This Picture Breaks My Heart

[puremindmatters]

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

Hmmm...Someone has selective memory here.

You have convieniently forgotten about 9/11.

You have forgotten about the anthrax letters.

Pity for you that no-one else has.

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

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

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

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

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

[ne1GotZardoz]

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

A dirty bomb is a weapon of mass destruction.

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

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

Thank God it was so ineffective.

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

When you say WMD, what are you refering to?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you have any children?

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

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

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

Peace

edited because I forgot to remove the main quote box

[Chilly]

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

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

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

If it breaks your heart why would you post it on here for us to view it knowing the graphic nature of the picture.

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

[puremindmatters]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit: forgot your last question

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by puremindmatters+30 March 2003 - 07:55--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (puremindmatters @ 30 March 2003 - 07:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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

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

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

A dirty bomb? Sorry, I&#39;m not sure what you are referring to.


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

edit: forgot your last question [/b]

<!--QuoteBegin--ne1GotZardoz

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

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

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

A dirty bomb? Sorry, I&#39;m not sure what you are referring to.
[/quote]

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

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

I wish that it was not.

Peace

[eng60340]

QUOTE

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

---

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

-----

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

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

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

[puremindmatters]

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

Do you have any children?

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

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

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

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

[ne1GotZardoz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace

[Ardor]

Originally posted by kAb@30 March 2003 - 05:25
&nbsp; &nbsp; yes i&#39;m sure the u.s. government did sept 11 to raise the dollar.
i spit in your face ardor.

I never suggested that the US government manufactured sept. 11th. Where do you get that from? Or do you just read what you want to read? I did say that sept.11 legitimizes any war against a &#39;terrorist&#39; nation, and I also said that the REAL reasons for sept.11th go unexplored. Anything else I labeled a theory. Can you broaden your mind just enough that there may be other reasons for war, then what your President tells you. He&#39;s not God you know?

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

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

(ne1GotZardoz @ 30 March 2003 - 06:14)

(Ardor @ 29 March 2003 - 21:09)
Iraq does NOT have weapons that could reach the US

Hmmm...Someone has selective memory here.
You have convieniently forgotten about 9/11.
You have forgotten about the anthrax letters.
Pity for you that no-one else has.
Peace

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

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

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

[kAb]

Ardor:
(this is your quote)

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

Like magic, the WTC gets hit

I cant see how P2P connects to people DYING.

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