I know in the small-print there&#39;s always some kind of disclaimer, denying that results will not actually look like in the actual commercial. In other words: Bullshit&#33;

Another example of propaganda is the images shown on CNN, Fox, etc. Basically the brave American, and little Iraqi children with chocolate in their faces screaming Americani, Americani. Is that objectivity for you? Or a Kurd catholic, naming his child &#39;Dick Cheney&#39; because it is so brave. And when someone shows a girl bleeding, its something you already saw on Rotten.com. And when Al Jazeera shows such images, it is an Iraqi propaganda machine and their site gets hacked. Who is the propaganda machine? Whatver happened to those reporters that showed pictures of alleged Terrorists at Quantanamo bay? Before you say, they were not War Criminals, read The relevant article (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument), and I quote:

Article 5:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Let&#39;s analyse the support for the US war. Spain: last time I checked 91% of the Spanish is AGAINST the war&#33; UK: Majority is AGAINST the war&#33; Australia: Majority is AGAINST the war&#33; Israel: Fascist states don&#39;t count&#33; Don&#39;t know about Portugal, do know that they all get something out of supporting, and it ain&#39;t world-democracy.

Let&#39;s think about about current events some more. Microsoft, a monopoly with an imperfect product, calls open-source software a virus. No one can deny that it is everything, Microsoft does NOT stand for. Warez: labeld as terrorism by several institutions who have a monopoly and overcharge customers. Giving stuff away for free? That is something corporations do NOT stand for. Investment into 3rd world countries? That is something the western world does NOT stand for&#33; A palestinian state? That is something Israel does not stand for&#33; Osama? Created for the very reason, that his leaders are controlled by money and are dictators&#33;

Fact is that ignoring all Bullshit political statements, the US has the most hated government in the world. And why not? It works on the principal, that might is right, whenever it has &#39;helped&#39; poorer nations it was either through supplying weapons, or loans which demanded huge concessions in return. It created drug-smuggling and drug-nations. How? By making it illegal, it made it the most overvalued substance in the world. Even shooting down a columbian plane, is ineffective, as selling 1/4th that planes content pays for another plane within a week.

It created dictators like Saddam, 1st by supporting him militarily against Iran, then imposing sanctions on Iraq making the Iraqis poorer and more dependant on Saddam then ever. Now they want to liberate Iraq? They will come in, put a military government in power, find another pro-american wuss for a leader like in Afghanistan and then leave. That&#39;s liberation for you? In the words of Raed (http://dearraed.blogspot.com/): "How could “support democracy in Iraq” become to mean “bomb the hell out of Iraq”?" Answer: it is not about democracy, it is about pro-american spirit.

Fact is, that as long as the US keeps stepping on the rest of the world it will not be liked. Another fact is that by waging this illegal war, the US risks creating 1000s of more Osamas. Another fact is, that by going against the UN, it has opened a wide door for other countries to ignore the UN. In other words: Chaos&#33; People say the UN is ineffective. Yet it is an institution created for peace, has kept the peace for a long time, created the very lifeline (food for oil) which kept the Iraqi people alive, during the US&#39;s harsh sanctions. Only throgh support by it&#39;s members can an institution remain to be effective&#33;

What is democracy? Having a choice to say no. Why does Bush not bomb Florida? Because it is a democracy that prevents him from doing so. Why does the US not bomb Europe? Because 2/3rds of investment is foreign owned (dated 2000). Why is the majority of the US prison-population black? Because &#39;Might is Right&#39;&#33; Why does Isarel take more land away from Palestine everyday? Because &#39;Might is Right&#39;&#33;

What is democracy? Education&#33; Only through education could people wise up. Revolt against their governments if that government surpresses them. What does education bring? Peace&#33; An stupid man will grab his gun to solve conflicts, an intelligent man will use his head and his words. I&#39;ll be surprised if the US has ever introduced an infrastructure of providing education into a country it has bombed. Because that would actually be freedom and democracy&#33;

Back to terrorism&#33; South Africa, until 15 years ago: a surpressed nation. The African National Party (ANP), under Nelson Mandela, was labeld as terrorist organisation by the While National Party. Black people had no right, like Palestinians in Israel. In S.Africa it went pretty far, black people where shot, imprisoned, tortured. All rights to education was taken away.

The ANP did fight back however. They bombed important government buildings, some people where killed. Without exploring alternative means, the white government continued to surpress blacks and take more and more away from them: Land, education, rights. The black people were looked down upon, spat on, looked at like devils. It was only because the world continued to support Mandella and the African people, that finally Mandella was freed, and a joint government was created. But surpression still happens in Israel TODAY&#33;

Is the society we want to live in, one that is dominated by violence, by money, by blind conservatism? Or is it one that is based upon human values? One, where I respect you, and you respect me?


End Rant.

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by Ardor@1 April 2003 - 12:15
No, I did NOT say that the US flew into the WTC, it is the way YOU read it&#33; Magic can also be used in &#39;The man stood outside in the rain, and LIKE MAGIC, lightning hits&#39;. Did the man create the lightning? NO but it can be READ like he should not have stood in the rain.
But if that made you angry, you definitely won&#39;t like what I have to say next ;-)

OK the following is a rant on what I think about current events.

America has become a fascist state, dependant on propaganda and influencing public opinion at home. Whilst it should be a democracy, it has a federal state, seperate from the state(s) and difficult to put on a leash.

An example of propaganda would be &#39;Precision Missiles&#39;. When Rumsfeld gave his little speech about how this war would be like none before and we can&#39;t imaging how precise missiles have become, only government-buildings would be hit, the civilian infrastucture would be held intact&#33;

This reminded me of a commercial for washing-powder: &#39;Wash&Clean has the all improved formula. It wil clean that dirt of your clothes, while preserving and restoring colours prefectly. It is a washing powder like never experienced before. Out now&#33;&#39; You know what I do, when I see a commercial? I switch the channel&#33; Because I know in the small-print there&#39;s always some kind of disclaimer, denying that results will not actually look like in the actual commercial. In other words: Bullshit&#33;

Another example of propaganda is the images shown on CNN, Fox, etc. Basically the brave American, and little Iraqi children with chocolate in their faces screaming Americani, Americani. Is that objectivity for you? Or a Kurd catholic, naming his child &#39;Dick Cheney&#39; because it is so brave. And when someone shows a girl bleeding, its something you already saw on Rotten.com. And when Al Jazeera shows such images, it is an Iraqi propaganda machine and their site gets hacked. Who is the propaganda machine? Whatver happened to those reporters that showed pictures of alleged Terrorists at Quantanamo bay? Before you say, they were not War Criminals, read The relevant article (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument), and I quote:

Article 5:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Let&#39;s analyse the support for the US war. Spain: last time I checked 91% of the Spanish is AGAINST the war&#33; UK: Majority is AGAINST the war&#33; Australia: Majority is AGAINST the war&#33; Israel: Fascist states don&#39;t count&#33; Don&#39;t know about Portugal, do know that they all get something out of supporting, and it ain&#39;t world-democracy.

Let&#39;s think about about current events some more. Microsoft, a monopoly with an imperfect product, calls open-source software a virus. No one can deny that it is everything, Microsoft does NOT stand for. Warez: labeld as terrorism by several institutions who have a monopoly and overcharge customers. Giving stuff away for free? That is something corporations do NOT stand for. Investment into 3rd world countries? That is something the western world does NOT stand for&#33; A palestinian state? That is something Israel does not stand for&#33; Osama? Created for the very reason, that his leaders are controlled by money and are dictators&#33;

Fact is that ignoring all Bullshit political statements, the US has the most hated government in the world. And why not? It works on the principal, that might is right, whenever it has &#39;helped&#39; poorer nations it was either through supplying weapons, or loans which demanded huge concessions in return. It created drug-smuggling and drug-nations. How? By making it illegal, it made it the most overvalued substance in the world. Even shooting down a columbian plane, is ineffective, as selling 1/4th that planes content pays for another plane within a week.

It created dictators like Saddam, 1st by supporting him militarily against Iran, then imposing sanctions on Iraq making the Iraqis poorer and more dependant on Saddam then ever. Now they want to liberate Iraq? They will come in, put a military government in power, find another pro-american wuss for a leader like in Afghanistan and then leave. That&#39;s liberation for you? In the words of Raed (http://dearraed.blogspot.com/): "How could “support democracy in Iraq” become to mean “bomb the hell out of Iraq”?" Answer: it is not about democracy, it is about pro-american spirit.

Fact is, that as long as the US keeps stepping on the rest of the world it will not be liked. Another fact is that by waging this illegal war, the US risks creating 1000s of more Osamas. Another fact is, that by going against the UN, it has opened a wide door for other countries to ignore the UN. In other words: Chaos&#33; People say the UN is ineffective. Yet it is an institution created for peace, has kept the peace for a long time, created the very lifeline (food for oil) which kept the Iraqi people alive, during the US&#39;s harsh sanctions. Only throgh support by it&#39;s members can an institution remain to be effective&#33;

What is democracy? Having a choice to say no. Why does Bush not bomb Florida? Because it is a democracy that prevents him from doing so. Why does the US not bomb Europe? Because 2/3rds of investment is foreign owned (dated 2000). Why is the majority of the US prison-population black? Because &#39;Might is Right&#39;&#33; Why does Isarel take more land away from Palestine everyday? Because &#39;Might is Right&#39;&#33;

What is democracy? Education&#33; Only through education could people wise up. Revolt against their governments if that government surpresses them. What does education bring? Peace&#33; An stupid man will grab his gun to solve conflicts, an intelligent man will use his head and his words. I&#39;ll be surprised if the US has ever introduced an infrastructure of providing education into a country it has bombed. Because that would actually be freedom and democracy&#33;

Back to terrorism&#33; South Africa, until 15 years ago: a surpressed nation. The African National Party (ANP), under Nelson Mandela, was labeld as terrorist organisation by the While National Party. Black people had no right, like Palestinians in Israel. In S.Africa it went pretty far, black people where shot, imprisoned, tortured. All rights to education was taken away.

The ANP did fight back however. They bombed important government buildings, some people where killed. Without exploring alternative means, the white government continued to surpress blacks and take more and more away from them: Land, education, rights. The black people were looked down upon, spat on, looked at like devils. It was only because the world continued to support Mandella and the African people, that finally Mandella was freed, and a joint government was created. But surpression still happens in Israel TODAY&#33;

Is the society we want to live in, one that is dominated by violence, by money, by blind conservatism? Or is it one that is based upon human values? One, where I respect you, and you respect me?


End Rant.
Well said Ardor ;)

But I too did mis-interpret your WTC comment, and I&#39;ve also heard that conspiracy theory before.

Also in the other points in the thread, the Anthrax letters I think are now believed to be home-grown, not Al Qaeda.

Also, has a link actually been established between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussain?

[MagicNakor]

Yes.

Al Qaeda

Iraq :lol:

Joking aside, no. ;)

:ninja:

[Rat Faced]

Also, has a link actually been established between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussain?


Yes, Al Qaeda bombs the shit out of Iraq, and Hussain shoots &#39;em when he catches them.


Question: Has a link been shown between Al Qaeda and Iraq?

Ans: Yes....See above AND..... Al Qaeda are sheltered in Northern Iraq, where the Kurds are in control and Hussain cant reach them.

ie
The Kurdish Allies to the Coalition in the war against Iraq are the supporters of Al Qaeda in Iraq......ironic or what?

Anyone remember that SitCom from years ago....."SOAP".

[ThE_MP3_G0d]

Originally posted by eng60340@27 March 2003 - 08:47
perhaps you expect war to be

1) US soldiers giving candies to smiling starving iraqi children
2) US putting out oil fires
3) US clearing mines

i would like to point out that NONE of this need to take place if US has been a little more diplomatic.
(snip,snip)
the iraqis have compromised time and again.
(what ?&#33; you want to check our palaces ? NO &#33; .. ummm. very well then)
(what ?&#33; you want us to disarm our missiles ? NO &#33; .. umm very well then)
and etc.

the goal post just keeps shifting with each compromise.
...
U sir, are the perpetuator of some REALLY misinformed HOGWASH. Before I continue I would like for you to dissiminate portions of this article. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/bian/bian_sep_2001.htm) Or for that fact you can find a great deal of information concerning these issues by using Google (http://www.google.com) and searching for pertinent wrods(such as Iraq, SCUD Missile, UN Security Council Resolution 687, ect). Please do a little research before you make comments such as these. Something that really bothers me is people who jump to conclusions before they know facts. The US government may be doing things for reasons of their own(money,greed, did I say money? Oh and greed too) but they picked a wonderful time to do it. They have a legitimate reason (noncompliance with 2 separate UN inspection teams) and even if the UN does not support action, I for one can agree with their position. If they have such a hard time showing that they do not have or are not making WMD-that means they have or are making them. The list of "rogue states" was made for a reason. "Although we were already concerned about a reconstituted nuclear weapons program, our concerns were increased last September when Saddam publicly exhorted his "Nuclear Mujahidin" to "defeat the enemy." " Considering they are devoloping a method of delivering such a weapon to a much MUCH longer range....that makes me very concerned.

But what has me even more concerned is the way some people see all this...that is probably the scariest part of all of this..

:huh: :unsure: :(

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by Ardor@1 April 2003 - 07:15
No, I did NOT say that the US flew into the WTC, it is the way YOU read it&#33; Magic can also be used in &#39;The man stood outside in the rain, and LIKE MAGIC, lightning hits&#39;. Did the man create the lightning? NO but it can be READ like he should not have stood in the rain.
But if that made you angry, you definitely won&#39;t like what I have to say next ;-)

OK the following is a rant on what I think about current events.

America has become a fascist state, dependant on propaganda and influencing public opinion at home. Whilst it should be a democracy, it has a federal state, seperate from the state(s) and difficult to put on a leash.

An example of propaganda would be &#39;Precision Missiles&#39;. When Rumsfeld gave his little speech about how this war would be like none before and we can&#39;t imaging how precise missiles have become, only government-buildings would be hit, the civilian infrastucture would be held intact&#33;

This reminded me of a commercial for washing-powder: &#39;Wash&Clean has the all improved formula. It wil clean that dirt of your clothes, while preserving and restoring colours prefectly. It is a washing powder like never experienced before. Out now&#33;&#39; You know what I do, when I see a commercial? I switch the channel&#33; Because I know in the small-print there&#39;s always some kind of disclaimer, denying that results will not actually look like in the actual commercial. In other words: Bullshit&#33;

Another example of propaganda is the images shown on CNN, Fox, etc. Basically the brave American, and little Iraqi children with chocolate in their faces screaming Americani, Americani. Is that objectivity for you? Or a Kurd catholic, naming his child &#39;Dick Cheney&#39; because it is so brave. And when someone shows a girl bleeding, its something you already saw on Rotten.com. And when Al Jazeera shows such images, it is an Iraqi propaganda machine and their site gets hacked. Who is the propaganda machine? Whatver happened to those reporters that showed pictures of alleged Terrorists at Quantanamo bay? Before you say, they were not War Criminals, read The relevant article (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument), and I quote:

Article 5:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Let&#39;s analyse the support for the US war. Spain: last time I checked 91% of the Spanish is AGAINST the war&#33; UK: Majority is AGAINST the war&#33; Australia: Majority is AGAINST the war&#33; Israel: Fascist states don&#39;t count&#33; Don&#39;t know about Portugal, do know that they all get something out of supporting, and it ain&#39;t world-democracy.

Let&#39;s think about about current events some more. Microsoft, a monopoly with an imperfect product, calls open-source software a virus. No one can deny that it is everything, Microsoft does NOT stand for. Warez: labeld as terrorism by several institutions who have a monopoly and overcharge customers. Giving stuff away for free? That is something corporations do NOT stand for. Investment into 3rd world countries? That is something the western world does NOT stand for&#33; A palestinian state? That is something Israel does not stand for&#33; Osama? Created for the very reason, that his leaders are controlled by money and are dictators&#33;

Fact is that ignoring all Bullshit political statements, the US has the most hated government in the world. And why not? It works on the principal, that might is right, whenever it has &#39;helped&#39; poorer nations it was either through supplying weapons, or loans which demanded huge concessions in return. It created drug-smuggling and drug-nations. How? By making it illegal, it made it the most overvalued substance in the world. Even shooting down a columbian plane, is ineffective, as selling 1/4th that planes content pays for another plane within a week.

It created dictators like Saddam, 1st by supporting him militarily against Iran, then imposing sanctions on Iraq making the Iraqis poorer and more dependant on Saddam then ever. Now they want to liberate Iraq? They will come in, put a military government in power, find another pro-american wuss for a leader like in Afghanistan and then leave. That&#39;s liberation for you? In the words of Raed (http://dearraed.blogspot.com/): "How could “support democracy in Iraq” become to mean “bomb the hell out of Iraq”?" Answer: it is not about democracy, it is about pro-american spirit.

Fact is, that as long as the US keeps stepping on the rest of the world it will not be liked. Another fact is that by waging this illegal war, the US risks creating 1000s of more Osamas. Another fact is, that by going against the UN, it has opened a wide door for other countries to ignore the UN. In other words: Chaos&#33; People say the UN is ineffective. Yet it is an institution created for peace, has kept the peace for a long time, created the very lifeline (food for oil) which kept the Iraqi people alive, during the US&#39;s harsh sanctions. Only throgh support by it&#39;s members can an institution remain to be effective&#33;

What is democracy? Having a choice to say no. Why does Bush not bomb Florida? Because it is a democracy that prevents him from doing so. Why does the US not bomb Europe? Because 2/3rds of investment is foreign owned (dated 2000). Why is the majority of the US prison-population black? Because &#39;Might is Right&#39;&#33; Why does Isarel take more land away from Palestine everyday? Because &#39;Might is Right&#39;&#33;

What is democracy? Education&#33; Only through education could people wise up. Revolt against their governments if that government surpresses them. What does education bring? Peace&#33; An stupid man will grab his gun to solve conflicts, an intelligent man will use his head and his words. I&#39;ll be surprised if the US has ever introduced an infrastructure of providing education into a country it has bombed. Because that would actually be freedom and democracy&#33;

Back to terrorism&#33; South Africa, until 15 years ago: a surpressed nation. The African National Party (ANP), under Nelson Mandela, was labeld as terrorist organisation by the While National Party. Black people had no right, like Palestinians in Israel. In S.Africa it went pretty far, black people where shot, imprisoned, tortured. All rights to education was taken away.

The ANP did fight back however. They bombed important government buildings, some people where killed. Without exploring alternative means, the white government continued to surpress blacks and take more and more away from them: Land, education, rights. The black people were looked down upon, spat on, looked at like devils. It was only because the world continued to support Mandella and the African people, that finally Mandella was freed, and a joint government was created. But surpression still happens in Israel TODAY&#33;

Is the society we want to live in, one that is dominated by violence, by money, by blind conservatism? Or is it one that is based upon human values? One, where I respect you, and you respect me?


End Rant.
I read your post.
Alot of justification of Iraqi action there.
So, you condone Iraq&#39;s use of civilians as sheilds?

You believe its a good thing for the Fedayeen to push smal children in front of them in the dark of night and fire on our troops so that when our soldiers fire back, the children will be shot?

Our soldiers were in tears when they realized the next morning what they had done.

Do you think the Fedayeen cried over that?

Do you think they gave a damn about those children?

You are a moron if you expect me to buy YOUR bullsh*t.

And you&#39;re a bigger moron if you believe it yourself.

Peace

[soopaman]

Originally posted by Ardor@1 April 2003 - 13:15


Let&#39;s analyse the support for the US war. Spain: last time I checked 91% of the Spanish is AGAINST the war&#33; UK: Majority is AGAINST the war&#33; Australia: Majority is AGAINST the war&#33; Israel: Fascist states don&#39;t count&#33; Don&#39;t know about Portugal, do know that they all get something out of supporting, and it ain&#39;t world-democracy.



Fact is that ignoring all Bullshit political statements, the US has the most hated government in the world. And why not? It works on the principal, that might is right, whenever it has &#39;helped&#39; poorer nations it was either through supplying weapons, or loans which demanded huge concessions in return. It created drug-smuggling and drug-nations. How? By making it illegal, it made it the most overvalued substance in the world. Even shooting down a columbian plane, is ineffective, as selling 1/4th that planes content pays for another plane within a week.

Fact is, that as long as the US keeps stepping on the rest of the world it will not be liked. Another fact is that by waging this illegal war, the US risks creating 1000s of more Osamas. Another fact is, that by going against the UN, it has opened a wide door for other countries to ignore the UN. In other words: Chaos&#33; People say the UN is ineffective. Yet it is an institution created for peace, has kept the peace for a long time, created the very lifeline (food for oil) which kept the Iraqi people alive, during the US&#39;s harsh sanctions. Only throgh support by it&#39;s members can an institution remain to be effective&#33;

What is democracy? Having a choice to say no. Why does Bush not bomb Florida? Because it is a democracy that prevents him from doing so. Why does the US not bomb Europe? Because 2/3rds of investment is foreign owned (dated 2000). Why is the majority of the US prison-population black? Because &#39;Might is Right&#39;&#33; Why does Isarel take more land away from Palestine everyday? Because &#39;Might is Right&#39;&#33;

Back to terrorism&#33; South Africa, until 15 years ago: a surpressed nation. The African National Party (ANP), under Nelson Mandela, was labeld as terrorist organisation by the While National Party. Black people had no right, like Palestinians in Israel. In S.Africa it went pretty far, black people where shot, imprisoned, tortured. All rights to education was taken away.

The ANP did fight back however. They bombed important government buildings, some people where killed. Without exploring alternative means, the white government continued to surpress blacks and take more and more away from them: Land, education, rights. The black people were looked down upon, spat on, looked at like devils. It was only because the world continued to support Mandella and the African people, that finally Mandella was freed, and a joint government was created. But supression still happens in Israel TODAY&#33;

Is the society we want to live in, one that is dominated by violence, by money, by blind conservatism? Or is it one that is based upon human values? One, where I respect you, and you respect me?


End Rant.


Bit of a rant there Ardor. Are you feeling better now? I hope so. As for the majority of people in the U.K being against the war, I&#39;m not sure if that&#39;s true. Only a million people turned out for the Anti-War Demonstration in London. What were the other 59 million citizens of the U.K doing?? They certainly weren&#39;t joining the knee-jerk, anti-American, anti-Israel brigade. The majority of people on that march had nothing to say about the suppression of the Iraqi people. It was just about slating America/Bush, Israel, Globalisation, Blair and Fox Hunting. None of the protesters I spoke to had any cohesive arguments. They ALL seemed to share a deep-seated hatred of America and England. I also asked "Why", if they feel so strongly, " don&#39;t they go to countries like Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea and protest against the conditions there??" and do you know what? They muttered a few excuses but couldn&#39;t answer. That goes to show the commitment of the Anti-War lobby. As for the so-called celebrities against the War, don&#39;t make me vomit with your cynical marketing. All they are interested in is £££££&#39;s and &#036;&#036;&#036;&#036;&#036;&#39;s. Whores&#33;&#33;

Last thing I heard it wasn&#39;t illegal to offer a loan and charge interest. If certain African "Heads of State" want to spend their loans on AK47&#39;s and Roll&#39;s Royce&#39;s, so be it. Personally I think they should provide food clothing and education for their people but that&#39;s just my opinion.

Also, the United Nations has been ineffective virtually since it was founded. I can&#39;t think of any war that it has solved. The only time that it has ever influenced another State is when backed up by force, US force&#33;&#33;

The reason that the majority of the American Prison System is Black is a completely seperate issue and should be left to another topic. Maybe it&#39;s cos they commit more crime?

And it&#39;s the ANC, the African National Congress, not ANP. They were a terrorist organistion involved in murder, bombings and extortion. Mandela, not "Mandella", was a convicted terrorist - does that mean in 27 years time Bin Laden will be President of Saudi Arabia?? Who knows? I hope not. If you are going to make a serious point at least read up on the subject. Not knowing how to spell Mandela and the ANC was a giveaway.

Hate to burst your bubble but, Utopia doesn&#39;t exist&#33;&#33;

:ph34r:

[junkyardking]

First of all Columbia, America does have some troops there training and whatnot and even in combat. and wait what does Columbia have, ahh yes oil oh and wait it also has some reds, so its reds under the bed.





ne1GotZardoz Posted: 30 March 2003 - 02:14
Hmmm...Someone has selective memory here.

You have convieniently forgotten about 9/11.

You have forgotten about the anthrax letters.

Pity for you that no-one else has.

Peace


9/11 - Osama Bin laden not Saddam and by the way where is Osama?

Anthrax - This happened to be around the same time as 9/11
And letters with the Anthrax were "religous" ect.
But the Anthrax was a strain that comes from a US military labatory
and it is now though that the Anthrax Incidences were from a Person or persons inside the
Laboraty who were trying to wake up the Government on how slack the sercurity/ procedures,
Although a bit extreme government tends to only pay attention when something serveley bad
happens e.g. Death.

It&#39;s a pity you dont check the facts ne1GotZardoz.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by junkyardking@6 April 2003 - 07:18
First of all Columbia, America does have some troops there training and whatnot and even in combat. and wait what does Columbia have, ahh yes oil oh and wait it also has some reds, so its reds under the bed.



What are &#39;reds&#39;? Communists perhaps?
And whats with the Dr Seuss rhyme?

Columbia has something else that, in my opinion anyway, is much more valuable...A most excelent stash of Mary Jane.

I didn&#39;t know they were oil rich but since you say they are, I believe it. I may research it if the issue becomes important enough.

Perhaps they should start converting that oil to money. Maybe that would get them out of their drug sales dependancy.

I still think people should grow there own. Much safer all around.


9/11 - Osama Bin laden not Saddam and by the way where is Osama?


Probably Siria. That seems to be the preferance among most political exiles in that region.

I don&#39;t think Iran would take him. They seem to be making a sincere attempt at growing up with the rest of the world.


Anthrax - This happened to be around the same time as 9/11
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And letters with the Anthrax were "religous" ect.
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; But the Anthrax was a strain that comes from a US military labatory
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; and it is now though that the Anthrax Incidences were from a Person or persons inside the
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Laboraty who were trying to wake up the Government on how slack the sercurity/ procedures,
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Although a bit extreme government tends to only pay attention when something serveley bad
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; happens e.g. Death.



http://www.fbi.gov/

I checked through most of the anthrax related pages. Didn&#39;t find anything like you mentioned.
Since the FBI was heading the investigation, I would expect it to be there.
You get your info from some other source?

Please let me know.


It&#39;s a pity you dont check the facts ne1GotZardoz.


You may be right.

Maybe.

[soopaman]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@6 April 2003 - 17:05
Columbia has something else that, in my opinion anyway, is much more valuable...A most excelent stash of Mary Jane.
Perhaps they should start converting that oil to money. Maybe that would get them out of their drug sales dependancy.
I still think people should grow there own. Much safer all around.



Why should the Columbians in power give up the Cocaine trade when they make more cash from that than they would if they sold all their oil 10 times over?? They ain&#39;t stupid.
As for growing at home, you definately have the right idea&#33;&#33;&#33; B)
If the US and Britain legalised drugs they wouldn&#39;t have such fucked up economies. No deficits ever&#33;&#33; :D

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by soopaman+6 April 2003 - 22:32--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (soopaman @ 6 April 2003 - 22:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ne1GotZardoz@6 April 2003 - 17:05
Columbia has something else that, in my opinion anyway, is much more valuable...A most excelent stash of Mary Jane.
Perhaps they should start converting that oil to money. Maybe that would get them out of their drug sales dependancy.
I still think people should grow there own. Much safer all around.



Why should the Columbians in power give up the Cocaine trade when they make more cash from that than they would if they sold all their oil 10 times over?? They ain&#39;t stupid.
As for growing at home, you definately have the right idea&#33;&#33;&#33; B)
If the US and Britain legalised drugs they wouldn&#39;t have such fucked up economies. No deficits ever&#33;&#33; :D [/b][/quote]
True.

You could call the results part of the evolutionary process......

But until the Junkies all killed themselves, we might as well get some tax off them....they wouldnt complain, they&#39;d still be paying a lot less than Black Market Prices....

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@6 April 2003 - 23:00

But until the Junkies all killed themselves, we might as well get some tax off them....they wouldnt complain, they&#39;d still be paying a lot less than Black Market Prices....
Excellent&#33; :D

Well it works for tobacco and alcohol, why not drugs too?

RatFaced, if you even go into politics tell me, I&#39;ll vote for you&#33;

[FlamingYob]

I couldn&#39;t really give a rats ass. I&#39;m a cold human being anyway, fuck everyone.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by FlamingYob@7 April 2003 - 00:48
I couldn&#39;t really give a rats ass. I&#39;m a cold human being anyway, fuck everyone.
Hmmm...


"I couldn&#39;t really give a rats ass"



Ahh...


"fuck everyone"


Well, that pretty much sums up the value of your comments right there.

Thank you for that enlightening and informative post.

Next time you have something you want to say...don&#39;t.

[junkyardking]

starting point for the Anthrax letters

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/weapons/an...axletters2.html (http://www.terrorismanswers.com/weapons/anthraxletters2.html)

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/spec...16?OpenDocument (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/skyterror.nsf/other/E53AE9751887F47B86256B6E001FBD16?OpenDocument)


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...thrax-fbi.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-111001anthrax-fbi.story)

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by junkyardking@7 April 2003 - 05:06
starting point for the Anthrax letters

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/weapons/an...axletters2.html (http://www.terrorismanswers.com/weapons/anthraxletters2.html)

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/spec...16?OpenDocument (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/skyterror.nsf/other/E53AE9751887F47B86256B6E001FBD16?OpenDocument)


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...thrax-fbi.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-111001anthrax-fbi.story)
Speculation?

You give me speculation to prove your argument?

The media right now has the samples they discovered in Iraq being WMD.

Thats speculation too.

Can I use that as proof that Iraq has WMD?

Speculation is cool. Nothing wrong with it.

Makes for interesting conversation at the dinner table.

Please do use it as proof that the anthrax was not of terrorist origin.

I&#39;m the only one allowed to do that.

:rolleyes:

Peace

[Rip The Jacker]

I just had to go and click the link, didn&#39;t I? :x

The pic does break my heart though.... I don&#39;t see how droping bombs on children is the best way to achieve peace.... :unsure: