Vixef Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 Hmmm... I really don't get how one can defend the war in Iraq. Mostly because USA/GB has gone against the closest thing we have with regards to world democracy - the UN - and still they argue that the war has to do with getting rid of a tyrant. And yes... the UN s$*ks, but it's the only thing we have. It seems like USA/GB use the UN when they agree with USA/GB, and do whatever they like when the UN doesn't agree. Still they condemn a country that does exactly the same. Also, how come USA/GB didn’t want to attack N.Korea? I mean N.Korea is at least as bad as Iraq. Does it have something to do with the possibility of N.Korea doing a preemptive strike against USA/N.Korea not having valuable recources/N.Korea not being as important strategically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Trotter Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 Does anybody , anybody , have any information directly linking Saddam to Al-Quaida? The Sec Of State didn't seem to have any during his presentation at the UN. Can any of you provide any thing approximating proof? Again, this is not me sticking up for Saddam he is a despot and on the express train to Hell but where is the smoking gun? Also how again will this stop terror attacks in the US. Please let me know, cause I just don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 Vixet, Your question first. What about North Korea? So what, what are they gonna do? Launch a nuke? I don't think so. They are causing trouble in order to blackmail us into giving them money and food and oil for their crappy little country because their economy sucks, why? Because they are socialist/communist with a crazy dicatator as their leader. North Korea will be taken care of diplomatically, because all they want is attention, and if we don't pay attention, then they will slowly but surely figure out that it ain't gonna work. Deal with North Korea, why? A little pissant country, no money, no economy, the people are starving, and their government leader is nuts. They will fall on their own sword fast enough, it is just a matter of time, and by making the deal with them that Clinton made it gave that Regime another 10 years to screw it's own people. We won't be blackmailed, and therefore the North Korean government will fold upon itself, all by itself. Again, deal with North Korea, why, they are their own worst enemy. Also, we tried the UN route, got a special resolution, after 12 others to enforce the cease fire with Iraq, that is what it was by the way, so declaring war again, AFTER war has already been declared would be a little silly. But, if the UN is unable or unwilling to back up their own resolutions with force, then we have to take it upon ourselves, because it effects our security DIRECTLY, and the lives of our citizens DIRECTLY. The UN is now irrelevant, as it should have been 8 months ago. Or in my opinion 12 years ago. Now, onto Race's question, what are the links between Saddam and Al Quaeda. So far they are tenuous, I will be the first to admit that, but they are there. In Czecholslavakia, Iraqi Intelligence agents. an oxymoron, if I ever heard one, met with agents of Al Quaeda. Giving the Al Quaeda Agent money for unspecified action. This was about 6 months before 9/11, so make your own conclusions. Also, the Terrorist base that was destroyed by SAS, US Special Forces and Kurds has DIRECT connections with Al Quaeda, and has been financeed and supported by both Iraq and Iran. Also, Saddam has been paying the suicide bombers families on the West bank $25,000K each after the terrorists have killed themselves. Saddam has DIRECT links to Terrorism, he is a major sponsor, and by getting rid of his regime, we cut about 50% of the funding that goes to them, add that to the pressure that we have been putting on Saudi Arabia, the terrorists are starving for cash, and that is what it takes to run a terrorist organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 quote: I don't think so No kidding...we aren't attacking them.... quote: So far they are tenuous They don't exist. quote: we cut about 50% of the funding that goes to them That is nonsense. And if you think that stopping Saddam from paying the families of "homicide" bombers is going to stop them...think again. quote: that is what it takes to run a terrorist organization No it doesn't....it takes people who would rather kill others than live in a world of oppression, poverty, and exploitation.... The Bush doctrine is just digging up the ant pile....his administration is responsible for the blow back we will suffer. God help us if he uses a nuke for anything other than a retaliatory strike because so far OBL has attacked political and military targets with conventional equipment..if Bush starts using WMD because its expedient the door will be open for any state and non state actors to do the same. This whole action is serving to destabilize the planet and force America to basically use military force as the primary method of conflict resolution. Not to mention authorizing any half baked imperial escapade that captures the fancy of a given administration.or that of another country. You better hope this administration doesnt screw up anymore than it already has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 quote:It's funny how people will talk crap about celerity critics until they get celebrities that support the position they want to hear. God knows all that time spent in acting school made them all foreign policy experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 Lotharr, Are you REALLY this CLUELESS, you actually believe this crap you spout? quote: OBL has attacked political and military targets And that excuses it right? The WTC is a political target to you? It was FULL OF CIVILIANS!!! HELLO!!! quote: God help us if he uses a nuke for anything other than a retaliatory strike Get a grip!! quote: This whole action is serving to destabilize the planet and force America to basically use military force as the primary method of conflict resolution. Not to mention authorizing any half baked imperial escapade that captures the fancy of a given administration.or that of another country. Yeah, just like Afghanistan was supposed to, you can only cry wolf so many times Lotharr. Again, GET A GRIP!!!! You are clueless and it REALLY, REALLY, shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixef Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 Jaguar: The reason I asked why USA didnÔÇÖt attack N. Korea, was that IÔÇÖve heard numerous people, in this forum and others, argue that Saddam needs to be removed because he is a lunatic that kills his own people. If this is the case, the tyrant in N.Korea should be removed too. Arguments about the country not having money/good economy should not be relevant. People die in thousands every year in that country, as in Iraq, because they have a lunatic tyrant in control. Yes, the government will most likely collapse ÔÇô eventually. How many people will die in the meantime? As I said, the UN is the closest thing we have to world democracy. By making the UN irrelevant, as you put it, every country can do whatever they want because the UN has absolutely no power at all. They didnÔÇÖt have all that much power before, but now they have none. If USA/GB is to decide, from now on, what is wrong and what is right, they will be the tyrants of the world. quote: then we have to take it upon ourselves, because it effects our security DIRECTLY Do you mean that you have to "take it upon yourself" because Iraq is funding terrorism? If this is the case, so do a number of other countries. By trying to stop terrorism through war, USA may very well be looked upon as terrorists by those countries that are invaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 quote: And that excuses it right? The WTC is a political target to you? It's what it means to them guy. If they just wanted to kill a lot of people they could have hit a full stadium....or hit a chemical plant or a nuke plant....many other target would have yielded greater casualties with less risk. Yes the WTC and the Pentagon were political targets. You need to remember we are living on the happy side of capitalism.....the other side is vast and tragic. quote: FULL OF CIVILIANS Yes it was. They don't see it that way. They see a global center of American power full of people who support their enemy. It was tragic and criminal but if you want to understand the situation you have to THINK. quote: just like Afghanistan was supposed to Obviously that is a different situation. What the hell are you talking about? quote: You are clueless Well at least your not ranting about love it or leave it....well maybe not yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fractux Posted April 1, 2003 Report Share Posted April 1, 2003 http://www.aljazeera.ru/ http://www.aljazeera.net http://www.euronews.net/ http://news.independent.co.uk/ http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ http://www.alternet.org/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ http://www.tompaine.com/ http://www.guerrillanews.com/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ http://www.cnn.com http://www.msnbc.com/news/ http://www.foxnews.com Here are just some news sites I've been reading from everyday. I suggest everyone read through these, and post more links to news sites, especially independent sites. I'm finding news sources of info all the time. I really like one quote from Euronews called "No Comment". BTW I'm still looking to try and find a free Arabic to English translator for now, because I don't want to pay for the ajeeb site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grayfox Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 quote: God knows all that time spent in acting school made them all foreign policy experts lmao. i thought foreign policy class was a prerequisite for a degree in acting??? quote: The WTC is a political target to you? ummm yeah if you think about it. you look at america, and what epitomizes america, and to me, comes two things... washington DC and New York City. then you break it down even further and go for targets inside those. The white house is out because of its AA defense (thats notorious) the capital building wouldnt have been that busy, but the pentagon... ahhh people come to work early, they work for the US military, and its a well known site. in new york i think of two things... the statue of liberty and the WTC. which one of the two would provide the greatest statement??? the WTC of course because its full of people and its an international hub of sorts... it would make a better political impact. the thing that kills me is these people make it sound like when we raid saddams bunker, we're going to find bin laden there having a cup of coffee or something... i dont think so. and how in the hell is removing saddam from power going to bring us to bin laden??? they go hand in hand??? [ 04-01-2003, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Grayfox ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JuanFermin Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Fractux: Here are just some news sites I've been reading from everyday. I suggest everyone read through these, and post more links to news sites, especially independent sites. I'm finding news sources of info all the time.I looked through several of the news sources that you posted there and found most of them to be nothing but propaganda for the Iraqi government. I suppose that you are against this war. This reminds me of something. There was a country that had lost a war and agreed to eliminate most of their military and not pose any more aggression towards other countries. A brutal Dictator took over this country and started building up a massive military machine that was clearly a violation of the treaty that had been signed. The French stood by and did nothing as this country broke rule after rule that had been set forth in the treaty to end the earlier war. The French even chastised the England and their "War Mongering" allies for wanting to involve military action in something that "Clearly could be solved via diplomatic channels" What France and the rest of the world didn't understand then, as Germany started invading Europe and what France STILL doesn't understand today, is that Brutal dictators like Saddam Houssein, that kills and maims their own innocent populace to keep power, don't understand diplomacy, they only understand the same brutality that they themselves dish out. It was the same with Hitler. In hindsight, does anyone even ponder the idea that the problem with Hitler could have been solved via "Diplomatic Channels"? Of course not. It's time for the world to realize that we live in a brutal world, where brutality is the norm in many, many parts of the world. Trying to deal with these people in a civilized manner is only an excersize in futility. Thanks!!! Juan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 quote: I looked through several of the news sources that you posted there and found most of them to be nothing but propaganda for the Iraqi government quote: does anyone even ponder the idea that the problem with Hitler could have been solved via "Diplomatic Channels"? Most people realize that hitlers path to power was paved with outrageous war payments from WWI and an economy in the gutter resulting in a pissed off middle class. So yes intelligent policy would have most likely averted war through diplomatic channels. This thing is not black and white.even if thats what Fox news want us to believe. Did anyone hear that the military asked Geraldo Rivera to leave the country? The dumb bastard likes to draw pictures of 101 positions in the sand on camera. Of course Id take him over that traitor oliver north any day.but thats just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 Did you just call Oliver North a Traitor? You are in LALA land. I guess that Jane Fonda was just practicing her freedom of speech in Vietnam huh? Or perhaps Peter Arnett was just practicing his. Do you have a clue what Oliver North did, or the reasons he did it? Do you? I do, as a matter of fact I have dicussed it with him PERSONALLY!!! You are a clueless spoiled child who doesn't like the way the world works because you just can't seem to get ahead, and therefore it must be the world's fault. It must be capitalism, it must be our government, it must be this, it must be that. Look in the mirror dude and get a clue. The only person that can make your life better is you!! And until you realize that and take PERSONAL responsibility for your life, you are going to be miserable. I hate Bush, I hate this war, I hate the government, I hate this, I hate that, etc, etc. You obviously need help, GET SOME!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 2 eve of battle speeches that will tell each and everyone of you what our military thinks that they are doing and what they have been told their mission is. This is their mission, believe it. quote: Major General J.N. Mattis of the United States Marine Corps delivered this impressive eve-of-battle message to the 1st Marine Division, then in Kuwait: For decades, Saddam Hussein has tortured, imprisoned, raped, and murdered the Iraqi people; invaded neighboring countries without provocation; and threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction. The time has come to end his reign of terror. On your young shoulders rest the hopes of mankind. When I give you the word, together we will cross the Line of Departure, close with those forces that choose to fight, and destroy them. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression. Chemical attack, treachery, and use of the innocent as human shields can be expected, as can other unethical tactics. Take it all in stride. Be the hunter, not the hunted: Never allow your unit to be caught with its guard down. Use good judgment and act in the best interests of our nation. You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on your left and right and Marine Air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit. "For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battles--who fought for life and never lost their nerve--carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world there is "No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy" than a U.S. Marine. quote: "We are his nemesis" Britain has its first hero of this war, Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins of the Royal Irish Regiment. Collins is heralded not yet for his feats on the battlefield, but for the stirring address to his troops, the regiment's 1st Battalion, on March 19, with battle imminent. As Sarah Oliver of the Mail on Sunday reported that night, Collins was "wearing his kukri, the Gurkha blade he is entitled to carry as a Gurkha commander. He spoke to his 800 men, an arm of Britain's 16 Air Assault Brigade, at Fort Blair Mayne, their desert camp just 20 miles from the Iraqi border." The British have not lost their knack for battlefield eloquence: It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive, but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign. We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow. The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction. There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls, and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam. He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity. We go to liberate, not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people, and the only flag that will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them. There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send. As for the others, I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle, remember to be magnanimous in victory. It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly. I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts. They live with the mark of Cain upon them. If someone surrenders to you, then remember they have that right in international law, and ensure that one day they go home to their family. The ones who wish to fight? Well, we aim to please. If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer. You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest--for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform nor our nation. [Collins warns his troops that Saddam may attack them with chemical weapons.] It is not a question of if; it's a question of when. We know that he has already devolved the decision to commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack. Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there. You will see things that no man could pay to see, and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis. You will be embarrassed by their hospitality, even though they have nothing. Don't treat them as refugees, for they are in their own country. Their children in years to come will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you. If there are casualties of war, then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day. Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves. As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there. Our business is now in the north. "Be the hunter, not the hunted" This is their mission, and this is what they are doing, and why they are doing it. Don't believe it? Don't like it? Lifes a B$%ch, because that is what is happening. DEAL WITH IT!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixef Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 quote: Don't believe it? Don't like it? Lifes a B$%ch, because that is what is happening. DEAL WITH IT!!! If this is the view of USA/GB, no wonder the rest of the world condemns their actions. “Don’t believe it? Don’t like it? Lifes a….” goes both ways. Personally I believe there are numerous reasons why USA/GB did go to war against Iraq. Human rights are at the bottom of that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JuanFermin Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Most people realize that hitlerÔÇÖs path to power was paved with outrageous war payments from WWI and an economy in the gutter resulting in a pissed off middle class. So yes intelligent policy would have most likely averted war through diplomatic channels.That wasn't the question, while it's true that Hitler's RISE TO POWER was caused by outrageous payments, once he was in power that became irrelevant in dealing with him. If at that point all of Europe had said OK Hilter, all your debt is forgiven, do you think that Hitler would have broken down and started crying.... "THAT'S ALL I WANTED WAS AN APOLOGY FROM YOU GUYS FOR HOW YOU TREATED US... OK, I'll stop killing every Jew that I see, I'll dismantle the gas chambers, I'll withdraw my troops now... THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!" Please! Grow up and realize that this world is filled with evil men with evil intentions and no amount of diplomacy in the world is going to get rid of them. They only understand one thing, and that's a Missile up their A**! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 quote: Did you just call Oliver North a Traitor Yup quote: You are a clueless spoiled child who doesn't like the way the world works because you just can't seem to get ahead, and therefore it must be the world's fault. It must be capitalism, it must be our government, it must be this, it must be that. YouÔÇÖre the one who throws tantrums when someone doesn't agree with your ill-informed and parrot like monologues. I am sorry you lack any kind of critical thinking skills but maybe one day you'll stop eating the spoon fed BS and come back to earth. quote: They only understand one thing, and that's a Missile up their A**! I always supported muscular disarmament but this approach wasn't even attempted. There were numerous meaningful ways we could have achieved our goals before resorting to war. The WWII analogy fall short because successful containment of Iraq after the last gulf war kept his military at the 1/3 pre gulf I levels and prevented him from having a serious weapons program. It also falls short because there is no power imbalance in that theater. It is a bogus analogy and a propaganda tool for this administration trying to justify an illegal war born out of an inept foreign policy. All in all I agree that threat of force is necessary when dealing with people like this....only that analysis would mean that he isn't insane....wreaking another BS claim by this administration and their corporate media echo chamber. Anyway you can't just say look at hitler just before the war without looking at the situation that created him...it is all related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JuanFermin Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 quote:I always supported muscular disarmament but this approach wasn't even attempted. There were numerous meaningful ways we could have achieved our goals before resorting to war.Ever heard of Operation Desert Fox? We've given him 10YEARS to disarm!?! When do we say enough is enough? What kind of example does that make to the world? Defy the US and we will cower and beg for you to comply? quote: The WWII analogy fall short because successful containment of Iraq after the last gulf war kept his military at the 1/3 pre gulf I levels and prevented him from having a serious weapons program. Oh I understand, we should just sit by and wait for him to finish his Nuclear & Biological programs and wait for several hundred thousand people to die first. Only then should we do something, how foolish of me. quote: It also falls short because there is no power imbalance in that theater. There's no power imbalance because he's killed off all the competition, so for this we should reward him? How compassionate of us. quote: It is a bogus analogy and a propaganda tool for this administration trying to justify an illegal war Propaganda tool or simple History? Are you one of those students that sat in History class wondering why you needed to learn about some dead guys? It's so we don't repeat the same mistakes over and over again. As for this being "an Illegal war" we had every right to invade and bomb him YEARS ago for not complying with the resolutions that brought an end to the Gulf War. No one seemed to complain when Clinton lauched operation Desert Fox, but of course he's a compassionate Democrat so that's different. I suppose in your way of thinking, when we see someone in the streets committing an illegal act we should go up to them and beg them to stop, never use force, never call in the swat team, that would be uncivilized and uncompassionate. Go ahead, defend Hussein and his killers, try to forget the fact that he's killed TENS OF THOUSANDS of people just for having an opposing viewpoint. Thank God every day that you live in a free country, just remember this. If you lived in Iraq today and had an opposing viewpoint your mother and sister would be raped, you would be tortured and maybe, just maybe they would show an inkling of compassion and put a bullet in your head to take you out of your misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Trotter Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 Guys , please be civil. It's one thing to disagree with someones opinion and quite another to insult and demean them. I feel strongly about my opinions , just as strongly as everyone else,but when this discussion degenerates as it appears to be doing now, its reprehensible. NO ONE HERE HAS THE ANSWERS! NO ONE! simply your opinion. Some are more informed than others but they are all just opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epsilon 5 Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Race Bannon IV: Guys , please be civil. It's one thing to disagree with someones opinion and quite another to insult and demean them. I feel strongly about my opinions , just as strongly as everyone else,but when this discussion degenerates as it appears to be doing now, its reprehensible. NO ONE HERE HAS THE ANSWERS! NO ONE! simply your opinion. Some are more informed than others but they are all just opinions. agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrn Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 The emotional rhetoric and thinly veiled personal insults in this thread need to come to an end. This is just a reminder that everyone is free to attack opposing opinions all they want and with as much heat as they want but no one is free to stoop to making personal attacks of any kind on these forums. This thread is beginning to look more like the later and for this thread to stay alive that trend needs to stop now. Follow-up: OK, it's obvious from the posts (both deleted) that immediately followed this notice that this thread has out-lived its life. [ 04-02-2003, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Tyrn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 I was out of line in some of my responses. That is all the apology that I will give. Topic is now reclosed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now