And you don't think that the oppression and fear from Saddamn INSANE toward his own people is sad? The people already suffer and the war will only liberate them from all the atrocities that Saddamn commits. He is ruthless and doesn't deserve to treat people like that.i just feel very sad for the people of iraq. have they done anything to deserve a war in their country? i dont think so. its wrong they have to suffer and have their familys shattered just because of the battle between Bush and Hussein.Â
Peace...
- Thread starter KiVan
- Start date
- Views 12,256
- Replies 89
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 5,834
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 39
- Location
- On temporary hiatus.
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 191
- Country
I never mentioned that it was a feasable option for the whole world -- but it is an option for me. If it's an option for me then it's an option for some others as well, and who knows how far it may go?
I know that war's happening. I won't deny it. But I will hope for its swift end.
I have not thrown a punch since I was 12 save in martial training. I have gotten angry, but I've learned to control it. I learned tolerance -- which is something everyone seems to be lacking. Bush claims to be on the side of God, Saddam's soldiers likely believe the same. Well, both religions place a high value on tolerance. Where is it?
And if you say "Saddam's asking for it by mistreating his citizens" or the like, I have two things to say:
1) What business is it of yours (unless you live in Iraq)?
2) He wouldn't be if he were tolerant of his people.
take that, those of you who promote war without giving it any thought. And if you're going to argue your points further, take a page from ChaosSeeker and Curlynose and at least justify yourself without saying "I'm right".
-Tempest out.-
I know that war's happening. I won't deny it. But I will hope for its swift end.
I have not thrown a punch since I was 12 save in martial training. I have gotten angry, but I've learned to control it. I learned tolerance -- which is something everyone seems to be lacking. Bush claims to be on the side of God, Saddam's soldiers likely believe the same. Well, both religions place a high value on tolerance. Where is it?
And if you say "Saddam's asking for it by mistreating his citizens" or the like, I have two things to say:
1) What business is it of yours (unless you live in Iraq)?
2) He wouldn't be if he were tolerant of his people.
take that, those of you who promote war without giving it any thought. And if you're going to argue your points further, take a page from ChaosSeeker and Curlynose and at least justify yourself without saying "I'm right".
-Tempest out.-
whats the point in argueing about the war it is happening end of story. It has been coming for awhile and we knew it would eventually happen when another bush became president. though bush is attacking military sites civilians live near those sites but the pressure was all on saddam it was evident he didnt care about his people when he refused to go into exile the only thing we can do now is pray it ends soon and that those poor people are able to rebuild a better way of life.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 145
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 41
- Location
- College Station, TX
- Website
- dpm14.dyndns.org
- XP
- 156
- Country
I feel that we have quite a bit of justification for this war.
One: U.N. resolutions were passed with the provision that force is to be used to make Iraq follow the demands. They have not been following the demands and the U.N. is pussy-footing just like the League of Nations. He has flouted 16 United Nations resolutions over 12 years that have warned him to disarm or else, including one, four months ago, giving him a “final opportunity” to do so “fully and immediately” or face “serious consequences.”
Two: Of course this war is about oil, but we sure as hell aren't the ones out for it. After all, our actions have already caused Sadamm to burn some of his supply already. France and Russia have a long history of trying to weaken the containment of Iraq to ensure that they can have good trading relations with it. France, after all, helped Saddam Hussein build a nuclear reactor that was obviously a launching pad for a weapons program. (Why would the world’s second largest oil producer need a nuclear power plant?) And France’s Gaullist tendencies are, of course, simply its own version of unilateralism.
Three: Consider this fact: the Clinton administration used force on three important occasions—Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo. In none of them did it take the matter to the United Nations Security Council, and there was little discussion that it needed to do so.
Four: Well, actually more of a question. How does leaving Hussein in power promote peace and humanitarianism?
One: U.N. resolutions were passed with the provision that force is to be used to make Iraq follow the demands. They have not been following the demands and the U.N. is pussy-footing just like the League of Nations. He has flouted 16 United Nations resolutions over 12 years that have warned him to disarm or else, including one, four months ago, giving him a “final opportunity” to do so “fully and immediately” or face “serious consequences.”
Two: Of course this war is about oil, but we sure as hell aren't the ones out for it. After all, our actions have already caused Sadamm to burn some of his supply already. France and Russia have a long history of trying to weaken the containment of Iraq to ensure that they can have good trading relations with it. France, after all, helped Saddam Hussein build a nuclear reactor that was obviously a launching pad for a weapons program. (Why would the world’s second largest oil producer need a nuclear power plant?) And France’s Gaullist tendencies are, of course, simply its own version of unilateralism.
Three: Consider this fact: the Clinton administration used force on three important occasions—Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo. In none of them did it take the matter to the United Nations Security Council, and there was little discussion that it needed to do so.
Four: Well, actually more of a question. How does leaving Hussein in power promote peace and humanitarianism?
Ok then Tempest, how exactly would you remove Saddam from the country without war? Diplomacy? That has failed for 12 years.
Oh ok then, a war backed by the UN? So war's ok then? lol.
Listen - I DONT LIKE WAR - but it's the only real option that will get us anywhere.
You need to understand that IF WE DO NOT ATTACK ANYONE - they will STILL attack us. We can do nothing to them, yet they will STILL attack us, due to their religous based fanatic ways.
You need to understand they are jealous of the United States, jealous of what they do not have, and hate us.
So, which option is better for you?
1: We do nothing in the United States, we let terrorists train as much as they want in Afganastain, let Iraq build up it's chemicals, branching into Nuclear weapons. We let North Korea build up it's Nuclear weapons. We sit back and do nothing, hoping they don't attack us since we were so nice not to attack them first.
2: We attack them, since they are attacking us anyway. This way we are not just sitting in the USA like hearded sheep, we are fighthing back.
Those are the ONLY 2 options.
You *must* understand these people *WILL ATTACK THE USA EVEN IF WE NEVER ATTACK THEM WITH ANY MILITARY AT ALL*.
Why sit back and take it without trying to defend yourself?
They are religous driven FANATICS raised to hate the USA - and are on a Jihad to kill. Don't even think of them as humans anymore, think of them as animals who driven by nature, *must* kill, sort of like a croc or a lion. If a Lion was attacking you, would you not defend yourself, instead try to talk the lion down? lol.
Oh ok then, a war backed by the UN? So war's ok then? lol.
Listen - I DONT LIKE WAR - but it's the only real option that will get us anywhere.
You need to understand that IF WE DO NOT ATTACK ANYONE - they will STILL attack us. We can do nothing to them, yet they will STILL attack us, due to their religous based fanatic ways.
You need to understand they are jealous of the United States, jealous of what they do not have, and hate us.
So, which option is better for you?
1: We do nothing in the United States, we let terrorists train as much as they want in Afganastain, let Iraq build up it's chemicals, branching into Nuclear weapons. We let North Korea build up it's Nuclear weapons. We sit back and do nothing, hoping they don't attack us since we were so nice not to attack them first.
2: We attack them, since they are attacking us anyway. This way we are not just sitting in the USA like hearded sheep, we are fighthing back.
Those are the ONLY 2 options.
You *must* understand these people *WILL ATTACK THE USA EVEN IF WE NEVER ATTACK THEM WITH ANY MILITARY AT ALL*.
Why sit back and take it without trying to defend yourself?
They are religous driven FANATICS raised to hate the USA - and are on a Jihad to kill. Don't even think of them as humans anymore, think of them as animals who driven by nature, *must* kill, sort of like a croc or a lion. If a Lion was attacking you, would you not defend yourself, instead try to talk the lion down? lol.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2002
- Messages
- 133
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 37
- Location
- The Infinite space
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 216
- Country
Ok, i think that is kinda enough. We have a lot of opinions, and the thing is. Its not a war yet. Its just a conflict. I hope like Tempest that it ends fast. Its no good to keep on killing. I wish I had more to say, but I have ranted enough for one day.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 5,834
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 39
- Location
- On temporary hiatus.
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 191
- Country
Am I the only one who sees Vanguarde's post as proof of Solution 9's opinions?
First, "how should we remove him"? A better question is "What right do we have to interfere?". I agree he's pissed off the US, and there's evidence he mistreats his populace, but it's none of our business how another country is ruled.
Second: Your constant assertion that you will be attacked. I agree that attacks will happen, but if the US had just kept it's ass out of other countries' affairs (like it asked Europe to stop meddling with it's affairs before it joined WWII), they wouldn't be a target. Look at Canada, or for that matter, most any country at random -- I doubt seriously that terrorists would go out of their way to hit Iceland, for instance.
Third: There is a third option. Diplomacy. I know you'll scoff at that -- after all, there's no chance for you to show off how good you are -- but remember that it's worked in the past. The only feasable option worldwide is to UNILATERALLY, UNIVERSALLY disarm, every country, even the US, rid yourself of that stock of nukes you're sitting on. Enforce it -- to do this, you'll need to grant the UN a military, or found a WORLDWIDE association for this purpose -- like NATO, but global. This is eventually inevitable -- where the only military that exists is the world's, and any aggression is countered without political interference. Use it like a worldwide police.
Fourth: Did it ever occur to you that Bush may be on a "jihad" of his own? Oh, sorry, a "Crusade". That word has even worse ramnifications historically than Jihad. And no person is ever raised to hate -- they are raised to live and adopt their own values. Why doesn't the US give them reason to NOT hate them?
Finally: You admit to objectifying human beings. If we lose sight of that fact, then we are no better than those fanatics you mention. Besides, crocodiles and lions kill for FOOD. We seem to kill for FUN or PROFIT. Also, your analogy is flawed: A lion never attacks a human except for defense, and cannot be spoken to like another human can. Besides, I don't kill lions because they COULD kill others. I might be forced to in self-defence, but I WOULD NOT STRIKE PREEMPTIVELY. Could you imagine if the police acted like this?
"Well, Bob, you have a knife in your home, so you MIGHT attack your neighbor in it. You're busted for conspiracy to commit murder."
(You may find that familiar: It's similar to the outlook your country had to the Soviets during the Cold War.)
-Tempest out.-
First, "how should we remove him"? A better question is "What right do we have to interfere?". I agree he's pissed off the US, and there's evidence he mistreats his populace, but it's none of our business how another country is ruled.
Second: Your constant assertion that you will be attacked. I agree that attacks will happen, but if the US had just kept it's ass out of other countries' affairs (like it asked Europe to stop meddling with it's affairs before it joined WWII), they wouldn't be a target. Look at Canada, or for that matter, most any country at random -- I doubt seriously that terrorists would go out of their way to hit Iceland, for instance.
Third: There is a third option. Diplomacy. I know you'll scoff at that -- after all, there's no chance for you to show off how good you are -- but remember that it's worked in the past. The only feasable option worldwide is to UNILATERALLY, UNIVERSALLY disarm, every country, even the US, rid yourself of that stock of nukes you're sitting on. Enforce it -- to do this, you'll need to grant the UN a military, or found a WORLDWIDE association for this purpose -- like NATO, but global. This is eventually inevitable -- where the only military that exists is the world's, and any aggression is countered without political interference. Use it like a worldwide police.
Fourth: Did it ever occur to you that Bush may be on a "jihad" of his own? Oh, sorry, a "Crusade". That word has even worse ramnifications historically than Jihad. And no person is ever raised to hate -- they are raised to live and adopt their own values. Why doesn't the US give them reason to NOT hate them?
Finally: You admit to objectifying human beings. If we lose sight of that fact, then we are no better than those fanatics you mention. Besides, crocodiles and lions kill for FOOD. We seem to kill for FUN or PROFIT. Also, your analogy is flawed: A lion never attacks a human except for defense, and cannot be spoken to like another human can. Besides, I don't kill lions because they COULD kill others. I might be forced to in self-defence, but I WOULD NOT STRIKE PREEMPTIVELY. Could you imagine if the police acted like this?
"Well, Bob, you have a knife in your home, so you MIGHT attack your neighbor in it. You're busted for conspiracy to commit murder."
(You may find that familiar: It's similar to the outlook your country had to the Soviets during the Cold War.)
-Tempest out.-
This is sad
i ast in my english class today thinking contemplating wat was happening . so wat i didnt quite finish writing about static images with laughter around me.
this is wat brought me to my thoughts of the the people in iraq ,especially civillains, must be going throught dodging airstrikes and trying to live and keep their familys alive thro all of this
i wish u people life and i will pray for ur survival
funny im not religious and prayer was the best thing i could think of......
i ast in my english class today thinking contemplating wat was happening . so wat i didnt quite finish writing about static images with laughter around me.
this is wat brought me to my thoughts of the the people in iraq ,especially civillains, must be going throught dodging airstrikes and trying to live and keep their familys alive thro all of this
i wish u people life and i will pray for ur survival
funny im not religious and prayer was the best thing i could think of......
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 145
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 41
- Location
- College Station, TX
- Website
- dpm14.dyndns.org
- XP
- 156
- Country
Actually, you missed the point entirely. Let's say we have a man convicted of murder (who used a gun.) He has served his sentence and is now free. According to law he is no longer allowed to use or buy a gun because of his past misuse. He is also likely to be under surveilence since he is a past offender. If he looks suspicious, police have every right to detain him and prevent him from causing harm to others.
P
Phriik
Guest
Well, I tried a proper post but got denied. We'll see if this works.
Do you anti-war types have no compassion? Thousands have died at the hads of Saddam (fact, not fiction from questionable sources.) Amnesty International reports that entire families, moms, dads, and children are tortured and killed as a matter of course. Where is your humanity? Why would we not stop such things? Its their business and we've no right to interfere? Thats the craziest idea I've ever heard. Hitler would be proud of such thinking. It made his life much easier in the 1930's and 1940's.
A war for OIL? thats also absurd. Where is the proof of that? Oh wait, we're talking about the U.S. so you don't need proof, it just has to be true right? We owned Kuwait back in 1991, but wait! We didn't keep it, we actually gave it back to Kuwaitis. The last war was for oil right? so why would we do that? We must be as dumb as you all think we are.
Why is it that you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a known mass murderer over the president of the United States? 100,000 kurds. 89,000 iraqis. How many do you think the U.S. would kill?
Are the Iraqi people really able to choose for themselves? Don't they have the right of self-determination? Or is that priviledge reserved for everyone but them?
The 9/11 attack wasn't the first terrorist attack on the U.S. Its the only one you anti-warbies remember. The Islamic Fundamentalists hate the U.S. for one reason and it isn't because of our prosperity. Its because of our Freedom. We are their anti-thesis. So long as we exist, they will continue their terror attacks no matter what we do.
Oh and the person who said that President Bush wasn't legitimatelly elected needs to study the U.S. electoral process again.
Someone claimed what the U.S. action in Iraq was Illegal, needs to read U.N. resolution 1441. It, which was passed by the U.N. france included, authorized the use of force to disarm Iraq if they do not comply. That resolution was not repealed by the U.N. The U.S.,U.K., and Mexico tried to get a new resolution passed, but France said they would veto any new resolution no matter what it said. Just because a new one wasn't presented doen't mean an old one is void.
Someone said Pres. Bush as on a Jihad. Well, you're right. Its a Jihad against terrorism, got a problem with that?
I appreciate if you do not like war. It is a terrible waste. However, sometimes diplomacy is doomed to fail. Do you honestly think that Saddam can be reasoned with? Sometimes there comes a time where a person comes that is just too evil to live. I can't think of a much better contemporary example that Saddam Hussein.
Last thought. What of all the coalition troops eh? are none of them innocent in your anti-war eyes? There is plenty of comments about innocent iraqi civilians, but what of the U.S., U.K, et. all forces? No fears for them?
If you are truely anti-war, shouldn't some of your comments be for them as well?
Phriik
Do you anti-war types have no compassion? Thousands have died at the hads of Saddam (fact, not fiction from questionable sources.) Amnesty International reports that entire families, moms, dads, and children are tortured and killed as a matter of course. Where is your humanity? Why would we not stop such things? Its their business and we've no right to interfere? Thats the craziest idea I've ever heard. Hitler would be proud of such thinking. It made his life much easier in the 1930's and 1940's.
A war for OIL? thats also absurd. Where is the proof of that? Oh wait, we're talking about the U.S. so you don't need proof, it just has to be true right? We owned Kuwait back in 1991, but wait! We didn't keep it, we actually gave it back to Kuwaitis. The last war was for oil right? so why would we do that? We must be as dumb as you all think we are.
Why is it that you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a known mass murderer over the president of the United States? 100,000 kurds. 89,000 iraqis. How many do you think the U.S. would kill?
Are the Iraqi people really able to choose for themselves? Don't they have the right of self-determination? Or is that priviledge reserved for everyone but them?
The 9/11 attack wasn't the first terrorist attack on the U.S. Its the only one you anti-warbies remember. The Islamic Fundamentalists hate the U.S. for one reason and it isn't because of our prosperity. Its because of our Freedom. We are their anti-thesis. So long as we exist, they will continue their terror attacks no matter what we do.
Oh and the person who said that President Bush wasn't legitimatelly elected needs to study the U.S. electoral process again.
Someone claimed what the U.S. action in Iraq was Illegal, needs to read U.N. resolution 1441. It, which was passed by the U.N. france included, authorized the use of force to disarm Iraq if they do not comply. That resolution was not repealed by the U.N. The U.S.,U.K., and Mexico tried to get a new resolution passed, but France said they would veto any new resolution no matter what it said. Just because a new one wasn't presented doen't mean an old one is void.
Someone said Pres. Bush as on a Jihad. Well, you're right. Its a Jihad against terrorism, got a problem with that?
I appreciate if you do not like war. It is a terrible waste. However, sometimes diplomacy is doomed to fail. Do you honestly think that Saddam can be reasoned with? Sometimes there comes a time where a person comes that is just too evil to live. I can't think of a much better contemporary example that Saddam Hussein.
Last thought. What of all the coalition troops eh? are none of them innocent in your anti-war eyes? There is plenty of comments about innocent iraqi civilians, but what of the U.S., U.K, et. all forces? No fears for them?
If you are truely anti-war, shouldn't some of your comments be for them as well?
Phriik
P
Phriik
Guest
Oi Tempest!
I was thinking you were a reasonable fellow until I read your last post.
First you're talking about Lions, then about Pre-emptive attacks, then critisizing Fmr. Pres. Reagan's approach to the Soviet Union? First of all, the U.S. never pre-emptively attacked the U.S.S.R, the policy back then was deterance through mutally assured destruction. Also, Thanks to Reagan there is no more Soviet Union. So no matter what your critique, the results are there for all to see.
Next. your Bill the knife analogy is simplistic and, well. Wrong. If you analogy included a bottle of anthrax or risin, it would be more appropo. Oh but wait, that destroys your point a wee bit no?
Why is it, that you people are so afraid of the U.S.? Thats the real reason for your postings and comments isn't it?
When in our history have we ever gone Conquering? If we behaved as you all suggest France, Germany, and the U.K would be States #51, #52, #53. The former Sovient union would make up the rest til #60. Afganistan would be #61, and bosnia, Kosovo. When have we EVER done anything to deserve such malice. Gads, do you realize that Europe still owes the U.S. for WWII? We've shed blood, sweat, and tears for the world. All you can do is talk about how the U.S. shouldn't make a target of its self.
You guys are so confused that you are calling good, evil and evil, good. You all must secretly wish that the U.S. will get its but spanked by Iraq so you all can gloat.
What does that say about you? You want a murdering tyrant who kills his own people to win over the U.S. just because YOU think we should stand by and do nothing.
Thank all thats good that my country doesn't feel like you. We will continue to give our blood, sweat, and tears for the world. Whether it wants it or not. My father did it on the shores of Normandy and my good friend is doing it now in Iraq while we prattle about its merit.
What a waste.
Think hard about your reply, because it will be telling how and what, exactly you are.
Phriik
I was thinking you were a reasonable fellow until I read your last post.
First you're talking about Lions, then about Pre-emptive attacks, then critisizing Fmr. Pres. Reagan's approach to the Soviet Union? First of all, the U.S. never pre-emptively attacked the U.S.S.R, the policy back then was deterance through mutally assured destruction. Also, Thanks to Reagan there is no more Soviet Union. So no matter what your critique, the results are there for all to see.
Next. your Bill the knife analogy is simplistic and, well. Wrong. If you analogy included a bottle of anthrax or risin, it would be more appropo. Oh but wait, that destroys your point a wee bit no?
Why is it, that you people are so afraid of the U.S.? Thats the real reason for your postings and comments isn't it?
When in our history have we ever gone Conquering? If we behaved as you all suggest France, Germany, and the U.K would be States #51, #52, #53. The former Sovient union would make up the rest til #60. Afganistan would be #61, and bosnia, Kosovo. When have we EVER done anything to deserve such malice. Gads, do you realize that Europe still owes the U.S. for WWII? We've shed blood, sweat, and tears for the world. All you can do is talk about how the U.S. shouldn't make a target of its self.
You guys are so confused that you are calling good, evil and evil, good. You all must secretly wish that the U.S. will get its but spanked by Iraq so you all can gloat.
What does that say about you? You want a murdering tyrant who kills his own people to win over the U.S. just because YOU think we should stand by and do nothing.
Thank all thats good that my country doesn't feel like you. We will continue to give our blood, sweat, and tears for the world. Whether it wants it or not. My father did it on the shores of Normandy and my good friend is doing it now in Iraq while we prattle about its merit.
What a waste.
Think hard about your reply, because it will be telling how and what, exactly you are.
Phriik
I think, bgoa is right, even if his comment about fps-addicts was a shot in the oven...
Bush uses the SAME arguements and the same propaganda as hitler did! - our former foreign minister Mrs Däubler-Gmelin said so - and lost her job for that statement... And she didn´t loose her job because she said something wrong....no! She lost her job, because Germany can´t efford loosing the U.S.A as political and economical partner... And this is the ONLY REASON, why Mr. Schröder, Mr. Putin or Mr. Chirac can´t pull Bush to the world-court, where he would definitly be judged as a war criminal!
This war was never ment for freedom of people, this war was planned to have controll of the world´s largest oil ressources! It was not neccessary to push and push without giving Blix some more time...
I mean: Saddam is definitly no Angel, but he had let Blix´s team destroy the al samuth rockets and that would just have been the beginning! And one question: Which "dangerous" terrorist lets you destroy his weapons? Saddam has proven his will to freedom! Bush prove his will to war and destruction... with nobody behind him! Blair is nearly the only one in his parliament who supports the war....well the Brits ALLWAYS did what big brother America said...and the spanish president is just hungry about the oil because his country´s economy is about to collapse!
And now (pointing with the finger to octavius and co.) to those pretending the U.S would save the iraqi people and are just there for THIS reason:
Tell me a few things! Why did Bush screw up the U.N., the Nato, all the relationships build up to the countrys in the nearer east? "Just" to free the people in iraq?
Why hadn´t his father brought the gulf war to an end as he had the chance to?
Was the vietnam or Korea war also a right thing, helping people to get free? - I don´t think so, these two wars had proven, that the U.S are not supposed to play world-police! The only thing the marines brought there was death and thousands of raped girls by american soldiers! And in the vietnam case, the U.S were a lot worse than germany after the WW2: They dindn´t pay one buck to help the vietnamese people building up their country again...germany still pays Israel, so they can "bomb against terrorism" - and I really got to say: they don´t bomb against they bomb FOR terrorism!
I do agree, that a free iraq is better for its people, but after the U.S. won the war, things will get a little more complicated! Bush tries to show these countrys our western picture of the world...which contains democracy and all that stuff....but will there still be place for the worths all those arabs believed in for so many years? Will they be able to keep their culture when the 1st McDonalds stands in the iraq?
America tried to help everywhere in the wolrd, often not anytime with good intentions, but mostly they reached only a destroyed country and didn´t help them to rebuild it! - Germany was the big exception.
And it´s a bit ironic, that the U.S are chaseing BinLaden after supplying him with all that weaponry out of U.S tax-money... You see: What is no right is made right by america.
NO WAR FOR OIL!
Bush uses the SAME arguements and the same propaganda as hitler did! - our former foreign minister Mrs Däubler-Gmelin said so - and lost her job for that statement... And she didn´t loose her job because she said something wrong....no! She lost her job, because Germany can´t efford loosing the U.S.A as political and economical partner... And this is the ONLY REASON, why Mr. Schröder, Mr. Putin or Mr. Chirac can´t pull Bush to the world-court, where he would definitly be judged as a war criminal!
This war was never ment for freedom of people, this war was planned to have controll of the world´s largest oil ressources! It was not neccessary to push and push without giving Blix some more time...
I mean: Saddam is definitly no Angel, but he had let Blix´s team destroy the al samuth rockets and that would just have been the beginning! And one question: Which "dangerous" terrorist lets you destroy his weapons? Saddam has proven his will to freedom! Bush prove his will to war and destruction... with nobody behind him! Blair is nearly the only one in his parliament who supports the war....well the Brits ALLWAYS did what big brother America said...and the spanish president is just hungry about the oil because his country´s economy is about to collapse!
And now (pointing with the finger to octavius and co.) to those pretending the U.S would save the iraqi people and are just there for THIS reason:
Tell me a few things! Why did Bush screw up the U.N., the Nato, all the relationships build up to the countrys in the nearer east? "Just" to free the people in iraq?
Why hadn´t his father brought the gulf war to an end as he had the chance to?
Was the vietnam or Korea war also a right thing, helping people to get free? - I don´t think so, these two wars had proven, that the U.S are not supposed to play world-police! The only thing the marines brought there was death and thousands of raped girls by american soldiers! And in the vietnam case, the U.S were a lot worse than germany after the WW2: They dindn´t pay one buck to help the vietnamese people building up their country again...germany still pays Israel, so they can "bomb against terrorism" - and I really got to say: they don´t bomb against they bomb FOR terrorism!
I do agree, that a free iraq is better for its people, but after the U.S. won the war, things will get a little more complicated! Bush tries to show these countrys our western picture of the world...which contains democracy and all that stuff....but will there still be place for the worths all those arabs believed in for so many years? Will they be able to keep their culture when the 1st McDonalds stands in the iraq?
America tried to help everywhere in the wolrd, often not anytime with good intentions, but mostly they reached only a destroyed country and didn´t help them to rebuild it! - Germany was the big exception.
And it´s a bit ironic, that the U.S are chaseing BinLaden after supplying him with all that weaponry out of U.S tax-money... You see: What is no right is made right by america.
NO WAR FOR OIL!
I admit, I've read just few posts of this topic because I suddently became depressed.
How is it possible that in 2003 , after THOUSANDS wars in hour history, people can think that a war will solve problems better than diplomacy?
How can a student (I suppose in this forum there are lots of them) think and say that war is necessary?
What do you learn at school? How to attack?
Or that the word "defense" is another (politically correct) way to say "attack"?
And please don't say that diplomacy has never concluded anything.
I remember that a stupid, dumb man called Ghandi freed its people from english domination just with diplomacy, tranquillity and peace (without any violent reaction to any threat), and it's not a fairytale, mistification or whatever.
It has happened (and you can read it on schoolbooks, trust me!).
Now you would say: "that's just an episode" or "just a case" or "but there were lots of casualities" and so on.
My answer is: are you really sure? Just study history a bit more, it's worth the effort, for you and for the whole world.
Just a suggestion, for all of you, especially Americans, but also Europeans, Japanese and so on: try to watch "Bowling for Coloumbine", then write your impression on a forum like this and moreover READ others opinion and think: why do they have my same/different opinion?
It's a good exercise to know more of the world, and have less fear of it.
Bye, and always think before acting, always!
How is it possible that in 2003 , after THOUSANDS wars in hour history, people can think that a war will solve problems better than diplomacy?
How can a student (I suppose in this forum there are lots of them) think and say that war is necessary?
What do you learn at school? How to attack?
Or that the word "defense" is another (politically correct) way to say "attack"?
And please don't say that diplomacy has never concluded anything.
I remember that a stupid, dumb man called Ghandi freed its people from english domination just with diplomacy, tranquillity and peace (without any violent reaction to any threat), and it's not a fairytale, mistification or whatever.
It has happened (and you can read it on schoolbooks, trust me!).
Now you would say: "that's just an episode" or "just a case" or "but there were lots of casualities" and so on.
My answer is: are you really sure? Just study history a bit more, it's worth the effort, for you and for the whole world.
Just a suggestion, for all of you, especially Americans, but also Europeans, Japanese and so on: try to watch "Bowling for Coloumbine", then write your impression on a forum like this and moreover READ others opinion and think: why do they have my same/different opinion?
It's a good exercise to know more of the world, and have less fear of it.
Bye, and always think before acting, always!
And just to say something about that phriik...
you are so narrow minded...it´s just unbelievable! The world doesn´t want and especially has NO NEED for your sweat and tears!
in your television shows it is forbidden to show off womens breasts, but every second american carries a gun with himself...poor sick america! America didn´t run into the 2nd ww because they wanted to free other countrys! They invaded because they were afraid of the third upcomming superpower Germany...and I´m glad they won that war, but they didn´t just do it for europe or the whole world...in the front row of their reasons - as allways stand america itself!
And noone of you still talks about the victims of vietnam... in your television broadcast its forbidden to state your pacifistic view and that you think this war is wrong....hitler for example had the same propaganda and this has nothing to with PRESS-Freedom anymore!
But you think like that, because press and TV tell you all the time, that it´s right right and right what america does...well... it´s just wrong!
you are so narrow minded...it´s just unbelievable! The world doesn´t want and especially has NO NEED for your sweat and tears!
in your television shows it is forbidden to show off womens breasts, but every second american carries a gun with himself...poor sick america! America didn´t run into the 2nd ww because they wanted to free other countrys! They invaded because they were afraid of the third upcomming superpower Germany...and I´m glad they won that war, but they didn´t just do it for europe or the whole world...in the front row of their reasons - as allways stand america itself!
And noone of you still talks about the victims of vietnam... in your television broadcast its forbidden to state your pacifistic view and that you think this war is wrong....hitler for example had the same propaganda and this has nothing to with PRESS-Freedom anymore!
But you think like that, because press and TV tell you all the time, that it´s right right and right what america does...well... it´s just wrong!
M
Mad Phil
Guest
pathetic debate, this was a message of peace, and you all changed it to crap-useless-pointless-sick debate.
You can't do nothing about it, there is a war for many good/bad reasons!
America is on it's way with a simple message: "Be with us, or be crushed like worms" (recently ..., panama, iraq, who's next ?)
Don't think America is the ultimate-peacemaker (CNN is not the only thrustfull channel you know), they are just fighting against weapons THEY gave to saddam (and a lot of french weaponery...) a regime they helped to build up.
Don't think that this war is only for oil, there is mich more reasons we surely ALL ignore (Bush Sr. implication in the war-industry, to build the historical-first democratic country, economic profit generated by war).
But also don't think French-Germans (and Belgians) are people who want a peacefull earth (so called "good-ol' pacifist"), they just protect their insterest in iraq.
I fell sick watching cynical governements talking about war/peace and taking the public opinion as judges of their act, trying to convince them that they are true and the others are bad.
I bet here publicly they won't find Saddam's big mustache, this is only circus for public opinion. They should first try to get their public ennemy #1
(I didn't read the end of page 2 and the 3rd page, so sick of reading Octavius post)
Peace to all.
You can't do nothing about it, there is a war for many good/bad reasons!
America is on it's way with a simple message: "Be with us, or be crushed like worms" (recently ..., panama, iraq, who's next ?)
Don't think America is the ultimate-peacemaker (CNN is not the only thrustfull channel you know), they are just fighting against weapons THEY gave to saddam (and a lot of french weaponery...) a regime they helped to build up.
Don't think that this war is only for oil, there is mich more reasons we surely ALL ignore (Bush Sr. implication in the war-industry, to build the historical-first democratic country, economic profit generated by war).
But also don't think French-Germans (and Belgians) are people who want a peacefull earth (so called "good-ol' pacifist"), they just protect their insterest in iraq.
I fell sick watching cynical governements talking about war/peace and taking the public opinion as judges of their act, trying to convince them that they are true and the others are bad.
I bet here publicly they won't find Saddam's big mustache, this is only circus for public opinion. They should first try to get their public ennemy #1
(I didn't read the end of page 2 and the 3rd page, so sick of reading Octavius post)
Peace to all.
pathetic...maybe, but you also discuss it...
well, Germany and France could have fought with the states in iraq and all of them would have received a tiny bit of the oil supplies....and it would have been great for this countrys economical sitution. Neihter Germany nor France have any interests in the iraq!
well, Germany and France could have fought with the states in iraq and all of them would have received a tiny bit of the oil supplies....and it would have been great for this countrys economical sitution. Neihter Germany nor France have any interests in the iraq!
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,524
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 32
- Location
- QLD, Australia
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 222
- Country
Is this Neccessary...
I mean.. Have a cry somewhere else okay?
Don't bring this into GBAtemp.
Lets try to forget about it...
I mean.. Have a cry somewhere else okay?
Don't bring this into GBAtemp.
Lets try to forget about it...
D
DaMaNiAc
Guest
First of all Bush should never have been elected president in the first place. I sat up all night and watched the votes coming in and realising the horror that he was going to be elected. The whole American electoral system needs to be looked at and changed. Gore got more votes but lost. That is wrong as it is not reflecting the majority of the public.
On the war however I feel it is necessary. A lot of people are out protesting now and I think it is pointless! This will offend some people but it is my opinion.
I have never had any sympathy for protesters as they never get anything done and get in the way of other people. I believe most of the people who walked out of school should be punished as if they were truanting. Most of them only did it to get a day off school and used this as an excuse.
Enough of a rant. The war has now started. Stop the anti war demos and get on with supporting our men and women fighting for what is right. They are the ones that really make a difference, not the protesters.
On the war however I feel it is necessary. A lot of people are out protesting now and I think it is pointless! This will offend some people but it is my opinion.
I have never had any sympathy for protesters as they never get anything done and get in the way of other people. I believe most of the people who walked out of school should be punished as if they were truanting. Most of them only did it to get a day off school and used this as an excuse.
Enough of a rant. The war has now started. Stop the anti war demos and get on with supporting our men and women fighting for what is right. They are the ones that really make a difference, not the protesters.
Oh yeah and another thing, IRAQ only supplies 3% of the world oil. if we were attacking for OIL, We would hit a bigger oil supplier dont you think? Nobody SUPPORTS WAR on this board(WAR IS BAD). Its taking action that is happening. I dont see a full blown out war yet. the IRAQi military has no chance. at this point they are barley retaliating. They probably will surrender here pretty soon. GOTO MSN.COM and read up on the latest news before you guys post. It doesnt matter how many of us dont support the war, Its going on period like some one said earlier. Once the US wins and the Iraqi people dance in the streets with american flags thanking the USA for freeing them, all of the haters will thanks us too!
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 5,834
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 39
- Location
- On temporary hiatus.
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 191
- Country
dpm: I rethought my post overnight and I realized I had miscommunicated my intention. My first statement still holds -- WE STILL HAVE NO RIGHT TO INTERFERE. Yes, they may be mistreated. But we cannot impose our value system on others. Can you imagine, for instance, if a Buddhist showed up at your door with a tommy gun and told you how to worship? (this analogy is actually decent, because in theory a Buddhist would never do this -- and in theory a Christian should never kill.) My second point (the world police force and the US making enemies) should have been self-explanatory. I know the US has good humanitarian programs, but they also deal in arms, political manipulation, business takeovers... and seldom with any regard for anyone besides their own views. Afghanistan, for one, fits the first two -- they gave the Taliban weapons and training so that they could take over the country, and the Soviets would have to leave. The US wasn't thinking about the consequences to the average Afghan people. Also, how can you call it a WORLD police force if everyone is more loyal to a single nation than to the world? I'm suggesting a multinational one, for that reason -- we don't need MORE of a political monopoly. My third point fits with that: "The main problem with the U.N. is they are too weak and too indecisive." you say, even in the face of my suggesting giving it the world's militaries. The other reason why the UN is so indecisive is the Security Council's permanant seats -- if anything, the US isn't deserving of it's "permanant" status anymore, but I won't go into my opinion on that any further. Those members stall and gerrymander, and have the terrible power to veto. For those who favor peace: Look at the Cold War. For those who support the slaughter that's happening now: Look at France. Veto power never should be implemented. My fourth point was phrased incorrectly. I meant "Why doesn't the US adopt a more positive, less intrusive foreign policy, and see how it plays out". I also wanted to show that Bush's "holy war" motive is no better than the Jihad you claim the Iraqi's are on. Finally, I do agree your analogy was better than mine -- However, everything before the word "besides" I still hold to.
Flea: Man, you impress me. The only thing I don't agree with is how heavy the focus is on oil -- it is probably more of a "nice thing" than a true motive. An example: You're a pirate, attacking another pirate ship to prevent competition. Thier ship happens to be full of booty. It's a bonus, and maybe it'll have you target them first over your other competition. That's the role I see oil playing in this. Still, the rest of what you say is from the heart, and expressive while still staying true to the point. Thank you.
Mad Phil -- your point hits me home the hardest. Let's put all of this behind us -- we all seem to be too stubborn to shut up. This will be my final post here until we stop this and start calling for peace again. It really doesn't take much to make peace, people -- so let's start.
I call to end this debate. Let peace reign.
-Tempest out.-
Flea: Man, you impress me. The only thing I don't agree with is how heavy the focus is on oil -- it is probably more of a "nice thing" than a true motive. An example: You're a pirate, attacking another pirate ship to prevent competition. Thier ship happens to be full of booty. It's a bonus, and maybe it'll have you target them first over your other competition. That's the role I see oil playing in this. Still, the rest of what you say is from the heart, and expressive while still staying true to the point. Thank you.
Mad Phil -- your point hits me home the hardest. Let's put all of this behind us -- we all seem to be too stubborn to shut up. This will be my final post here until we stop this and start calling for peace again. It really doesn't take much to make peace, people -- so let's start.
I call to end this debate. Let peace reign.
-Tempest out.-
- Status
