i havent posted any opinions about the war in this forum. i cant really say if im for or against it.
i just watched the speech and it was pretty convincing...
what do u guys think??
:huh:
Printable View
i havent posted any opinions about the war in this forum. i cant really say if im for or against it.
i just watched the speech and it was pretty convincing...
what do u guys think??
:huh:
i've been convinced for a long time. his speech was good (i think it would've been better if he had been sitting) and saddam needs to leave.
here is a very good analysis of iraq to convince all you peacepeople that war is a must.
I think it was a war declaration <_<
any wich ways it goes noone can deny that at least we'll be removing someone who does not deserve to live :angry:
My PM John Howard has commited Our troops so i say go in now :D :P :D
plus these 2 guys defaced the opera house with "No War"
do u live in australia? :huh:
yes and proud to be an aussie!!!!! :D :D :D
well... i was convinced already...
EVERYONE KNOWS he has these weapons... and nobody is doing bugger all.. they are doing something.. and that my friends is better than nothing...
Tom.,
The speech...
Made me clear its about the oil...
quote... not literaly
- all that put fire in oilwells will be prosecuted
and only after he said that he said
- any use of NBC (mass destructive) weapons will be prosecuted....
my guess..? What's the most important, you put that 1st.... I thought it was because of him having those weapons they attack....? Not the oil....
Some of you guys are full of it, do you know what happens if you go to war you have to kill people sometimes women and children, you have to see your buddies with their organs spilling out,
people suffer.
Some young people want to fight war but when they come back they are shatered people.
i suppose some people wont know the horrors of war until it happens on their own soil.
War is no good.
:huh: And as for Australia im an Australian but im not proud to be Australian the priminister locks up refugges and now wants to go to war, and get this he locks up iraqi refuggess which causes them great mental/physical harm, then he goes on about how Saddam is so cruel and wants to free iraqis from this regime,
He is certainly not "my pm".
Dont be fooled this war is about oil.
jetje is right .... all this war is about is oil and I wish everyone else could see this too. One of the first objectives of the allied attack is to 'secure the oil fields' yeah I bet 'secure' my ass , secure them from anyone else apart from america. you'd think that once in the process of attacking iraq the allies america would try and 'secure' all these chemical and biological weapons he is suppose to have hiding under his bed.Quote:
The speech...
Made me clear its about the oil...
BUSH is gonna be removed.... phew what a relief :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Master YodaX@18 March 2003 - 05:15
I think it was a war declaration <_<
any wich ways it goes noone can deny that at least we'll be removing someone who does not deserve to live :angry:
To be honest Romeo187, i'm not convinced at all. It's even worse i don't think Saddam has them.Quote:
(Romeo187 @ 18 March 2003 - 11:38)
well... i was convinced already...
EVERYONE KNOWS he has these weapons... and nobody is doing bugger all.. they are doing something.. and that my friends is better than nothing...
Tom.,
They (US Governement) just tell you that so are scared from them. And will back up his doubtable choice...
Ig there were weapons, show them... your intelligence is that almighty isn't it.
But i can say you this after or during the war they will show up.... guess who's gonna put them there..! <_<
BUSH is gonna be removed.... phew what a relief :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by jetje+18 March 2003 - 13:19--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jetje @ 18 March 2003 - 13:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Master YodaX@18 March 2003 - 05:15
I think it was a war declaration <_<
any wich ways it goes noone can deny that at least we'll be removing someone who does not deserve to live :angry:
LOL
I missed the speech so can't say but...
I'm not the most informed but I belive the war should happen. Seems there are valid reasons for it and if Saddam wanted to prevent it he would have cooperated with the U.N. much earlier. I just am not sure I belive it should happen without U.N. sanction. Then again, what good is it to try and get U.N. approval if someone can veto it because their vote carries more weight than anothers?
I am not so sure that putting oilfields ahead of the weapons is valid proof that the war is about oil either. I seem to remember a whole lot of damage being done (to people and the environment) when the fields were set to fire last time and it seems to be a good idea to prevent this from happening again if possible.
The weapons, many seem to agree exist but just don't seem to know exactly where. Can't really do much about them in the begginning if we don't know where they are(just gotta hope the first strikes take many of them out I geuss).
Anyway, I think that Bush going to war without U.N. approval is a bad idea(unless more of the countries that say they are in support back it up with action too). It seems as if we are willing to go along with the U.N. as long as it agrees with us. Not really a good way to run things in my opinion.
Just another poorly informed opinion.
One more thing. I belive we are handeling France and it's stand wrong. It seems we are trying to turn our country against France instead of dealing with a differance in policy/ideals. Seems I heard that the Senate dinning room renamed french fries to freedom fries, rediculous. This just seems tomake things worse instead of helping to deal with a problem.
I'm just trying to understand the logic underlying in this speech. And I think most of it is wrong.
Here's what I got from it :
1) There are high risks of acts of terrorism.
That's true. That was also true before 11.9.01.
2) Saddam Hussein is one of this risks because he has mass destruction weapons.
Maybe true (nothing proven yet). A lot of countries have these mass destruction weapons, & have a lot of them. North Corea, Russia, Pakistan, India...
3) Iraq have links with al-qaeda.
Maybe are there some contacts, but not more. Nothing has been proven yet. We were only given faked evidences.
4) Saddam refused to cooperate with the inspectors.
That's not what the inspectors say.
5) The Security council failed to disarm Iraq.
Who said so? The inspections were going on & were giving results. The Security council didn't want a war before it could be sure Iraq's disarment was impossible via other means (the inspections). The role of the UN is to seek peace, not to make inconsiderate wars.
6) The USA have the right to make that war without UN approval.
Untrue. There's no UN resolution that call for an automatic use of force against Iraq. Hitherto the war is illegal.
Now, I would like to ask: what's the cause of international terrorism? Isn't it the widening economic, social & cultural gap between the North & the South? Will that war lead to a growing sentiment of justice among the populations of the South ? The answer is : no! The US are about to make their biggest mistake ever, & everyone will pay for it.
Ive kept my mouth shut on this forum for a long time, and i suppose im still going to sit on the fence a little, even though i know what i think is the right thing to do and maybe this will give you some hints without me saying yes or no.
OK about the oil, America and Britain have very little to gain from gettin rid of sadam and getting a democratic government in, for a start if there is a lot of damage by the bombing in iraq, where do you think the money to rebuild it is going to come from, they are going to raise the oil prices even more to pay for it, so that means everyone will have to pay more for a barrel of oil than they do at the minute.
The biggest losers if sadam is toppled are Russia, France, Germany, because they get concessions on their oil, iraq gives rusia, france and germany oil for food and medicines, and its more than what america gets by a long way, i think they work it out that russia get the equilavent of $20 a barrel of oil, whereas they sell it for about $34 to other countries, thats not a bad mark up, and russia has these concessions for another few years, but only if sadam is still in power. Dont be blaming the Americans and the Brits for going to war over the oil, blame Russia, France and Germany, for trying to put a block on it so the 2nd resolution failed, if that had passed maybe they could have worked out an extension for peace and weapon inspectors but instead France Vetoed it so it would have failed anyway, so blame them for this war, not the americans and the brits.
But whatever you believe in, and whatever country you come from, please support all the troups that are there when they eventually do go in.
Do you really believe what you say? The second resolution was about a war! The alternative was between a war (with UN approval) or... a war (without UN approval).Quote:
Dont be blaming the Americans and the Brits for going to war over the oil, blame Russia, France and Germany, for trying to put a block on it so the 2nd resolution failed, if that had passed maybe they could have worked out an extension for peace and weapon inspectors but instead France Vetoed it so it would have failed anyway, so blame them for this war, not the americans and the brits.
And don't forget there's been NO vote at the UN (ie no veto). If there'de be one, a veto would proibably not have been necesseray from Russia or France, as there was not a majority of the Council willing to vote for this war.
I will support them as human beings, as I will support the people of Iraq. I will not support their cause.Quote:
But whatever you believe in, and whatever country you come from, please support all the troups that are there when they eventually do go in.
I think that's what most Europeans think about it.
Quote:
I think that's what most Europeans think about it.
By the way i am british, so i guess that makes me american not european in your book :P
If you are going to hate america, hate the government, not the people. Like all countries that have governments that are for the war, a majority of the civilians don't.
Damn. I wouldn't like to be Brittish these days. Would certainly become a schizo. :oQuote:
By the way i am british, so i guess that makes me american not european in your book
so you used to be british in the old days then??????Quote:
Originally posted by ketoprak@18 March 2003 - 13:34
Damn. I wouldn't like to be Brittish these days. Would certainly become a schizo. :oQuote:
By the way i am british, so i guess that makes me american not european in your book
And wtf you on about, about being a schizo, you putting all british ppl in the same boat as someone youve met or dont like?
If anything, that Q and A made me more against the war. All the answers started with, "possibly" or "We don't know" etc. It showed me how uncertain we are about Iraq.Quote:
Originally posted by kAb@18 March 2003 - 04:08
i've been convinced for a long time. his speech was good (i think it would've been better if he had been sitting) and saddam needs to leave.
here is a very good analysis of iraq to convince all you peacepeople that war is a must.
No, I'm talking about being devided between Europe & the US (commonwealth), devided between what my government does and what the majority of the citizen think.Quote:
And wtf you on about, about being a schizo, you putting all british ppl in the same boat as someone youve met or dont like?
Wouldn't like that.
Thats not the way he said it: He asked that they not set fire to the oil wells as the oil is for the Iraqi people but anyone that does will be prosecuted.There is a report out about a subway system that sadam was building in Bagdad years ago and most think the majority of his weapons are in there.Quote:
Originally posted by jetje@18 March 2003 - 05:04
The speech...
Made me clear its about the oil...
quote... not literaly
- all that put fire in oilwells will be prosecuted
I picked this up on another board and thought it interesting and a little funny it's a peace activist that could'nt answer a simple question from an Iraqi caller on a talk show.
http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3
it is the order he mentioned them... btw you raeally believe that the oil is for the Iraqi people?
now it's from Saddam and his followers and then its Bushes and it's followers... The people are always just the sitting ducks...
Hate to break it to you, but the US isn't part of the Commonwealth, and a large percentage of Commonwealth countries aren't supportive of this war.Quote:
Originally posted by ketoprak@18 March 2003 - 14:43
No, I'm talking about being devided between Europe & the US (commonwealth), devided between what my government does and what the majority of the citizen think.Quote:
And wtf you on about, about being a schizo, you putting all british ppl in the same boat as someone youve met or dont like?
Wouldn't like that.
:ninja:
This war is not ABOUT oil, however as oil is the largest export of IRAQ I would see where you guys and gals might get the idea. However it is not about oil, it is about a dictator who has killed his own citizens and sponsored terrorism that has killed other nations citizens.
If it were about oil then you would see a US flag flying after the war and it would become another US held piece of land. This is not going to happen, it sickens me to think that you people continue taking the easy look at things and spouting the "OIL" reason. Removing Saddam will not increase the US oil depository, not one single barrel.
Kuwait is the single largest importer of IRAQI oil and they will continue to import the oil no matter who may be in power. Simply stating this conflict is about oil because it makes you feel better is not the right thing to do; this conflict is about right and wrong.
I know there probably is not a single person on this forum that was around during WWII, however there are a lot of people (of Jewish faith especially) that wish the US and its allies had taken out Hitler before he murdered millions. However that did not happen and the world watched or more true to real life closed their eyes in horror as Hitler slaughtered millions.
As we cannot go back in time and change what has transpired we can only try and do what is right now, and as Saddam has failed to meet the UN's resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction, then I feel it is time to put an end to it. As is the case with all conflicts, there will be casualties, however it could be much worse to let the man stay in power and possibly kill many more people than this conflict may.
That is it for me at this time, I may have more of a rebuttal shortly, need to take a break.
i think too is a war Declaration, but anyway lets hope the war stays donw there on iraq....
You're right. It is about right and wrong. I believe that it is wrong for us to kill and be killed when Iraq is in a position that he couldn't do anything without the entire world going after him. It may be slower to do things the diplomatic way, but it is just as effective, and will cost less lives.Quote:
Originally posted by ShareDaddy@18 March 2003 - 15:30
Simply stating this conflict is about oil because it makes you feel better is not the right thing to do; this conflict is about right and wrong.
I read the Q & A, I'm not convinced.Quote:
Originally posted by kAb@18 March 2003 - 04:08
i've been convinced for a long time. his speech was good (i think it would've been better if he had been sitting) and saddam needs to leave.
here is a very good analysis of iraq to convince all you peacepeople that war is a must.
I read the transcript of Bush's speech, and I am convinced now that he really believes that he is acting on behalf of a gremium he just slapped in the face.
In my eyes that is one small trip for a bad politician, but a giant leap backward for mankind.
Oupss... I'd better shut up sometimes (always, will you say). :unsure:Quote:
but the US isn't part of the Commonwealth
But I think you got me anyway.
The speech only made it official what we already knew a long time ago: there will be a war.
If Saddam really loved his people, he would just leave his country, and avoid a war. ;)
That would really show some character. ;)
Unfortunately I can't see that happen. :(
What the fuck is the difference with Bush sitting or standing?Quote:
Originally posted by kAb@18 March 2003 - 04:08
i've been convinced for a long time. his speech was good (i think it would've been better if he had been sitting) and saddam needs to leave.
Would it change anything on the war? Make it milder, smoother, lighter or whatsoever ?
This is not COMMUNICATION, this is WAR. And WAR needs REASONS.
And I didn't see any valuable reason in this speech. I only saw what the world allready knew before suddenly becoming real. And standing or sitting, it's the same absolute lack of logic. Even a 3 years child would have a better reasoning.
I think it's time for the people of the United States to revolt. Their president, not even democratically elected, is under the influence and will soon become a criminal.
Is that so? Who elected those governments?Quote:
Originally posted by dwightfry@18 March 2003 - 14:30
If you are going to hate america, hate the government, not the people. Like all countries that have governments that are for the war, a majority of the civilians don't.
Btw, i'm against the war, dont need to tell you why, its been told over and over and over again........
PS: I don't hate 'America', i only believe 'America' is wrong on this one.
Perhaps he should have 48 hours to leave the country first.Quote:
Originally posted by ketoprak@18 March 2003 - 17:02
I think it's time for the people of the United States to revolt. Their president, not even democratically elected, is under the influence and will soon become a criminal.
Can we put this bullshit about him gassing his own people to rest please? The Kurds live in the country but aren't his or Iraqi people. As far as people electing these governments some people voting for him and others didn't and believe he stole the election with all the irregularities and voting roles having people taken off so he could win. And as for what the U.S. and Britian have to gain I've heard it's basically a compromise for Isreal's sake. The Palestinians get their state and an enemy of Isreal that threatens them is taken care of.
Sponsored terrorism? Intelligence experts contradicted Bush on this. There's no evidence attesting to this and if you know of ome that's credible please post a link. That and you're point about him killing his own are two bullshit points people use to justify what's about to happen. According to this "Despite its violent tactics, MEK's strong stand against Iran-part of Bush's axis of evil-and pro democratic image have won it support of U.S. and European lawmakers." Lawmakers would be politicans right i.e. government people? The U.S. too supports terrorism then.Quote:
Originally posted by ShareDaddy@18 March 2003 - 15:30
This war is not ABOUT oil, however as oil is the largest export of IRAQ I would see where you guys and gals might get the idea. However it is not about oil, it is about a dictator who has killed his own citizens and sponsored terrorism that has killed other nations citizens.
If it were about oil then you would see a US flag flying after the war and it would become another US held piece of land. This is not going to happen, it sickens me to think that you people continue taking the easy look at things and spouting the "OIL" reason. Removing Saddam will not increase the US oil depository, not one single barrel.
Kuwait is the single largest importer of IRAQI oil and they will continue to import the oil no matter who may be in power. Simply stating this conflict is about oil because it makes you feel better is not the right thing to do; this conflict is about right and wrong.
I know there probably is not a single person on this forum that was around during WWII, however there are a lot of people (of Jewish faith especially) that wish the US and its allies had taken out Hitler before he murdered millions. However that did not happen and the world watched or more true to real life closed their eyes in horror as Hitler slaughtered millions.
As we cannot go back in time and change what has transpired we can only try and do what is right now, and as Saddam has failed to meet the UN's resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction, then I feel it is time to put an end to it. As is the case with all conflicts, there will be casualties, however it could be much worse to let the man stay in power and possibly kill many more people than this conflict may.
That is it for me at this time, I may have more of a rebuttal shortly, need to take a break.
Just like in Afganistan there doesn't need to be a flag waving there. Someone we like will govern them and have policies friendly to our interest. that guy Karzi that's the president was a member of the same oil group as Cheney. People tried to deny an oil link their but there'll soon be an oil pipeline through there headed for east Asia isn't it isn't being constructed as we speak(I'm a bit behind on current events. I don't watch the news or read papers much).
Your WWII analogy is way off because after the gulf war when people were revolting that was the U.S.s chance to get him out then. What did we do? I forget exactly but we made sure he said in power. he has nothing that can reach the U.S. and if he didn'te it 12 years ago because he was told they'd be nuked he's not going to give it away knowing he'll be nuked once it's found to have come from him. Either way the inspections should go on and they be disarmed that way. This move is just because no one was buying the U.S. Britian bullshit about Iraq so Bush said fuck em all we gon hogtie Saddam and get him out our way. But hey he didn't have a mandate to be President so why would he wait for one through the U.N.
it is the order he mentioned them... btw you raeally believe that the oil is for the Iraqi people?
We might buy oil from them in the future but once a new goverment is in place the Iraqi people will benifit from their oil.What you don't seem to understand is we don't rely on the middle east for all our oil needs it does'nt even add up to 50%.I have several clients that are Iraqi and they support the US in it's efforts to remove sadam which IMO is nothing more than a two bit dictator and a hitler want to be who could care less about his people.Even his own son is a freak who tortures,rapes and kills his own people with his fathers approval.
What follows may be in contradiction to what I wrote earlier. But it's not. What I read above make me feel important to add some usefull precisions.Quote:
That and you're point about him killing his own are two bullshit points people use to justify what's about to happen.
I'm opposed to this war, but I believe that Saddam has killed his own people : kurds, chiits, and any opposant to the regime, just as Staline did in the past in USSR. Can you please post a few links with arguments against that idea?
I think Saddam is a real threat to its own people and that most of them are happy to be 'liberated' from him, be it by the USA alone. But I'm opposed to this war because, if it may be good for Iraq, it's very dangerous for 1. credibility of the UN and international multilateral regulation, 2. regional security, 3. world security.
If Bush had been a better diplomat he could have got rid of Saddam without endangering our future.
That's were i even more afraid of,Quote:
Originally posted by ShareDaddy@18 March 2003 - 16:30
This war is not ABOUT oil,
Read some articles about Bush, his daddy, chainey and some others have made a plan for total world domination. (They're building an empire....) These are just predicted 1st steps. Will look that up on the internet... where was it.... ;)
...yes i believe in conspiracy theories....
I wouldn't go that far. LOL. :lol:Quote:
Read some articles about Bush, his daddy, chainey and some others have made a plan for total world domination.
Besides, there is no way that bush is going to be re-elected. That would give him 2 years to complete his plan. ;)
Just put "the new american century" in a search engine and you can find out what bush(or should I say those with their hand up his ass) have planned. That documents there plans on putting in place governments friendly to their agenda.
Fot the person asking for links showing he didn't kill his own I'll look to see. I don't dispute the fact he's killed Kurds who are who we're(the U.S) say he did when we talk about what he's done but they aren't his people. That propaganda is always thrown out there as the first argument and it's a bullshit one in my opinion. It being the base argument and being a hollow one makes what comes after it weak also. And a Presidents son who rapes his people? I bet that's more propaganda but I'll look.