PDA

View Full Version : Two Things



tracydani
04-09-2003, 09:36 PM
I am by no means one of the deeper thinkers on this board. Nor am I as well informed as some.

But I have been wondering these last few weeks. People have been refering to many Iraqi's smiling as the coalition forces come to them. They have used this as further proof that what we are doing is right and that the population there is eager to welcome us in thanks for freeing them.

But I have been wondering to myself. How would I react to an invading force that has already attacked us in the past and is so obviously more powerfull then my own country? I mean, by experiance, I know that they are gonna win in the end and I have nothing to gain but my possible death for interfearing.
Would I react in anger or would I be smiling my best knowing that these people who are surrounding me with tanks and guns are gonna be deciding my future for me?


The other thing I have been thinking about is this. Will Saddam win this fight against America?
I know he will most likely die at the end of this(and may already be dead), but will he win in the end?

So far, all the weapons of mass destruction we have accused him of having as an excuse to attack, have not been found. Just as Saddam said.
Will this end with America losing more in the end then a war with Iraq? Will people overlook the fact that the reason we went to war wasn't realized in the end? Or will everyone really begin to be anti American giving Saddam the final victory?

Just curious what others think on this

dwightfry
04-09-2003, 09:49 PM
1. They are smiling, and I don't think anyone could fake such happiness. If they had any love for Sadam, they wouldn't have tore down the statue, and defaced the paintings. So, I dont' think they are faking.

2. They found missle which had supposedly had chemicle weapons attatched to them. Even if we don't find any weapons, we still did good. I was completely against this war....until now. Before, every single reason people gave me wasn't good enough. They don't have chemical weapons, this won't stop future terrorist attacks, and they are suppressed, but it isn't in our right/responsibility to stop that. Now I'm glad the war happened. They still probably don't have chemical weapons, and even if they do, who cares. This still won't stop future terrorist attacks, but who cares. There now is an entire countrly liberated, experiencing freedom most of them have never seen. That is what really mattered. So, Sadam still lost.

ClubDiggler
04-09-2003, 09:54 PM
To me the happy Iraqi Civilians is enough reason for the coalition
involvement. I wonder what the other nations who oposed this
liberation are going to say about it. I don't think monsieur Chirac
will get the Nobel prize nomination anymore. Today many Iraqi people
in Baghdad showed their appreciation for American troops by holding the
american flag up in the air and saying Bush is a hero (I almost fell of my chair)

I think for all of you opposers to the coalition;

Your oppinion does not count one tenth as much as an Iraqi person living
there.

Their opinion is the one that should be heard.

And they are starting to voice it now with their actions!!!


Long live the Coalition

ne1GotZardoz
04-09-2003, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by tracydani@9 April 2003 - 16:36
I am by no means one of the deeper thinkers on this board. Nor am I as well informed as some.

But I have been wondering these last few weeks. People have been refering to many Iraqi's smiling as the coalition forces come to them. They have used this as further proof that what we are doing is right and that the population there is eager to welcome us in thanks for freeing them.

But I have been wondering to myself. How would I react to an invading force that has already attacked us in the past and is so obviously more powerfull then my own country? I mean, by experiance, I know that they are gonna win in the end and I have nothing to gain but my possible death for interfearing.
Would I react in anger or would I be smiling my best knowing that these people who are surrounding me with tanks and guns are gonna be deciding my future for me?


The other thing I have been thinking about is this. Will Saddam win this fight against America?
I know he will most likely die at the end of this(and may already be dead), but will he win in the end?

So far, all the weapons of mass destruction we have accused him of having as an excuse to attack, have not been found. Just as Saddam said.
Will this end with America losing more in the end then a war with Iraq? Will people overlook the fact that the reason we went to war wasn't realized in the end? Or will everyone really begin to be anti American giving Saddam the final victory?

Just curious what others think on this
I don't know, Tracy...When we invaded Iraq,

who defended the Iraqi citizens?

Who attacked the Iraqi citizens?

I think when you look at it in that respect, there is really no question what the reality was here.

Z
04-10-2003, 12:32 AM
you have to remember that not all iraqis are happy. what about the ones who lost their families? or the ones who just dont like being invaded? many iraqis are not happy. this will both increase and decrease the popularity of the united states in iraq.

ne1GotZardoz
04-10-2003, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by Z@9 April 2003 - 19:32
you have to remember that not all iraqis are happy. what about the ones who lost their families? or the ones who just dont like being invaded? many iraqis are not happy. this will both increase and decrease the popularity of the united states in iraq.
Based on what traspired during this war, and on what several Iraqi's said about the regime in an interview the day before the war started, These people were oppressed, tortured and murdered before we came in.
But there was no hope then.
Maybe you've been reading different history books, but what I've been reading about that culture in texts dating back to the middle ages and Marco Polo, is that the ruling class is barbaric having no regard for it's citizens.
Most of the rest of the world has been moving beyond that legacy.
Even Russia has joined the rest of the world in our quest for equal treatment of all mankind.
Except for a few countries in the Middle East.
I have seen nothing from this war to convince me that assessment is not still true.

I have seen much though to convince me that it is still true.

I'm still waiting to hear Iraqis say they are unhappy with these events.
I haven't yet.

We took great care to cause as few civilian cassualties as possible.
The Iraqi Army, the people who should have been fighting to protect the civilians, caused as many cassualties as they could.
Or stood the civs up between them and our troops in the dead of night while they took pot shots at our men.

You think the citizens of Iraq are sorry to see the regime fall?

The Iraqi citizens have something now that they did not have before this war.

Hope.

Blue_Seraphim
04-10-2003, 03:57 AM
The only thing Sadam wins is a hole to go hide in.

ClubDiggler
04-10-2003, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by Z@10 April 2003 - 01:32
you have to remember that not all iraqis are happy. what about the ones who lost their families? or the ones who just dont like being invaded? many iraqis are not happy. this will both increase and decrease the popularity of the united states in iraq.
Sure, some Iraqis lost loved ones; but if it wasn't for the coalitions'
intervention it is safe to say a lot more would.

The US is not invading Iraq.

Dictionary: "Invasion: 1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder"

I don't think the US is conquering or plundering, looting or taking their goods in any way.

Bingo again some Iraqis are not happy.... Saddam Hussain is one of them.

Z
04-10-2003, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz+9 April 2003 - 21:57--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 9 April 2003 - 21:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Z@9 April 2003 - 19:32
you have to remember that not all iraqis are happy. what about the ones who lost their families? or the ones who just dont like being invaded? many iraqis are not happy. this will both increase and decrease the popularity of the united states in iraq.
Based on what traspired during this war, and on what several Iraqi&#39;s said about the regime in an interview the day before the war started, These people were oppressed, tortured and murdered before we came in.
But there was no hope then.
Maybe you&#39;ve been reading different history books, but what I&#39;ve been reading about that culture in texts dating back to the middle ages and Marco Polo, is that the ruling class is barbaric having no regard for it&#39;s citizens.
Most of the rest of the world has been moving beyond that legacy.
Even Russia has joined the rest of the world in our quest for equal treatment of all mankind.
Except for a few countries in the Middle East.
I have seen nothing from this war to convince me that assessment is not still true.

I have seen much though to convince me that it is still true.

I&#39;m still waiting to hear Iraqis say they are unhappy with these events.
I haven&#39;t yet.

We took great care to cause as few civilian cassualties as possible.
The Iraqi Army, the people who should have been fighting to protect the civilians, caused as many cassualties as they could.
Or stood the civs up between them and our troops in the dead of night while they took pot shots at our men.

You think the citizens of Iraq are sorry to see the regime fall?

The Iraqi citizens have something now that they did not have before this war.

Hope. [/b][/quote]
look. i know the iraqis have been oppressed, murdered, and such by saddam, and yes, lots are happy that he is now gone (most). all i was saying was that there are still those who hate the US and wouldnt change that forever. the only thing u see on the news is people praising the US. obviously. it is our news for hells sake.

ok, now how can u say we took careful not to kill civilians? we obviously didnt kill them on purpose, but over 1000 were killed. and thats the US&#39;s count&#33; the iraqi army was not defending its citizens, and nor were they trying to. saddam obviously doesnt care about them. his army doesnt either. he does have loyals you know (soldiers in baghdad). and the battle in baghdad went much quicker than i thought it would. good.

of course the iraqi citizens are happy to see the regime fall, but how many people had to die to get it? yes, many would have died anyways under saddam, but think about everybody, not just the people they show on the news.

of course everyone wants to say that the only reason this was done was to liberate iraq, but do u really think bush cares about the iraqi citizens? seriously? i think this was good, but too many people died, and not everyone is happy that it happened.

zhelynd
04-10-2003, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz+10 April 2003 - 00:28--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 10 April 2003 - 00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--tracydani@9 April 2003 - 16:36
I am by no means one of the deeper thinkers on this board. Nor am I as well informed as some.

But I have been wondering these last few weeks.&nbsp; People have been refering to many Iraqi&#39;s smiling as the coalition forces come to them.&nbsp; They have used this as further proof that what we are doing is right and that the population there is eager to welcome us in thanks for freeing them.

But I have been wondering to myself.&nbsp; How would I react to an invading force that has already attacked us in the past and is so obviously more powerfull then my own country?&nbsp; I mean, by experiance, I know that they are gonna win in the end and I have nothing to gain but my possible death for interfearing.
Would I react in anger or would I be smiling my best knowing that these people who are surrounding me with tanks and guns are gonna be deciding my future for me?


The other thing I have been thinking about is this.&nbsp; Will Saddam win this fight against America?
I know he will most likely die at the end of this(and may already be dead), but will he win in the end?

So far, all the weapons of mass destruction we have accused him of having as an excuse to attack, have not been found.&nbsp; Just as Saddam said.
Will this end with America losing more in the end then a war with Iraq?&nbsp; Will people overlook the fact that the reason we went to war wasn&#39;t realized in the end?&nbsp; Or will everyone really begin to be anti American giving Saddam the final victory?

Just curious what others think on this
I don&#39;t know, Tracy...When we invaded Iraq,

who defended the Iraqi citizens?

Who attacked the Iraqi citizens?

I think when you look at it in that respect, there is really no question what the reality was here. [/b][/quote]
Speaking of such nobel pursuit, when are we gonna see some US invovlement in Congo where 1000 innocent people were massacured....
my guess would be the day they found 200 trillion tonnes of oil under Congolian soil.

tracydani
04-10-2003, 09:04 AM
Well I should have started off by saying that I support what is happening and have from the beginning. Just not how it is being done(without anywhere near a majority of approval from the rest of the world).

I also think that the Iraqi people will(if they don&#39;t already) support and thank the coalition for what has been done for them.

I guess what I am really wondering about is how many of the smiling faces we are seeing and have been seeing are because they really think we are doing them a favor and not just taking them from a horrible situation(but one they have for the most part lived their whole lives with and know any better) and putting them into another that for them may not be better but only different? (I don&#39;t mean that giving them freedom isn&#39;t better for them, just that how many of them really understand what the possiblities are and support that? and how many are afraid that what we bring is an end to their culture?)

I think that to say the smile can&#39;t be faked is wrong though. And to say that Iraqi&#39;s tearing posters and tearing down a statue means they support it either.
How many of these people do you think have the feeling that the way they react will decide whether they live or die? I mean after all, that is the way it has been for many years. Do you really think their reactions are based on their loyalty(or lack of) to their leader? I have been wondering if they are reacting favoribly to our coming more out of happiness, or just resignation to the fact that what they may or may not want is of no concern, but they will have to live with the result either way.

If they thought that Saddam was going to win don&#39;t you think their reactions would be completely different? I do.

Again, I completely support the fact that this needed to be done. This post is not about whether this is right or wrong, just about how the Iraqi people may see it.


For the second part.
From the very beginning I have thought that Saddam and the coalition are fighting different wars.
We have said that we are stepping in to remove a horrible dictator and a danger to the world. I agree with that and support it.
I also belive that Saddam does not care for his people in any way other then that he has what he has at their expense.
Because of this, I tend to think that the war Saddam has been fighting is more of one to try and discredit America and hopefully bring it down in the eyes of the world. He must have known that his country would not stand a chance against a coalition led with the strenght of the American military behind it. He has had a long time to think about this, and may feel that when the time comes, he can&#39;t stop being removed but will do his best to inflict as much damage as he can anyway.

What I am really worried about, and have been from the beginning, is will this kind of tactic work?
If America had waited for approval or solid evidence, we wouldn&#39;t have to worry about this. Now I think we do.
And what if we do find weapons at this late a date? Will this help us? Or will the rest of the world just assume that it has all been planted. I personaly would not put it past our government. It seems we have done this type of thing before anyway.
Will this just help to enforce mistrust in America?

I am worried that the lives lost in the war are gonna be nothing in comparison to what will happen as a result of the way we went about beginning this war.

ne1GotZardoz
04-10-2003, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by zhelynd+10 April 2003 - 00:17--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (zhelynd @ 10 April 2003 - 00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -ne1GotZardoz@10 April 2003 - 00:28
<!--QuoteBegin--tracydani@9 April 2003 - 16:36
I am by no means one of the deeper thinkers on this board. Nor am I as well informed as some.

But I have been wondering these last few weeks. People have been refering to many Iraqi&#39;s smiling as the coalition forces come to them. They have used this as further proof that what we are doing is right and that the population there is eager to welcome us in thanks for freeing them.

But I have been wondering to myself. How would I react to an invading force that has already attacked us in the past and is so obviously more powerfull then my own country? I mean, by experiance, I know that they are gonna win in the end and I have nothing to gain but my possible death for interfearing.
Would I react in anger or would I be smiling my best knowing that these people who are surrounding me with tanks and guns are gonna be deciding my future for me?


The other thing I have been thinking about is this. Will Saddam win this fight against America?
I know he will most likely die at the end of this(and may already be dead), but will he win in the end?

So far, all the weapons of mass destruction we have accused him of having as an excuse to attack, have not been found. Just as Saddam said.
Will this end with America losing more in the end then a war with Iraq? Will people overlook the fact that the reason we went to war wasn&#39;t realized in the end? Or will everyone really begin to be anti American giving Saddam the final victory?

Just curious what others think on this
I don&#39;t know, Tracy...When we invaded Iraq,

who defended the Iraqi citizens?

Who attacked the Iraqi citizens?

I think when you look at it in that respect, there is really no question what the reality was here.
Speaking of such nobel pursuit, when are we gonna see some US invovlement in Congo where 1000 innocent people were massacured....
my guess would be the day they found 200 trillion tonnes of oil under Congolian soil. [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m sorry...When you clean your house, do you clean the whole house all at once?
Or do you set priorities?

Oh, I&#39;m sorry.

Maybe you can afford 1000 cleaning ladies, all waiting for you to blow a whistle so they can start cleaning at them same time.

Maybe you prefer not to clean your house at all.

I mean, after all, it&#39;s not fair to clean the dishes if the bathroom is dirty.

And you can&#39;t clean the bathroom if the livingroom needs vaccuumed.


My appologies to you sir.

ne1GotZardoz
04-10-2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by tracydani@10 April 2003 - 04:04
What I am really worried about, and have been from the beginning, is will this kind of tactic work?
If America had waited for approval or solid evidence, we wouldn&#39;t have to worry about this. Now I think we do.
And what if we do find weapons at this late a date? Will this help us? Or will the rest of the world just assume that it has all been planted. I personaly would not put it past our government. It seems we have done this type of thing before anyway.
Will this just help to enforce mistrust in America?

I am worried that the lives lost in the war are gonna be nothing in comparison to what will happen as a result of the way we went about beginning this war.
That was a concern of mine too at the onset and through most of the war.

I was concerned because I didn&#39;t think we should be going to war without UN backing, even if Chiraq was an ass about it.

As the war progressed, and I began to see how the Iraqi military was treating the people it was suppose to protect, I realized that a regime that trained its people with so little regard had to fall.

Then my concern became the hope that we find WMD because if we didn&#39;t, how would we justify our actions.

But then, one night in the war, The Fedayeen stood children between it and the US soldiers and began shooting at our soldiers, knowing they would shoot back even though they could not see clearly what they were shooting at.

The next morning our soldiers were in tears when they realized who they had killed.

I know the Fedayeen that were responsible for the setup, never gave it a second thought, except to be happy that our men fell for it.

At that point, I no longer cared whether we found WMD.

And I don&#39;t really care what the rest of the world thinks about it except that it would be nice for them to stop dredging up our past and deal with the information at hand.

They think its about oil.

Chiraq had a pretty good oil deal going with Saddam on the side. Despite the UN sanctions against it.

The U. S. could have.

We didn&#39;t.

If it was only about oil...If we really didn&#39;t care about the people...Well...The Saudi&#39;s have alot more oil.

I don&#39;t know. It just seems Chiraq was upset about losing his bedfellow.

If we get bad press we&#39;ll survive.


Peace

ne1GotZardoz
04-10-2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Z@9 April 2003 - 23:27
look. i know the iraqis have been oppressed, murdered, and such by saddam, and yes, lots are happy that he is now gone (most). all i was saying was that there are still those who hate the US and wouldnt change that forever. the only thing u see on the news is people praising the US. obviously. it is our news for hells sake.

ok, now how can u say we took careful not to kill civilians? we obviously didnt kill them on purpose, but over 1000 were killed. and thats the US&#39;s count&#33; the iraqi army was not defending its citizens, and nor were they trying to. saddam obviously doesnt care about them. his army doesnt either. he does have loyals you know (soldiers in baghdad). and the battle in baghdad went much quicker than i thought it would. good.

of course the iraqi citizens are happy to see the regime fall, but how many people had to die to get it? yes, many would have died anyways under saddam, but think about everybody, not just the people they show on the news.

of course everyone wants to say that the only reason this was done was to liberate iraq, but do u really think bush cares about the iraqi citizens? seriously? i think this was good, but too many people died, and not everyone is happy that it happened.
If you wanted the perfect ending, where the whole world stands up a cheers sincerly for the good ole USA, that was never gonna happen.

No matter what you do, someone will hate you for it.

You can&#39;t satisfy everyone, dude.

You gotta do whats right for you.

This was right for the US to do.

As for the over a thousand civilians killed, Well, we knew there would be casualties.

If the Iraqi army had not used its own people as sheilds, we could have kept the cassualties much lower.

Its a shame that Saddam and his army did not feel any obligation to protect civilian lives.

Its a shame we had to take extra measures in that area.

But it did happen, and most Iraqi&#39;s know why it happened.

The few that don&#39;t...Maybe they never will know.

Or maybe they just don&#39;t want to, because like Tracy says,


(but one they have for the most part lived their whole lives with and know any better) and putting them into another that for them may not be better but only different? (I don&#39;t mean that giving them freedom isn&#39;t better for them, just that how many of them really understand what the possiblities are and support that? and how many are afraid that what we bring is an end to their culture?)

chloe_cc2002
04-10-2003, 10:26 AM
QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 9 April 2003 - 21:57)
QUOTE (Z @ 9 April 2003 - 19:32)
you have to remember that not all iraqis are happy. what about the ones who lost their families? or the ones who just dont like being invaded? many iraqis are not happy. this will both increase and decrease the popularity of the united states in iraq.&nbsp;

Based on what traspired during this war, and on what several Iraqi&#39;s said about the regime in an interview the day before the war started, These people were oppressed, tortured and murdered before we came in.
But there was no hope then.
Maybe you&#39;ve been reading different history books, but what I&#39;ve been reading about that culture in texts dating back to the middle ages and Marco Polo, is that the ruling class is barbaric having no regard for it&#39;s citizens.
Most of the rest of the world has been moving beyond that legacy.
Even Russia has joined the rest of the world in our quest for equal treatment of all mankind.
Except for a few countries in the Middle East.
I have seen nothing from this war to convince me that assessment is not still true.

I have seen much though to convince me that it is still true.

I&#39;m still waiting to hear Iraqis say they are unhappy with these events.
I haven&#39;t yet.

We took great care to cause as few civilian cassualties as possible.
The Iraqi Army, the people who should have been fighting to protect the civilians, caused as many cassualties as they could.
Or stood the civs up between them and our troops in the dead of night while they took pot shots at our men.

You think the citizens of Iraq are sorry to see the regime fall?

The Iraqi citizens have something now that they did not have before this war.

Hope.&nbsp;

look. i know the iraqis have been oppressed, murdered, and such by saddam, and yes, lots are happy that he is now gone (most). all i was saying was that there are still those who hate the US and wouldnt change that forever. the only thing u see on the news is people praising the US. obviously. it is our news for hells sake.

ok, now how can u say we took careful not to kill civilians? we obviously didnt kill them on purpose, but over 1000 were killed. and thats the US&#39;s count&#33; the iraqi army was not defending its citizens, and nor were they trying to. saddam obviously doesnt care about them. his army doesnt either. he does have loyals you know (soldiers in baghdad). and the battle in baghdad went much quicker than i thought it would. good.

of course the iraqi citizens are happy to see the regime fall, but how many people had to die to get it? yes, many would have died anyways under saddam, but think about everybody, not just the people they show on the news.

of course everyone wants to say that the only reason this was done was to liberate iraq, but do u really think bush cares about the iraqi citizens? seriously? i think this was good, but too many people died, and not everyone is happy that it happened.
QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 9 April 2003 - 21:57)
QUOTE (Z @ 9 April 2003 - 19:32)
you have to remember that not all iraqis are happy. what about the ones who lost their families? or the ones who just dont like being invaded? many iraqis are not happy. this will both increase and decrease the popularity of the united states in iraq.&nbsp;

Based on what traspired during this war, and on what several Iraqi&#39;s said about the regime in an interview the day before the war started, These people were oppressed, tortured and murdered before we came in.
But there was no hope then.
Maybe you&#39;ve been reading different history books, but what I&#39;ve been reading about that culture in texts dating back to the middle ages and Marco Polo, is that the ruling class is barbaric having no regard for it&#39;s citizens.
Most of the rest of the world has been moving beyond that legacy.
Even Russia has joined the rest of the world in our quest for equal treatment of all mankind.
Except for a few countries in the Middle East.
I have seen nothing from this war to convince me that assessment is not still true.

I have seen much though to convince me that it is still true.

I&#39;m still waiting to hear Iraqis say they are unhappy with these events.
I haven&#39;t yet.

We took great care to cause as few civilian cassualties as possible.
The Iraqi Army, the people who should have been fighting to protect the civilians, caused as many cassualties as they could.
Or stood the civs up between them and our troops in the dead of night while they took pot shots at our men.

You think the citizens of Iraq are sorry to see the regime fall?

The Iraqi citizens have something now that they did not have before this war.

Hope.&nbsp;

look. i know the iraqis have been oppressed, murdered, and such by saddam, and yes, lots are happy that he is now gone (most). all i was saying was that there are still those who hate the US and wouldnt change that forever. the only thing u see on the news is people praising the US. obviously. it is our news for hells sake.

ok, now how can u say we took careful not to kill civilians? we obviously didnt kill them on purpose, but over 1000 were killed. and thats the US&#39;s count&#33; the iraqi army was not defending its citizens, and nor were they trying to. saddam obviously doesnt care about them. his army doesnt either. he does have loyals you know (soldiers in baghdad). and the battle in baghdad went much quicker than i thought it would. good.

of course the iraqi citizens are happy to see the regime fall, but how many people had to die to get it? yes, many would have died anyways under saddam, but think about everybody, not just the people they show on the news.

of course everyone wants to say that the only reason this was done was to liberate iraq, but do u really think bush cares about the iraqi citizens? seriously? i think this was good, but too many people died, and not everyone is happy that it happened.


Apologise if I messed up the quotes a little however I thought they all raised very important issues. To Zhelani, I agree wholeheartedly about the whole pretext for the war being flawed. The US was disingenuous to say the least and they are still looking for the so called smoking gun....WMD. They previously showed they were willing to &#39;find&#39; this evidence, or a basis for a belief that they would, and we saw how they produced evidence to the UN that raised suspicions in my mind as to their true motives.

When will Bush liberate those who are oppressed in the Congo??? When will he save the rest of the world. Who will receive priority??

From what I have seen of those countries bordering Iraq there is some suggestion that the Egyptians believe that it is mostly Kurdish who are showing jubilation. There are other Arab countries who have voiced their opinions, and we wil no doubt not hear their sentiments. At the moment, all we are hearing is &#39;vindication&#39;.

As clicheist as it seems &#39;truth&#39; is the first casualty of war. Of those Iraqis that wanted Saddam gone, there are many who have expressed their discontent with the manner in which this was achieved.

chloe_cc2002
04-10-2003, 10:35 AM
DAMN SCRAP THAT LAST QUOTE...MESSED IT UP...MEANT TO QUOTE THE FOLLOWING. SIGH, ANYWAY.......


QUOTE (zhelynd @ 10 April 2003 - 00:17)
QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 10 April 2003 - 00:28)
QUOTE (tracydani @ 9 April 2003 - 16:36)
I am by no means one of the deeper thinkers on this board. Nor am I as well informed as some.

But I have been wondering these last few weeks.&nbsp; People have been refering to many Iraqi&#39;s smiling as the coalition forces come to them.&nbsp; They have used this as further proof that what we are doing is right and that the population there is eager to welcome us in thanks for freeing them.

But I have been wondering to myself.&nbsp; How would I react to an invading force that has already attacked us in the past and is so obviously more powerfull then my own country?&nbsp; I mean, by experiance, I know that they are gonna win in the end and I have nothing to gain but my possible death for interfearing.
Would I react in anger or would I be smiling my best knowing that these people who are surrounding me with tanks and guns are gonna be deciding my future for me?


The other thing I have been thinking about is this.&nbsp; Will Saddam win this fight against America?
I know he will most likely die at the end of this(and may already be dead), but will he win in the end?

So far, all the weapons of mass destruction we have accused him of having as an excuse to attack, have not been found.&nbsp; Just as Saddam said.
Will this end with America losing more in the end then a war with Iraq?&nbsp; Will people overlook the fact that the reason we went to war wasn&#39;t realized in the end?&nbsp; Or will everyone really begin to be anti American giving Saddam the final victory?

Just curious what others think on this&nbsp;

I don&#39;t know, Tracy...When we invaded Iraq,

who defended the Iraqi citizens?

Who attacked the Iraqi citizens?

I think when you look at it in that respect, there is really no question what the reality was here.&nbsp;

Speaking of such nobel pursuit, when are we gonna see some US invovlement in Congo where 1000 innocent people were massacured....
my guess would be the day they found 200 trillion tonnes of oil under Congolian soil.&nbsp;

ne1GotZardoz
04-10-2003, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by chloe_cc2002@10 April 2003 - 05:35
DAMN SCRAP THAT LAST QUOTE...MESSED IT UP...MEANT TO QUOTE THE FOLLOWING. SIGH, ANYWAY.......


QUOTE (zhelynd @ 10 April 2003 - 00:17)
QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 10 April 2003 - 00:28)
QUOTE (tracydani @ 9 April 2003 - 16:36)
I am by no means one of the deeper thinkers on this board. Nor am I as well informed as some.

But I have been wondering these last few weeks. People have been refering to many Iraqi&#39;s smiling as the coalition forces come to them. They have used this as further proof that what we are doing is right and that the population there is eager to welcome us in thanks for freeing them.

But I have been wondering to myself. How would I react to an invading force that has already attacked us in the past and is so obviously more powerfull then my own country? I mean, by experiance, I know that they are gonna win in the end and I have nothing to gain but my possible death for interfearing.
Would I react in anger or would I be smiling my best knowing that these people who are surrounding me with tanks and guns are gonna be deciding my future for me?


The other thing I have been thinking about is this. Will Saddam win this fight against America?
I know he will most likely die at the end of this(and may already be dead), but will he win in the end?

So far, all the weapons of mass destruction we have accused him of having as an excuse to attack, have not been found. Just as Saddam said.
Will this end with America losing more in the end then a war with Iraq? Will people overlook the fact that the reason we went to war wasn&#39;t realized in the end? Or will everyone really begin to be anti American giving Saddam the final victory?

Just curious what others think on this

I don&#39;t know, Tracy...When we invaded Iraq,

who defended the Iraqi citizens?

Who attacked the Iraqi citizens?

I think when you look at it in that respect, there is really no question what the reality was here.

Speaking of such nobel pursuit, when are we gonna see some US invovlement in Congo where 1000 innocent people were massacured....
my guess would be the day they found 200 trillion tonnes of oil under Congolian soil.
Chloe,

All you needed to do was click the "quote" button at the upper right of the message you were replying to.

It automatically quotes the whole message keeping the thread intact, and gives you a separate box to type your reply in.

Peace

chloe_cc2002
04-10-2003, 11:00 AM
:) thanks, a little while since I have been here. Thats my excuse anyway but thanks for the tip. ;) vis a vis quoting properly.

ClubDiggler
04-10-2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by zhelynd+10 April 2003 - 06:17--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (zhelynd @ 10 April 2003 - 06:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -ne1GotZardoz@10 April 2003 - 00:28
<!--QuoteBegin--tracydani@9 April 2003 - 16:36
I am by no means one of the deeper thinkers on this board. Nor am I as well informed as some.

But I have been wondering these last few weeks. People have been refering to many Iraqi&#39;s smiling as the coalition forces come to them. They have used this as further proof that what we are doing is right and that the population there is eager to welcome us in thanks for freeing them.

But I have been wondering to myself. How would I react to an invading force that has already attacked us in the past and is so obviously more powerfull then my own country? I mean, by experiance, I know that they are gonna win in the end and I have nothing to gain but my possible death for interfearing.
Would I react in anger or would I be smiling my best knowing that these people who are surrounding me with tanks and guns are gonna be deciding my future for me?


The other thing I have been thinking about is this. Will Saddam win this fight against America?
I know he will most likely die at the end of this(and may already be dead), but will he win in the end?

So far, all the weapons of mass destruction we have accused him of having as an excuse to attack, have not been found. Just as Saddam said.
Will this end with America losing more in the end then a war with Iraq? Will people overlook the fact that the reason we went to war wasn&#39;t realized in the end? Or will everyone really begin to be anti American giving Saddam the final victory?

Just curious what others think on this
I don&#39;t know, Tracy...When we invaded Iraq,

who defended the Iraqi citizens?

Who attacked the Iraqi citizens?

I think when you look at it in that respect, there is really no question what the reality was here.
Speaking of such nobel pursuit, when are we gonna see some US invovlement in Congo where 1000 innocent people were massacured....
my guess would be the day they found 200 trillion tonnes of oil under Congolian soil. [/b][/quote]
So, you want the US to do everything huh&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Why don&#39;t some other F****n country help out a little.

That would be nice; but I think whinning about the US is easier. :angry:

Z
04-10-2003, 09:26 PM
clubdiggler - its true. they hate, but they need. and they admire.

zhelynd
04-10-2003, 10:16 PM
>>I&#39;m sorry...When you clean your house, do you clean the whole house all at once?
>>Or do you set priorities?
>>Oh, I&#39;m sorry.
>>Maybe you can afford 1000 cleaning ladies, all waiting for you to blow a whistle so they can start cleaning at them same time.
>>Maybe you prefer not to clean your house at all.
>>I mean, after all, it&#39;s not fair to clean the dishes if the bathroom is dirty.
>>And you can&#39;t clean the bathroom if the livingroom needs vaccuumed.
>>My appologies to you sir.

It&#39;s funny, I dont think it&#39;s appropreiate to refer to such global environment as "your own house", you are actually cleaning somebody else&#39;s house for a price, and obviously u won&#39;t clean the house where u won&#39;t get any returns. My point is simple, killing Saddam is more of an long term investment for the US. Primary objective of this war is oil, secondary objective maybe to establish a more strong US influence world wide, the well being of the Iraqis probably came in at third or forth.

And to hell with Congo, it has no military or economic significance in the world so US is probably gonna send in a few peacekeeping rangers and probably give the country some food. This is reality.

zhelynd
04-10-2003, 10:19 PM
>>So, you want the US to do everything huh&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
>>Why don&#39;t some other F****n country help out a little.
>>That would be nice; but I think whinning about the US is easier.

Other countries? gimme a break, which country in this world has military bases covering half the damn globe?
US is the one who wants to be involve in just about everything in the world.

chloe_cc2002
04-10-2003, 10:56 PM
So, you want the US to do everything huh&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Why don&#39;t some other F****n country help out a little

um...the US does arrogate to itself the desire to do everything where it is convenient...go to www.hrw.org and check it out yourself.

On that note there is an excellent article I thought is worth reading titled "Give Iraqis Justice Not a US Puppet Show"....on the hrw.org page also...

"Saddam Hussein and his henchmen have been responsible for murdering or "disappearing" some 225,000 Iraqis. Now that his dictatorship is crumbling, what is the best way to bring to justice the surviving members of his government who are responsible for these atrocities?

The Bush administration has proposed an "Iraqi-led" tribunal. It sounds wonderful in theory: Why not entrust the Iraqi people with pursuing the crimes committed against them?

In practice, though, Washington proposes to handpick the Iraqis from among its closest exile and opposition friends. This threatens to aggravate political tensions and undermine the rule of law. Only an internationally-led tribunal will have the independence, credibility, and legitimacy needed to see justice done.

At stake are not Iraq&#39;s alleged crimes against U.S. forces, such as executing prisoners of war or attacking troops while pretending to surrender. If the Pentagon can provide evidence of these crimes, no one would quarrel with its right to prosecute the perpetrators on its own.

But these offences pale in comparison with the atrocities that Saddam Hussein and his government committed against the Iraqi people: the so-called Anfal genocide of 1988 in which some 100,000 Kurdish men and boys were rounded up and executed, and entire Kurdish villages assaulted with chemical weapons; the suppression of the 1991 uprisings in the largely Kurdish north and Shia south; and the suppression of the Marsh Arabs in the mid-1990s.

In an ideal world, one would hand the prosecution of these atrocities to Iraqi judges and prosecutors. But there are only two potential sources of Iraqi jurists, and neither is promising. The first, judges and prosecutors who populated Saddam Hussein&#39;s brutal and arbitrary justice system, is hardly a source of independent, fair-minded professionals. The second comprises Iraqi jurists in exile, as well as Iraqis from communities historically repressed by the Baath Party who remained in the country. It will be an uphill battle for these people to show they are not so consumed by hatred of the former dictatorship they won&#39;t simply assume the guilt of the accused. Moreover, Washington&#39;s designees would likely be seen as puppets of Washington, rather than independent dispensers of justice.

A more prudent route would be to find an internationally-led justice process, modeled after the international tribunals set up for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia, perhaps in streamlined form. To facilitate Iraqi involvement, one could emulate the special court for Sierra Leone, which is dominated by international judges but has significant involvement of local jurists. To decide on which format, and to begin preserving and assembling evidence, the United Nations could establish an international commission of inquiry.

An internationally-run court is far more likely than an Iraqi-led tribunal to be seen as a step toward the rule of law rather than a continuation of arbitrary violence. This is essential in a country where, after decades of brutal dictatorship, there is an enormous temptation to summary score-settling. So why does the Bush administration press for a tribunal led by hand-picked Iraqis?

First, Washington wants to control the scope of the inquiry to prevent examination of U.S. conduct in Iraq. The Pentagon seems to have gone to great pains to avoid civilian casualties in most cases, but certain of its actions have been controversial under the laws of war, such as the use of cluster bombs, the targeting of civilian morale, and the way in which it has used lethal force in urban areas. The last thing the Pentagon wants is for an independent tribunal to examine its behaviour.

Second, the Bush administration wants to apply the death penalty in Iraq. Most democracies have abolished capital punishment, and international tribunals don&#39;t permit it. But Washington doesn&#39;t want to be denied the option.

Finally, and perhaps most important, the Bush administration and the Pentagon detest international justice. Their ideological antipathy toward the International Criminal Court (out of fear that it might focus on an American) has led to its presumptive dislike of any international tribunal.

None of these reasons speak to the needs of the Iraqi people, who deserve a fair accounting of the many cruelties they have endured, a credible process for bringing those responsible to justice, and a positive precedent for building the rule of law in their lawless state. An internationally-led judicial process is the Iraqi people&#39;s best bet for a more lawful and just future."


I have bolded points I think he hit on very well

http://www.imahosting.com/sigs/image6.gif

ne1GotZardoz
04-10-2003, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by zhelynd@10 April 2003 - 17:19
>>So, you want the US to do everything huh&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
>>Why don&#39;t some other F****n country help out a little.
>>That would be nice; but I think whinning about the US is easier.

Other countries? gimme a break, which country in this world has military bases covering half the damn globe?
US is the one who wants to be involve in just about everything in the world.
Ahhh...Then you DO want the US to do it all while you sit back and whine about it.

You know, you&#39;re as bad as My grandma.

She has never driven a car more than one day in her whole life and that day she ran into a house.

But she&#39;s very happy to sit in the passenger seat and tell everyone else how to drive.

Or that they don&#39;t deserve to have a license.

Zhelynd, I award you the BackSeat Driver of the year award&#33;&#33;&#33;

:wacko:

Congratulations.

Z
04-10-2003, 11:57 PM
that may be true, ne1, but the US is the most powerful. shouldnt they take some responsibility?
i dunno...

tracydani
04-11-2003, 07:26 AM
So does that mean the US was right to have this war with or without UN approval?

If we should have the responsibility to do something about it just because we have the most powerful military, why should we need to have someone elses approval?

I am not sure if that is what you meant but it kinda sounded that way.

I personally think we should do what we can, at UN discretion and only with military support in some form from all member countries. Other countries should not say we should have done this or that if they are not willing to be a part of it.

And if we are going to be the ones that do it all, we definately should be doing it in an order that makes sense to our country.

But again, I do not think we should be taking it all on ourselves. We should be concentrating on making the idea of the UN work, especially if that means changing the way the UN works and giving each member an equal status when making decisions.

Then the world can decide what is best and reap the benefits of their decision or suffer the consequences together.

ne1GotZardoz
04-11-2003, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Z@10 April 2003 - 18:57
that may be true, ne1, but the US is the most powerful. shouldnt they take some responsibility?
i dunno...
Z,

What post were you replying to?

ne1GotZardoz
04-11-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by tracydani@11 April 2003 - 02:26
So does that mean the US was right to have this war with or without UN approval?

If we should have the responsibility to do something about it just because we have the most powerful military, why should we need to have someone elses approval?

I am not sure if that is what you meant but it kinda sounded that way.

I personally think we should do what we can, at UN discretion and only with military support in some form from all member countries. Other countries should not say we should have done this or that if they are not willing to be a part of it.

And if we are going to be the ones that do it all, we definately should be doing it in an order that makes sense to our country.

But again, I do not think we should be taking it all on ourselves. We should be concentrating on making the idea of the UN work, especially if that means changing the way the UN works and giving each member an equal status when making decisions.

Then the world can decide what is best and reap the benefits of their decision or suffer the consequences together.
Traci,

I&#39;m not sure who you were replying to but just as a side note, I wanted to be sure you were aware that the UN was a US idea.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm

You&#39;ll note that the Charter was based on proposals by 4 countries.
The US was one of them.

It was signed and ratified in 1945 but it had existed since 1942 when 26 nations agreed to fight together against the Axis of Evil.

The Geneva conventions of war have been around for awhile but the last additions were in 1977. In light of recent events, I think it needs to be reevaluated.
http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Both were designed in a time when war was declared, there were no terrorists, (not in any organized sense, unless you counted the school bully and his gang of toadies), and two countries had just been foiled in their plans for world domination.

The conventions were designed to protect from such attrocities as those perpetrated by the nazi&#39;s and the Japanese on our soldiers and the Jewish people.

The UN came about from a recognition that if the world remained a world of individual countries, it would be easy prey again to the next dictator with designs to dominate it.

Terrorism was not considered as a viable threat.

Also, the UN weapons inspectors could not have ever found WMD because it seems they were housed in mobile units.

Oh, and possibly weapons grade plutonium underground in heavy water filled containers.

Its time to redefine the purpose of the UN and possibly do a few revisions to the Geneva Conventions.

I mean, terrorism has become an act of war. That MUST be addressed.

As to your question...

I&#39;m sure you&#39;re familiar with young love...

Two young people who are so in love with each other that they decide to get married.

They asked for the girl&#39;s parents&#39; permission.

They are going to get married anyway because they feel its the right thing to do.

It will be easier though with their parents&#39; blessings and support.

I&#39;m not trying to say the US wanted to elope with Iraq, :huh: but the analogy is valid.

Peace

Rat Faced
04-11-2003, 05:40 PM
I agree that the UN needs to be re-organised, but that can only be done if all countries actually complie with the treaties, otherwise we might as well forget the whole concept...like we did with the League of Nations.

It has been said, the USA is the most powerful country in the world, and it has over half of the worlds GDP in its economy....if the USA wont abide by the treaties, why should anyone else? Because they say so?



I would disagree with this statement though....


Both were designed in a time when war was declared, there were no terrorists, (not in any organized sense, unless you counted the school bully and his gang of toadies), and two countries had just been foiled in their plans for world domination.



Just because the USA had not experianced terrorism, does not mean it was not around before September 11th.

Ask just about any other country in the world.....terrorism has been around for a long time, or is it only terrorism when its directed at USA?

ClubDiggler
04-11-2003, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by zhelynd@10 April 2003 - 23:19
>>So, you want the US to do everything huh&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
>>Why don&#39;t some other F****n country help out a little.
>>That would be nice; but I think whinning about the US is easier.

Other countries? gimme a break, which country in this world has military bases covering half the damn globe?
US is the one who wants to be involve in just about everything in the world.
It seems to me; from your comment that the US is the only nation in a position
to do something about it and it is doing it.

So, what&#39;s the problem again? <_<

ClubDiggler
04-11-2003, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by chloe_cc2002@10 April 2003 - 23:56
um...the US does arrogate to itself the desire to do everything where it is convenient...go to www.hrw.org and check it out yourself.

On that note there is an excellent article I thought is worth reading titled "Give Iraqis Justice Not a US Puppet Show"....on the hrw.org page also...

Well, well, well......



I&#39;ve never been an advocate of US foreign policy in every issue nor believe the US
has always been right.

Having said that; I must add that to argue that the US should not
get involved here just because it has not been involved in every single
inhumane act in the world is not valid. The US cannot do it all.

Regarding the article you describe. I thoght it made sense. The Iraqi Justice system may not be
the best equiped to handle this type of trial. Nevertheless they need a say in the matter&#33;&#33;&#33;

<_<

j2k4
04-11-2003, 10:52 PM
I see a problem developing here; a conflict between the utter necessity of doing it right, well, and comprehensively, and the "need" of the "peanut gallery" for us to fold our tent and go home.

I hereby cordially invite the latter to go F**K themselves-If you don&#39;t like how we (the coalition ) do what needs to be done, feel free to go to the U.N. and secure one of their wonderful resolutions, or go get a bigger, better coalition (remember all our "willing" members, too) and overpower us.

I recommend finding a nice comfy perch, some good snacks/refreshments and relaxing. We will let you know when the job is finished.

Remember-We are VERY arrogant, and we know what&#39;s best.

ne1GotZardoz
04-11-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by zhelynd@10 April 2003 - 17:16
>>I&#39;m sorry...When you clean your house, do you clean the whole house all at once?
>>Or do you set priorities?
>>Oh, I&#39;m sorry.
>>Maybe you can afford 1000 cleaning ladies, all waiting for you to blow a whistle so they can start cleaning at them same time.
>>Maybe you prefer not to clean your house at all.
>>I mean, after all, it&#39;s not fair to clean the dishes if the bathroom is dirty.
>>And you can&#39;t clean the bathroom if the livingroom needs vaccuumed.
>>My appologies to you sir.

It&#39;s funny, I dont think it&#39;s appropreiate to refer to such global environment as "your own house", you are actually cleaning somebody else&#39;s house for a price, and obviously u won&#39;t clean the house where u won&#39;t get any returns. My point is simple, killing Saddam is more of an long term investment for the US. Primary objective of this war is oil, secondary objective maybe to establish a more strong US influence world wide, the well being of the Iraqis probably came in at third or forth.

And to hell with Congo, it has no military or economic significance in the world so US is probably gonna send in a few peacekeeping rangers and probably give the country some food. This is reality.
Mmmm...Well...you could be right...NOT&#33;

We were trying do see the world your way, but some rats in the Middle Eastern room of this one small planetary home, of which I am a part, decided it would be a good idea to fly planes into three of the buildings in the USA wing.

They were taught that this was a good thing to do.
Just like Saddam&#39;s army was taught that killing civilians and trying to blame it on the enemy, or pushing children between you and the enemy so the enemy wouldn&#39;t shoot, was a good thing to do.

Do you believe thats a good thing to do?

How do you deal with rats?

ne1GotZardoz
04-11-2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@11 April 2003 - 12:40
I agree that the UN needs to be re-organised, but that can only be done if all countries actually complie with the treaties, otherwise we might as well forget the whole concept...like we did with the League of Nations.

It has been said, the USA is the most powerful country in the world, and it has over half of the worlds GDP in its economy....if the USA wont abide by the treaties, why should anyone else? Because they say so?



I would disagree with this statement though....


Both were designed in a time when war was declared, there were no terrorists, (not in any organized sense, unless you counted the school bully and his gang of toadies), and two countries had just been foiled in their plans for world domination.



Just because the USA had not experianced terrorism, does not mean it was not around before September 11th.

Ask just about any other country in the world.....terrorism has been around for a long time, or is it only terrorism when its directed at USA?
My understanding, (this is based on memory and a lack of time to search for a link right now to coraborate it), is that terrorism is a product of the 70&#39;s that began to manifest itself more, in the 80&#39;s and 90&#39;s and reached epic proportions around the time Bush Jr. took office.

I never said it didn&#39;t exist until the US was attacked.
But when the UN and the Geneva Conventions came into existance, terrorism wasn&#39;t really a word that was much used.

chloe_cc2002
04-12-2003, 01:52 AM
Carlos the Jackal was known as one of the first &#39;terrorists&#39;.

There are other examples.

Anyway, under the present definition of terrorism, at least legally I think that it pre-dates even Carlos.

tracydani
04-12-2003, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@11 April 2003 - 12:07


Traci,

I&#39;m not sure who you were replying to but just as a side note, I wanted to be sure you were aware that the UN was a US idea.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm


I was replying to z in the post before mine.

I am out for most of the next couple of days but will check out your links when I get back tonight.

I had heard that the UN was a US idea, but I think the idea is a good one. It just needs to change and not assume that the charter members(if those are the few who have the voting majority(as far as veto power and such)) know all and can decide between themselves the fate of the world.

Each country needs an equal vote.

I am pretty embarrassed at how the US has supported(or not) the UN. It has been a few years since I first heard the we don&#39;t pay our dues to the UN, and now we actively go against the UN&#39;s wishes.

I really can&#39;t see how anyone can support/justify the war we are in if it goes against UN(and by default the worlds) wishes.
For myself, I support the need for the war as I have said, but only with UN backing. Now for me it doesn&#39;t matter if they find 10 times more then expected of the WMD. It will not justify, after the fact, that we have done what we have.

And I belive that a large portion of the world thinks the same way. That is why I have asked will Saddam win in the end. Unless the world does look the other way, we may soon lose the bigger war.

soopaman
04-12-2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by chloe_cc2002@12 April 2003 - 02:52
Carlos the Jackal was known as one of the first &#39;terrorists&#39;.

There are other examples.

Anyway, under the present definition of terrorism, at least legally I think that it pre-dates even Carlos.


I think Terrorism goes back way before Carlos The Jackal. Terrorism is a tactic to instill fear in a population. Variations of which are as old as civilization. Check this for more info:

http://www.terrorismfiles.org/encyclopaedi..._terrorism.html (http://www.terrorismfiles.org/encyclopaedia/history_of_terrorism.html)


Hope you find this of help. :D

ne1GotZardoz
04-12-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by soopaman+12 April 2003 - 03:45--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (soopaman @ 12 April 2003 - 03:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--chloe_cc2002@12 April 2003 - 02:52
Carlos the Jackal was known as one of the first &#39;terrorists&#39;.

There are other examples.

Anyway, under the present definition of terrorism, at least legally I think that it pre-dates even Carlos.


I think Terrorism goes back way before Carlos The Jackal. Terrorism is a tactic to instill fear in a population. Variations of which are as old as civilization. Check this for more info:

http://www.terrorismfiles.org/encyclopaedi..._terrorism.html (http://www.terrorismfiles.org/encyclopaedia/history_of_terrorism.html)


Hope you find this of help. :D [/b][/quote]
Thats a good link. Thanks.

My point, though, was that although it existed prior to the 70&#39;s, it was not common.

And I don&#39;t personally consider the activities of the KKK to be terrorist acts.

They were a bunch of morons in white sheets who thought the way to save the world was to kill everyone that did not share their view.


Hmmm...Ok...They were terrorists. :P

Terrorism only really became a worldwide organization within the past couple of decades.

Now terrorism can destroy or control whole countries.

The UN proved its inadiquacies to deal with this real threat when it refused to deal with a known terrorist sponsor, Saddam&#39;s Regime.

And, the fact that one small country can veto a UN majority vote, I&#39;m sorry but thats just wrong.

What if that one small country was under terrorist control?

Peace

edited to make one sentence more readable to a wider audience.

ClubDiggler
04-12-2003, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by tracydani+12 April 2003 - 09:06--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tracydani @ 12 April 2003 - 09:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ne1GotZardoz@11 April 2003 - 12:07


Traci,

I&#39;m not sure who you were replying to but just as a side note, I wanted to be sure you were aware that the UN was a US idea.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm


I was replying to z in the post before mine.

I am out for most of the next couple of days but will check out your links when I get back tonight.

I had heard that the UN was a US idea, but I think the idea is a good one. It just needs to change and not assume that the charter members(if those are the few who have the voting majority(as far as veto power and such)) know all and can decide between themselves the fate of the world.

Each country needs an equal vote.

I am pretty embarrassed at how the US has supported(or not) the UN. It has been a few years since I first heard the we don&#39;t pay our dues to the UN, and now we actively go against the UN&#39;s wishes.

I really can&#39;t see how anyone can support/justify the war we are in if it goes against UN(and by default the worlds) wishes.
For myself, I support the need for the war as I have said, but only with UN backing. Now for me it doesn&#39;t matter if they find 10 times more then expected of the WMD. It will not justify, after the fact, that we have done what we have.

And I belive that a large portion of the world thinks the same way. That is why I have asked will Saddam win in the end. Unless the world does look the other way, we may soon lose the bigger war. [/b][/quote]
I am not sure if you are pro or anti veto power. I lost you a little
with the double parenthesis. Anyway I think veto power must be
abolished. The large majority should decide.

You said you support the need for war, but as long as the proper
precedure is followed.

So if the UN was to decide &#39;Never to go to war with the Iraqi regime&#39;
I guess you would be OK with that too right?

So to take it a step further; you would let the Iraqi people continue to
suffer and allow Saddam to build a larger reserve of weapons for the sake
of procedural preservation&#33;

Please correct me if I am wrong; I am just trying to understand&#33;

ClubDiggler
04-12-2003, 02:57 PM
missprint.

ne1GotZardoz
04-12-2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by ClubDiggler@12 April 2003 - 09:57
missprint.
missprint? Riiiight&#33;

What are you hiding in that deleted post? What is it you don&#39;t want us to know??

We know you have ties to middle eastern terrorist organizations.

We have doccuments that will prove that your mother&#39;s second cousin on her father&#39;s side bought toothpaste from a store in lower Manhattan. One of the cashiers at that store has a friend that was on a trip to France when he was approached by a man in a dark alley selling opium.

That opium came from Afghanistan, smuggled through customs in the bowels of a burmese python from Cuba.

So you may as well confess&#33;

On a more serious note...Do you think the nerve agent they detected on the missile casing is legit, or did the equiptment give a false positive?

Just conjecture. While we&#39;re waiting for the truth that most of us know, but a few wish to deny.

Peace

tracydani
04-12-2003, 07:26 PM
@ClubDiggler

I am against one country being able to veto what the majority may want.

If the UN decided to never go to war with Iraq(which would mean the majority of the world agrees if the veto power is taken away, and even with the veto power available at this time it was evident the majority was against war at this time) and this meant that the suffering was to continue, I would not be happy.
But I would support the decision on the basis that the majority of the UN also agreed. I would therefore have to assume that there is a valid reason for this.

You can say it is all being halted because of procedure and that people are going to suffer needlessly. But I think that that is happening anyway and the results of one or two countries going their own way and doing what they want anyway may just cause more suffering in the long run.

I belive that if didn&#39;t agree with their decision and decided myself to do something about it, and called anyone who got in my way an enemy that I would also deal with, then I should be considered as someone who is trying to run the world my way(sorry for the long sentence). In other words, a dictator.

Just because my country does not kill and torture people does not mean that the president is not showing signs of being a dictator.

Just because I agree with the reasons for a war, doesn&#39;t mean I agree that my country alone should be the one to decide that it is time.

I am just glad that our president is elected(leaving aside some peoples doubts) and will eventually be replaced with a new one. At least I know that if things go too wrong, with luck a new person in control can repair some of the damage.

Hopefully I am not still confusing anyone. It is easier to feel the way I do then to explain the way I feel.

ClubDiggler
04-12-2003, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz+12 April 2003 - 19:58--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 12 April 2003 - 19:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ClubDiggler@12 April 2003 - 09:57
missprint.
missprint? Riiiight&#33;

What are you hiding in that deleted post? What is it you don&#39;t want us to know??

We know you have ties to middle eastern terrorist organizations.

We have doccuments that will prove that your mother&#39;s second cousin on her father&#39;s side bought toothpaste from a store in lower Manhattan. One of the cashiers at that store has a friend that was on a trip to France when he was approached by a man in a dark alley selling opium.

That opium came from Afghanistan, smuggled through customs in the bowels of a burmese python from Cuba.

So you may as well confess&#33;

On a more serious note...Do you think the nerve agent they detected on the missile casing is legit, or did the equiptment give a false positive?

Just conjecture. While we&#39;re waiting for the truth that most of us know, but a few wish to deny.

Peace [/b][/quote]
That missprint is a result of a double post with the same
info (my post right above.) So I changed the second one
to make it shorter.

By the way, I buy my toothpaste uptown, but I&#39;ll be going downtown
for dinner tonight and that is a different story.... B)

Regarding the nerve agent. I guess we&#39;ll have to wait and see.

Peace back ;)

ClubDiggler
04-12-2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by tracydani@12 April 2003 - 20:26
@ClubDiggler

I am against one country being able to veto what the majority may want.

If the UN decided to never go to war with Iraq(which would mean the majority of the world agrees if the veto power is taken away, and even with the veto power available at this time it was evident the majority was against war at this time) and this meant that the suffering was to continue, I would not be happy.
But I would support the decision on the basis that the majority of the UN also agreed. I would therefore have to assume that there is a valid reason for this.

You can say it is all being halted because of procedure and that people are going to suffer needlessly. But I think that that is happening anyway and the results of one or two countries going their own way and doing what they want anyway may just cause more suffering in the long run.

I belive that if didn&#39;t agree with their decision and decided myself to do something about it, and called anyone who got in my way an enemy that I would also deal with, then I should be considered as someone who is trying to run the world my way(sorry for the long sentence). In other words, a dictator.

Just because my country does not kill and torture people does not mean that the president is not showing signs of being a dictator.

Just because I agree with the reasons for a war, doesn&#39;t mean I agree that my country alone should be the one to decide that it is time.

I am just glad that our president is elected(leaving aside some peoples doubts) and will eventually be replaced with a new one. At least I know that if things go too wrong, with luck a new person in control can repair some of the damage.

Hopefully I am not still confusing anyone. It is easier to feel the way I do then to explain the way I feel.
I think you make a great point and it makes sense...plenty.

I believe the final UN vote never took place.

The US knew either France or Russia was going to use their veto
power and stop any attack attempts.

I guess we&#39;ll never know who the majority really is.

But hey, well said.

Spindulik
04-13-2003, 05:13 AM
1. The smiles are real :)

2. Sadam has won for the last 25 years, now HE LOST&#33;