Why A War Against Irak Is Wrong

[Rat Faced]

How is my avatar offensive? I see it as a remembrance of what was once there. If you think it is "offensive", obviously you don't realize the significance of the architecture of the buildings. my avatar is marveling at what was once a reality. I don't see how it could possibly be offensive, and i refuse to take it down.

It is not offensive for the reason you stated....

It is offensive due to the nature of this thread, in which it can be perceived as inflamatory....

If you were not so openly pro-war, then I would have seen it for the Tribute that you claim, as it is I see those towers and your words together.

I have read soo many threads where USA have Iraq and Al-Queda mixed up so that they cannot tell one from the other. This is the ONLY reason I find it offensive.... I do of course, appologise if this is not your intent.

j2k4, im posting from the UK, as you well know. This is probably the only subjet I get worked up over at the moment. If you dont know that USA sold chemicals to Iraq from 1988 onwards, I suggest you do a Google search for some news organisations....or read some of the threads, that have links to them.

Its not exactly classified information.

[-=M3th0d=-]

OMG!!!! This thread is becoming laughable. Look, make your point and then SHUT UP. THere's no reason to get so arsey with other board members because they dont agree with your point of view. I mean christ, saying his avatars offensive rat faced? Grow up. And everyone seriously, just dont lwer yourselves to these flamers level.

PS. Its nice to see some middle eastern opinion tho, dont usually get much in these types of threads....despite them being the ones who are going to be most affected....

[ketoprak]

Just for your record, here's a 'funny' link : Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein

[j2k4]

Ratface-
You're right, I had sussed where you hail from and I apologize.
As far as reading more (google search), believe me , I have, and my judgement and experience leads me to believe that some sources are dispensing propaganda-nothing more or less. I don't reject things out of hand, as a rule, but some things I just find to be unbelievable.
If you were here, you'd know the press would have ferreted out ANY information like that if they thought it would have been problematic for Bush, Sr. Clinton was another story; he seemed to be more concerned with insuring that we were vulnerable in the FAR east, and the media kissed his ass.
Lets keep this subject open, eh?
Ketoprak-
Welcome back-the Palestinians have surely lost much, and (my opinion only), will probably continue to lose until Arafat, or whoever holds the reins, decides to make a good faith effort to bargain/negotiate a TRUE settlement. There is too much hot blood on both sides; too much reactionary thought. I don't want to sound naive on this, but if I knew nothing else about the situation, it would seem to me the side recruiting youngsters to give their lives by strapping explosives to their bodies for the glory of the cause has more reason to get to the bargaining table. Please don't insult my intelligence by trying to tell me these stories are propaganda, too.

[ketoprak]

j2k4

Do you think that state violence is better than terrorism? As far as I am concerned, I see no difference in the very case of the Israel-Palestin conflict. I guess if the Palestinians had a strong army with good weapons, as the Israelians do, they would use this army and not terrorism.

And about negociations, it seems to me that currently Sharon is the one who do not want to negociate. Sure Arafat is not a clean guy, but do you really think Arafat & the Palestinians will change their attitude if Israel keep humiliating them?

[Lamsey]

Why we SHOULD go to war with Iraq

1) Saddam Hussein has gassed his own people. killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.
2) he was not democratically elected

1) The Americans killed hundreds of thousands of people in Japan when they nuked two cities' worth of civilians off the face of the Earth. Should we go to war with them?
2) Neither was George W. Bush

[j2k4]

Ketoprak-
No, I don't think ultimately there is ANY difference, but terrorists are not in the habit of seeking U.N. sanction, hence their intentions cannot be known in any other than the most vague terms (they're not as media-accessible). This is what makes them terrorists.
The Israeli/Palestine conflict is a case in point. The bombers are what most of us would define as terrorists, yet they would purport to represent all of the Palestinians. Insofar as Arafat occasionally says he has no control over them, and ALSO purports to speak for all Palestinians, we can only conclude there is some sort of dissension in the ranks of the Palestinians. Could this not be a reason for Sharon not to negotiate? He can only legitimately (?) sit down with Arafat. If I were Sharon, I would see this as an unsatisfactory option.
I don't want to give short shrift to the issue of "humiliation", but that, and "pride" are precise examples of what constitute the "hot blood" issue in my last post.

[ketoprak]

Originally posted by j2k4@13 March 2003 - 16:38
but terrorists are not in the habit of seeking U.N. sanction

Well it seems to me that it's precisely Israel (not the Palestinians) who don't comply with the numerous UN Security Council decisions regarding this conflict.

But, as this institution will probably lost any credibility in the next future thanks to the 'admirable' diplomatic policy of GW Bush, this won't be a problem anymore

Insofar as Arafat occasionally says he has no control over them, and ALSO purports to speak for all Palestinians

If you want democracy, the 1st thing you need is a State. Let the Palestinians have their state, and you will be able to help them build democratic institutions.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ketoprak@13 March 2003 - 16:54

If you want democracy, the 1st thing you need is a State. Let the Palestinians have their state, and you will be able to help them build democratic institutions.

Yes, but this leads to a debate about horses and carts, or chickens and eggs, which would serve no purpose other than to lead us back to the "hot blood" issue; if the Palestinians would forswear their current tactics and strategy (and could somehow make it stick, vis a vis the leadership question), in a unilateral fashion, and let it be known in no uncertain terms that it was doing this, world opinion would immediately weigh on the side of Israel doing the same. I'm sorry to say this, but in this matter, Palestine has the credibility problem, not Israel, and THAT is what is making this conflict insolvable. I'll say this: A "Proud Warrior", no matter WHAT his stripe, is nothing more than an arrogant asshole-no offence to ANYBODY here intended.

[ClubDiggler]

Why go wo war when you can hug a tree!!!

or avoid the problem and bury your head in the sand...

maybe the problem will go away....

all by itself...

KEEP DREAMING!


Doing nothing is far worse.