Colin Powell speech

[AlphaWolf]

I am curious to know what the general consensus in germany/france is besides what their respective national governments think on this.

I myself was thinking that we were a bit pre-emptive towards iraq for a while, but powell has some pretty solid proof. All I have to say is that either history can repeat itself, or we can prevent it from repeating. 3 words: japan, pearl harbor. We knew pretty well what they were doing prior to the strike, just as we know pretty well what iraq is doing now.

[vampireuk]

I saw no conclusive proof, a few grainy pictures. Oh and the tape recordings but under American law arnt tape recordings inadmisable as evidence?

[Trotterwatch]

Well most of the stuff was nothing new, it was just shown in a more media friendly manner. However, the evidence that was shown was enough. Saddam definately has stuff he shouldn't put it that way.

Would be good if an uprising in his own country could get rid of him though rather than relying on a War where undoubtedly innocents will suffer (though they suffer anyways with Saddam gassing them to test weapons etc).

One BIG thing is, regardless of how you get rid of Saddam the US, the UK and hopefully the rest of the UN will help Iraq, and show the people that we aren't all complete and utter b*****s. In the past the US for example used certain factions for their own ends, and ended up getting bitten badly in the arse because after they've used them, they forget about them.

Iraq will need unconditional support after action.

Back on topic though, I respect Powell and believe that the majority of people also respect him - he isn't a Pawn in Dubya's game anyways.

[vampireuk]

I found this amusing:D

[mesman00]

i look at it what one, as politically incorrect as it may be, get in there, kick there asses, kill sadaam, take care of people of iraq

[Malcolm]

Originally posted by mesman00
i look at it what one, as politically incorrect as it may be, get in there, kick there asses, kill sadaam, take care of people of iraq

The only problem with that is usually a new more ass-hole'ish person takes that leaders place, tells all the 'cool' people of that country that you're a big meany head, the people don't get that the new guy is just as bad or worse then the old guy and then they spit on your car... ON YOUR CAR GOD DAMMIT

As you can see this solution can be bad for many reasons, but none more important then the car

;)

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by AlphaWolf

I myself was thinking that we were a bit pre-emptive towards iraq for a while, but powell has some pretty solid proof. All I have to say is that either history can repeat itself, or we can prevent it from repeating. 3 words: japan, pearl harbor. We knew pretty well what they were doing prior to the strike, just as we know pretty well what iraq is doing now.

ah, gotta love the ever present drawbacks to wwII .. why i always keep hearing those from americans when refering to new conflicts? anyway, that was just an editorial .. to get on topic the following:

basically powell didnt present anything new .. most of the stuff was either accusations from the kind we already know such as "we know theyve got weapons of mass destruction - just fucking believe us". then there were those tapes .. well .. in an american court, tapes are not admisable as evidence, as they are extremely easy to fake. on top of that, illegally obtained material is not admissable as evidence either. now in a question about war and peace we just overthrow all our democratic rules from our own courts cuz we aint applying this shit to americans, they are just arabs and besides we all know saddams a bastard. all in all, no sign of solid proof, that can put one in the position to determine if the shit bush and his gang are telling us is true or not.

you say we need to strike pre-emptively cuz saddams a threat? why now? why didnt u say so during the last 12 years? ah, and before that saddam seemed to be the best buddy of your government.


get in there, kick there asses, kill sadaam, take care of people of iraq

ahu? the us has proposed saddam to be exiled to prevent his country from being attacked. they dont care that saddam will be prosecuted for what he has done, they dont care to bring him to justice ... they just want him to be gone so we can have ourselves a little oil well opening and our people can drive 500 meters to the grocery store again. the sanctions have almost entirely hit the iraqi people and didnt even fucking touch saddam, yet they didnt take em back cuz theyd lose their precious face, eh? dont gimme this shit .. they dont give a flying fuck about the iraqi people.

summarization .. i wrote alot today and ull probably be giving me alot of pseudo noble shit again. there is no real proof, there is no real reason. all there to it, is greed.

kthx.

[Malcolm]

2fast4u.::. I agree with you, about 99% of the reason that the US is going after Iraq is because the Americans (Im talking about North and South America as a whole) are running out of oil. At present consumption we should run out of oil in about 6 years and, still at present consumption, the worlds oil supply will be gone in around 10 years.

Thats the reason for the new Hydrogen cars, that I believe Ford is producing, are out this year.

Anyways only 1% of the reason, IMHO, is because Saddam may attack other contries with the weapons that he does most likely have. My idea around it is that if we continue to have inspectors roaming around Iraq checking for weapons Saddam won't be able to launch a full scale attack against anyone because he won't have the space to launch that many weapons.

Just let the inspectors do their work, they'll eventually find something and bring it in; but common, going to war with Iraq isn't really going to solve anything, neither citizens of the contries want to fight.

My last point, think of the car, do you really want your nicely cleaned and waxed happy car to be spat on by someone?

Ofcourse not.

[mesman00]

Originally posted by Malcolm

My last point, think of the car, do you really want your nicely cleaned and waxed happy car to be spat on by someone?

Ofcourse not.

i never thought of it that way :happy:

[vampireuk]

Blair really should listen to the people who gave him his power, btw do you all know that the US is now buying oil from Iraq due to the strikes in venuezuela? Yup America is now relying on the country they are going to attack for the substance they are attacking for

*sniff sniff*

oooo irony!!:happy: :D

[Hacktarux]

I think as some of you does that Bush want to kick out Sadam to put someone else who will colaborate with US on oil business. But from what i've seen a few days ago on tv, they'll have BIG difficulties to find someone who's better... They are quite addicted to their guru... and someone else in this country should almost necessarily mean a muslin integrist. Note that i don't know why it has to be an integrist but expert said so and as i don't know who is able to replace Sadam i have to trust them... Well the point is that he may be worse than Sadam for world security...
Think about Afghanistan, taliban were put by americans years ago to put some oil pipeline to get oil from somewhere i don't remember.... and we all know how it has been finished.

And for the proofs, it really surprises me that they can't find more... It's hard to think that they can hide so much things when you know how US can spy for everybody.... And why did they wait so much time to show those proofs ?

And remember that people will resist, you'll have to kill them to put out Sadam. Take care of them ? lol

[Ryoga]

Proof? What is this proof that you keep asking for? You mean the proof required by UN Resolution 1441? It requires that Saddam provide PROOF that he destroyed all of his banned weapons. He supposedly did that with the weapons declaration that he submitted, which said he didn't have any. They have already found evidence that (again) Saddam lied. And yet you still believe him over the U.S.

BTW it hasnt been 12 years since the US did anything to him and it certenly hasn't been 12 years since he's shot at US and UK planes. Tell me if you think this is being best buddies.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/03/iraq.clinton/

ps: If the US really wanted the oil, don't you think that they could go in and take it like Saddam did in Kuwait?

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by Ryoga

ps: If the US really wanted the oil, don't you think that they could go in and take it like Saddam did in Kuwait?

Imagine the world wide backlash if america just did that?! theyre not a lil rogue nation attacking another rogue that isnt very big on the internation scale as far as political influence goes.

Its a tough situation and to be honest, korea is the more pressing issue, and theyre only acting like a wounded animal because of the way bush is acting. I think they all just need to chill out a bit, every day is some other drama... if bush really wants america to go about its daily trade and keep the economy going why is he scaring the shit out of the economy by threating instability (war). This situation needs to end one way or another or we're gonna dip into a 30s like depression.

[2fast4u]

They have already found evidence that (again) Saddam lied. And yet you still believe him over the U.S.

where? all i see is govt officials making accussations w/o backing em up ... no sense in not showing proof if u have it ... :saint:

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by AlphaWolf
Look, in all honesty...Do you think the US would start this big of a lie just to get a little oil? I mean damn, there would be a lot more than the economy at stake if they did.

When it boils down to it, it is in fact our word vs theirs.

allow me to question the "little" part ... iraq has the world 2nd highest oil ressources and according to scientists, the present ammount thats being accessed atm can be almost trippled. not seeing that is ignorant.

it all comes down to self interest in the end ..

[2fast4u]

nope, the usa is still some sort of a democracy .. nonetheless, does that mean one cannot critizice you guys cuz you are so wonderful?

EDIT: im going to visit my bed now .. so if u excuse me, we can argue from 6:30 (gmt+1) in the morniing tomorrow again

[vampireuk]

At the moment they are as bad as each other, bush and saddam should be taken into the desert and shot. Then left in odd positions and have pictures taken so we can all laugh at them.:emutalk:

[sytaylor]

Lets face it if oil was all that bush wanted he could easily sign an underhand deal (at GOOD prices) with sadam, cos sadam would have money and security... america would have its oil... so its not about oil

its about :nuke:'s etc, which sadam does have, and is moving, we all know that, fair enough not as many as korea or syria.. but neither of these countries have ever been aggressive to countries around them as far as voilence is concerned. In that respect sadam is the loose canon... what is to be done about that is the more difficult question

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by sytaylor
Lets face it if oil was all that bush wanted he could easily sign an underhand deal (at GOOD prices) with sadam, cos sadam would have money and security... america would have its oil... so its not about oil


as stated above by yours truly...iraq isnt nearly accessing all its oil resources at this time, whereas the us economy seems to need it quite badly. so another iraq with a nice puppet govt (with the blessing of the usa) that would feel the strange urge to sell territory to american companies* so that they can get more of this good stuff for the benefit of the american industry would seem to be quite a tempting possibility for the bush administration.

* for examples how this works, read up on cuban, nicaraguan or chilenian history

also, may i point out to you that they have never officially denied the accussation that this whole shit is about oil?


which sadam does have

lend me that christal ball of yours sometime


but neither of these countries have ever been aggressive to countries around them as far as voilence is concerned.

oh they werent? i remember north korea repeatedly firing on south korean ships for instance. and by any chance do you remember the korean war? the difference between north korea and iraq is that north korea is protected by powers like china and attacking them would draw the usa into war even bigger than the one they are sliding into right now.

[sytaylor]

But you're forgetting saddam IS a puppet government put there by the americans! If they just appraoched him for oil saddam isnt stupid enough to say "no you were mean in the past :doh:"

and it doesn't take a christal ball just some sense, you know it and i know it... their weapons may not be advanced but theyre there

Theres a reason there is still a military presence at the border of north/south korea, simply because of their in-fighting past.. but on an international stage saddam has made the biggest waves and in that effect poses a threat, that has to be dealt with... ideally by exhile... the biggest winners would be the iraqi's themselves with over 60% needing food aid despite iraq being a massivley wealthy... and yet for someone who seems so humanitarian you really don't seem to like gettin rid of this guy huh?

[2fast4u]

But you're forgetting saddam IS a puppet government put there by the americans!

yup, but obviously he developed kind of a mind of his own ... just like the fellows marcos or pinochet, eh?


If they just appraoched him for oil saddam isnt stupid enough to say "no you were mean in the past "

eh?


and it doesn't take a christal ball just some sense, you know it and i know it... their weapons may not be advanced but theyre there

assuming that there ARE weapons. but saying


its about :nuke:'s etc, which sadam does have

requires a christal ball. i doubt you have absolute proof that there are nukes in iraq ... the yankees obviously dont.


ideally by exhile

yep .. lets exile saddam and let him have a nice long life where his buddies are in charge. you dont really care to bring him to justice doya ?


the biggest winners would be the iraqi's themselves with over 60% needing food aid despite iraq being a massivley wealthy...

thanks to the us sanctions 250 children in iraq die every week. you dont happen to support those? after all we arent as noble as we thought we are, huh?

plus what makes you assume that the usa taking over and installing ANOTHER puppet govt (drawback to saddam) will help the situation of the people? i dont see the united states waving the big humanitarian flag wanting to help the iraqi people - they want to get rid of saddam.

[vampireuk]

Even the americans have stated saddam does not have a nuclear capability

*tosses that one out of the window*

Ahh yes the noble cause, of course America is doing this for the people of Iraq, oh wait no they offered him exile to another country.....that means he would not be punished for his crimes. The war is for who again? :rolleyes:

That good old report given to the americans by us is nothing new, and in fact the vast majority is not the work of the goverment. It was taken word for word including grammatical errors from a post graduate student in los angeles :rolleyes:

Yes its about weapons and stuff, but how on earth did he get these weapons?:satisfied

Who was supporting saddam when he used these weapons? And now they turn around over 10 years too late and say "no, bad saddam bad!".

And I believe I speak for 2fast4u when I say we have no objection to getting rid of him, hell he should not have even been placed there in the first place *glares at the stars and stripes*. But why the people of Iraq should suffer while our nintendo pilots bomb the crap out of anything with two legs makes no sense. Screw the bombs, stop letting the troops be pussys and send them in to do what they signed up for. Liberate Iraq without killing the damn citizens. Send in ground troops instead of air strikes and make them take every single street of baghdad without the bombs, less innocent lives will be lost, homes will not be destroyed, lets face it we owe it to the people of Iraq not to kill their kids and flatten their homes. Of course we could always call in the great humanitarian Sharon :rolleyes:

[2fast4u]

also, im sure the usa will find *ALOT* of fucking support in iraq after those ppl have been dying for 12 years cuz of their sanctions AND were bombed by the americans. dont you just think those people will welcome your troops with open arms, mr. bush??

nice try on building up a strong opposition to saddam too btw

[2fast4u]

And I believe I speak for 2fast4u when I say we have no objection to getting rid of him

godamn straight

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by 2fast4u

yep .. lets exile saddam and let him have a nice long life where his buddies are in charge. you dont really care to bring him to justice doya ?


If by justice you mean seeing him shot then no thats not what i advocate! why make him into a martyr?

and i didnt mean to say nukes i just wanted to use the funky lil icon in a post... i meant nuclear capreability, sorry for the confusion


And now they turn around over 10 years too late and say "no, bad saddam bad!".

12 years ago it was the gulf war... since then there has been the entire process of going through the un getting sanctions signed... hell in 98 mr too scared to do anything clinton ALMOST went in after saddam... he needs to be removed but not killed, pressure needs to be put on bagdad and military sites... how that is done is not for someone with my limited military knowledge to comment on

[2fast4u]

If by justice you mean seeing him shot then no thats not what i advocate! why make him into a martyr?

there is such thing as an international criminal court. it seems reasonable to put him thru a trial like milosevic. i never said anything about him being killed.

[sytaylor]

Well you seemingly hinted at the idea, while suggesting i didnt care for doing it, so thast why i replied to it.

[vampireuk]

yup I remember the words pay for his crimes....;)

How to overthrow saddam, get the Iraqi people to do it, fund them and supply them with what they need. But here comes the kicker guys.....dont just shit on them the moment they have done the job by leaving them as has happened every other time :rolleyes:

I can't see how Saddam could be made a martyr when his people hate it.

2fast4u is right put him on trial, dont bloody let him off and let him live in a nice country on the beach for the rest of his life.

[vampireuk]

I dont have nuclear capabilty....and your own government said that they dont....


You can't honestly believe that they don't have any.

No no he does have them, I mean you guys did sell them to him;)


The ICC is retarded, all he has to do is say "I don't want to be tried", and they wont do shit to him.

Yeah right so milosevic went on trial out of the goodness of his heart?


Kinda describes what he is doing now. He has those cars and that house laced with gold that he stole from his citizens.

Whats your point?

[2fast4u]

These days, anybody has nuclear capability.

bullshit. you reason like your government .. "just fucking believe me even tho i cant prove shit" gimme a break :doh:



The ICC is retarded, all he has to do is say "I don't want to be tried", and they wont do shit to him.

http://www.icc.int/en/ICC_jurisdiction.html

read up some info here, you are only half right ...



Indeed, in those two cases, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only if either the State on the territory of which the suspected crime occurred (State of territoriality), or the State of which the person suspected of having committed the crime is a national (State of nationality of the suspected person), is a State Party to the Statute.

If neither of these two States is a State Party to the Statute, the Court will not be in a position to investigate the suspected crimes, except if either the State of territoriality or the State of nationality of the suspected person accepts the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court by declaration lodged with the Registrar. Such a declaration may be made for all suspected crimes committed after 1 July 2002 (taking into consideration that crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court are not subject to any statute of limitations).

Thus, if nationals of States Parties to the Statute are victims of suspected crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court in the territory of a State which is not a Party to the Statute committed by persons who are not nationals of a State Party, the Court wouldn’t be in a position to investigate except if either the State of territoriality or the State of nationality of the suspected person accepts the jurisdiction of the Court, or if the situation is referred to the Court by the Security Council.

[2fast4u]

maybe its time to accept for you that you cant drawback to wwII all your life. this isnt about world war II (its O V E R) the united states did right back then but from the 50s to now i dont see much glory. basically what you are trying to do is remind me of the 3rd reich and i should shut up forever cuz of that. i wont.

on top of that this issue is particularly about now and the shit your government produces stinks.

[AlphaWolf]

meh fuck it, history is meaningless and so are my posts if they can just be edited like that.

*deleted*

/me withdraws from the topic

[vampireuk]

When they are like that you are god damn right they can just be edited like that.

[AlphaWolf]

Originally posted by vampireuk
When they are like that you are god damn right they can just be edited like that.

I see I got a "general stupidity" warning point for it. Yeah, I guess it was stupid of me to assume that I could bust your guys' balls after you just busted mine, I suppose I had that one coming sooner or later. Wont happen again.

[Jesse]

gotta love whiney douchebags.

hey x2f4u, vamp:

The Fonz says,

http://evil.emulation64.com/jes/douchebag.jpg

Forum bullies.

[vampireuk]

Jesse, you did not see the post so stay out of issues which have nothing to do with you, kthnx.


I see I got a "general stupidity" warning point for it. Yeah, I guess it was stupid of me to assume that I could bust your guys' balls after you just busted mine, I suppose I had that one coming sooner or later. Wont happen again.

We talked about this last night, you know that comment was over the line and you admitted it. Also you do know what the pm system is for right? The rules are for everyone Alpha if you have been here for a few days and you break the rules you get warned. If you have been here since the start and break the rules, you get warned. Just suck it up and dont complain about it.

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by Jesse


Forum bullies.

ahhh I see, when we bust a new person for breaking the rules they had it coming and we the mods did a fine job. When we bust a old timer for breaking the rules we are bullies? Think again.

[AlphaWolf]

vampireuk: At least 8 people in #emulation64 read that post before you edited it, because I mentioned it right on the spot. Albeit only 2 responded, they just laughed, including jesse. I can show you logs if you would like. And I never agreed with anything.

Also, why are you telling me about the PM system? If your warning is so justified, then it wont do any harm to let everybody else know about this new unwritten rule.

[vampireuk]

The unwritten rule of not insulting other forum members?

Flaming Warning Level 2 6

That pretty much covers insulting other forum members :rolleyes:


vampireuk: At least 8 people in #emulation64 read that post before you edited it, because I mentioned it right on the spot. Albeit only 2 responded, they just laughed, including jesse.

ooooh so the rules should change because 2 whole people laughed? Well why didnt you tell me!!:baaa:

Alpha we have been over it with so many people, if you wish to talk to a mod about a decision you do it in private.

But of course my apologies how stupid of me to follow the board rules accordingly when people laughed!! :rolleyes:

If you want to discuss this further use the PM system, get back on topic with this thread, any further posts regarding this issue will be removed.

[Sukh]

Don't you just hate dictators... Saddam Hussain, Kim Jong-il, Hitler, Stalin, Vampireuk...

They impose their warted minds onto others and destroy free speech :D har har.

[2fast4u]

also, gotta love dumbasses like sukh and their comments :happy:

[Sukh]

I prefer the term "joker". I think your type are refered to as "dumbasses".

By the way, I think the term you use in your signature,"Inside Joke", should actually be "Private Joke".

[2fast4u]

let me introduce you to a friend of mine .. hes called smilie and indicates that im not entirely serious.

[Sukh]

heh, you're a permanent joker too then? har har

I don't need a smiley to make people think i'm joking, they know i'm joking without one :D

[vampireuk]

Damn Sukh you need to stop been so serious all the time:geek:

[Sukh]

Screw j00 :P


Okay, okay, I was trying to enjoy the argument, but you bastwards weren't having none of it...

[DeadRabbit]

Ok,

Bringing this slightly back on topic.

The way I view it all is this.

After seeing the pictures of the gassed women and children and babies lying outside to rot, I came to the conclusion that this was wrong.

The court inside my head came into session and judge morals decided the verdict was Saddam was guilty. The punishment "War".

Now personally after seeing those pictures I couldn't give a flying fuck if Bush bombed Saddam because his bell-end hurt when he had his morning piss.

After seeing those dead babies etc, to not want to bomb him would be just as good as saying "No, you are not guilty, infact I fucking love the fact that you gas babies and children, DO IT MORE !".

The bloke is a cunt, and so are people that act like neandarthals by burning flags and screaming, and acting like twats.

And the point made in another thread about going to war with Iraq is being hypocritical because we aren't punishing N.Korea is B.S. That would be like the police saying "Oh, we won't punish one criminal because it would be hypocritical as there are other criminals on the run not being punished".

And now to the most important reason for bombing him.

BECAUSE I'M BORED, I WANT SHIT HOT MISSILE CAM ACTION, AND THAT GREEN NIGHT VISION THING, WHEN THEY SHOW THE ANTI-AIRCRAFT FIRE. STOP TALKING ABOUT WAR AND GET THE FUCK ON WITH IT....NOW! AND YOU'D BETTER HAVE SOME NEW STUFF TO SHOW ME TOO, LIKE MAYBE A NEW KIND OF MISSILE OR SOMETHING....


I'M WAITING......HAVE YOU STARTED IT YET !

[AlphaWolf]

Well see, its not that simple. france and germany have secret oil contracts with Iraq. The deal is that Iraq can poison whoever they want, and so long as france and germany keep the Americans out, they get bargain discounts on the oil.

If we wanted to do that, then we would have to wage war against france and germany as well. But bill clinton made our army too small, we would need more weapons first, but the liberal party wont allow it.

[DeadRabbit]

I see,


Except,

I DON'T GIVE A MONKEYS A-HOLE WHAT FRANCE AND GERMANY THINK.

In fact if they want some, they can have it too.

Comment removed check your PM's


As for France, at least if we bombed them too, it might rid our east coast of the stench of garlic that comes across on a windy day.

The only opinions that matter really are that of Great Britain and the U.S.A., because, when it comes down to it, let's face facts.

WE HAVE BEEN THE ONLY TWO NATIONS TO RID THE WORLD OF DESPOTS AND TYRANTS IN RECENT HISTORY ANYWAY.

Oh sorry, I nearly forgot....

IMHO.

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by AlphaWolf
Well see, its not that simple. france and germany have secret oil contracts with Iraq.

spot the guy with the cristall ball :P show some proof before you make accusations like that

and DeadRabbit ... im not even gonna start arguing with you. your stance is pathetic, now go buy a decent newspaper and watch some channels besides cnn. then read a history book. last of all, try to look further than the borders of the state you live in. kthx.

or like alphawolf said (fits for your complete posts):


Well see, its not that simple.

[Hacktarux]

Maybe France have secret oil contracts with Iraq, and prolly Iraq have weapons (OMG a country with weapons that's dangerous!! unbelievable..) Now will it really change something to go killing civils in Iraq for worldwide security ?

Muslin integrists will still have a lot of money to buy weapons from everywhere (including United states and France). And there still be dangerous countries with weapon and a bad dictator... you can't kill everyone in the world and i don't think Iraq is THE priority currently in international problems.

btw while i'm there, do u know that biological weapons don't exist ? Or more precisely it can be anything and thus it's impossible to prove that someone own such weapons... And we can also say that everyone can build that. So it's a false argument when talking about weapons in Iraq....

[DeadRabbit]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
spot the guy with the cristall ball :P show some proof before you make accusations like that

and DeadRabbit ... im not even gonna start arguing with you. your stance is pathetic, now go buy a decent newspaper and watch some channels besides cnn. then read a history book. last of all, try to look further than the borders of the state you live in. kthx.

or like alphawolf said (fits for your complete posts):

Firstly, the only news I'll ever watch is the B.B.C's. I'm not american and don't need their news channels, thankyou.

Second, I don't live in a state, I live in England and we don't have them.

Third, I am looking further than the borders of my country. Or else why would I care about Iraqi babies, children and women ? Nobody in England has been gassed by him, so if I'm so inward looking, then why would I care at all ?

UNLESS YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE PICTURES I SAW WERE FABRICATED, THEN WE HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO GO TO WAR WITH HIM. OR ELSE WE ARE SAYING HE IS RIGHT TO DO THESE THINGS.

SIMPLE NOT DIFFICULT.

ONE OR THE OTHER.

oh yes sorry nearly forgot....."kthx".

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by DeadRabbit
Ok,
The way I view it all is this.

After seeing the pictures of the gassed women and children and babies lying outside to rot, I came to the conclusion that this was wrong.


oooh im like a kid in a candy store!!

so did you also come to the conclusion that it was wrong to supply these weapons to this man in the first place? Or was it just wrong on his part for using them and not wrong on our part for giving him the capability to do this?


The court inside my head came into session and judge morals decided the verdict was Saddam was guilty. The punishment "War".

Ummm look up the gulf war kid it already happened once, as for the "punishment" you really think that the people of Iraq should suffer for the actions of this man? If so then you are as bad as he.


Now personally after seeing those pictures I couldn't give a flying fuck if Bush bombed Saddam because his bell-end hurt when he had his morning piss.

Correction, bomb Iraq you mean and some of us do care because war is not right....of course for some people its a hard concept to grab that war makes innocents suffer.


After seeing those dead babies etc, to not want to bomb him would be just as good as saying "No, you are not guilty, infact I fucking love the fact that you gas babies and children, DO IT MORE !"

How so? You will also hit civilians so its also a case of "hey stop hogging all the murder!". So if Saddam needs punishment why was he offered exile? Does sending him off to a nice country with no punishment honour the memories of those who died?


The bloke is a cunt

So is Bush


and so are people that act like neandarthals by burning flags and screaming

It's called freedom of speech, if they want to burn the flag in protest they can. They do not become neandarthals by burning your precious flag.


And the point made in another thread about going to war with Iraq is being hypocritical because we aren't punishing N.Korea is B.S. That would be like the police saying "Oh, we won't punish one criminal because it would be hypocritical as there are other criminals on the run not being punished".

What on earth are you talking about you funny little man? Bad analogy in fact one of the worst I have ever seen.

I would quote your last part, but that would just be a complete waste of my time. Yaaay bomb the innocent because im bored! :rolleyes:

BTW watch your language, swearing everynow and again but constant abuse is not tolerated. Also watch what you say about those "twats" burning the flag. Racial intolerance is not accepted here.

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by DeadRabbit


I DON'T GIVE A MONKEYS A-HOLE WHAT FRANCE AND GERMANY THINK.


Ladies and gentlemen I give you for display, a ignoramous


In fact if they want some, they can have it too.

omg you are that stupid....


Of course Germany don't want war for the reason that I want it, gassing peoples been their biggest hobby of the last 100 years.

woah woah edit and warning coming your way...


The only opinions that matter really are that of Great Britain and the U.S.A., because, when it comes down to it, let's face facts.

WE HAVE BEEN THE ONLY TWO NATIONS TO RID THE WORLD OF DESPOTS AND TYRANTS IN RECENT HISTORY ANYWAY

Complete nationalist BS you have no knowledge of history, oh and if our opinion counts listen to the public. We dont want a war

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by DeadRabbit
Firstly, the only news I'll ever watch is the B.B.C's. I'm not american and don't need their news channels, thankyou.

Second, I don't live in a state, I live in England and we don't have them.

Third, I am looking further than the borders of my country. Or else why would I care about Iraqi babies, children and women ? Nobody in England has been gassed by him, so if I'm so inward looking, then why would I care at all ?

UNLESS YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE PICTURES I SAW WERE FABRICATED, THEN WE HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO GO TO WAR WITH HIM. OR ELSE WE ARE SAYING HE IS RIGHT TO DO THESE THINGS.

SIMPLE NOT DIFFICULT.

ONE OR THE OTHER.

oh yes sorry nearly forgot....."kthx".

You are in the minority in this case and I am ashamed to call myself english if this is your view.

[2fast4u]

UNLESS YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE PICTURES I SAW WERE FABRICATED, THEN WE HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO GO TO WAR WITH HIM. OR ELSE WE ARE SAYING HE IS RIGHT TO DO THESE THINGS.

easy on the caps lock son.

i see alot of pseudo-moral here. did you also see the pictures of afghanis who were being bombed by the usa? i dont see you having a moral obligation to go to war with the usa.


Second, I don't live in a state, I live in England and we don't have them.

england is a state


Of course Germany don't want war for the reason that I want it, gassing peoples been their biggest hobby of the last 100 years.

btw, i forgot to give you a beating for this remark. racism aint tolerated.

[DeadRabbit]

Ahhhhh,

Racism, I see.

So are you claiming that Germany didn't gas anybody over the last 100 years then ?

I'm sorry but if you think historical facts are racist, then you're going to get mightly upset when you read a history book.

Although, I think the probability is that you don't fully understand the definition of racism.

STATE
A territory built by conquest in which one culture, one set of ideals and one set of laws have been imposed by force or threat over diverse nations by a civilian and military bureaucracy. States are ephemeral and originate and disappear with the stroke of a pen (e.g. the end of the U.S.S.R., December 25, 1991). In 1993 there existed 191 states.
(Examples: USA, Sudan, China, Spain, Nicaragua)


No, England is not a state.

is it.

[2fast4u]

So are you claiming that Germany didn't gas anybody over the last 100 years then ?

listen up, boy! the nazis in germany DID gas millions of people during the period of 1939 to 1945, mmk? thats 6 years in my book. what about the other 94 years?

must i break out the hand puppets?

[Slougi]

Originally posted by DeadRabbit
Ahhhhh,

Racism, I see.

So are you claiming that Germany didn't gas anybody over the last 100 years then ?

I'm sorry but if you think historical facts are racist, then you're going to get mightly upset when you read a history book.

Although, I think the probability is that you don't fully understand the definition of racism.

STATE
A territory built by conquest in which one culture, one set of ideals and one set of laws have been imposed by force or threat over diverse nations by a civilian and military bureaucracy. States are ephemeral and originate and disappear with the stroke of a pen (e.g. the end of the U.S.S.R., December 25, 1991). In 1993 there existed 191 states.
(Examples: USA, Sudan, China, Spain, Nicaragua)


No, England is not a state.

is it.
He is not saying that Germany didn't gas anybody. In fact, Germany and a large part of it's people have done lots of cruel things. So have _ALL_ other countries out there. Be it the old romans, the germans, the french, the english or the americans. Noone is innocent. Still, your comment was racist, take a look at would you exactly said. You implied that all german people are murderers, and enjoy it too.

[vampireuk]

Dead Rabbit watch yourself here because you are on VERY thin ice.

Saying the germans hobby is gassing people is sick twisted and evil. And if a comment like that crops up again you wil be banned.

[DeadRabbit]

Ok,

Ignoramous, "listen up boy", and "Omg, are you really that stupid", these are a list of names and quotes that have been said about me so far in this conversation.

I don't believe I have made personal comments to anybody and will continue not to do so.

Instead I will use historical facts, and personal opinion to make my points.

And no, I think you will find that I am "not" in the minority because I think it is terrible that he gassed his own people.

Well, I'd be shocked if I was.

I wonder what would shock people into acting nowadays then ?

[2fast4u]

I don't believe I have made personal comments to anybody and will continue not to do so.

hey, you just insulted a whole group of 85 million people ... nothing with that, eh? oh, i sense hippocricy

[vampireuk]

so its a historical fact that germans have fun gassing people and the french smell of garlic?

And all those "names" were pretty well justified since you started saying "if they want some they can have it too"

Remember kid you are been watched very carefully now.

[Slougi]

Originally posted by DeadRabbit
Ok,

Ignoramous, "listen up boy", and "Omg, are you really that stupid", these are a list of names and quotes that have been said about me so far in this conversation.

I don't believe I have made personal comments to anybody and will continue not to do so.

Instead I will use historical facts, and personal opinion to make my points.

And no, I think you will find that I am "not" in the minority because I think it is terrible that he gassed his own people.

Well, I'd be shocked if I was.

I wonder what would shock people into acting nowadays then ?
In fact you have made personal comments. Not direct personal comments, but comments stating or impliying that other nations are inferior to England and/or the USA. I could counter all your facts with facts that are equally damning. But what is the point?
I agree, it is terrible that he gassed his own people. But the USA will do no good by acts of war. Much more good would be done by lifting the sanctions and including Iraq in the world economy, on condition that the country be democratically lead from then on. Or something similar to this.

[Trotterwatch]

Much more good would be done by lifting the sanctions and including Iraq in the world economy, on condition that the country be democratically lead from then on. Or something similar to this.

Totally agree, we have to do something to stop the Middle Eastern countries from hating us so much, and hatred causes fanatacism (and we all know where that leads eventually).

[Slougi]

Originally posted by Trotterwatch
Totally agree, we have to do something to stop the Middle Eastern countries from hating us so much, and hatred causes fanatacism (and we all know where that leads eventually).
True. Actually Europe is generally not hated, I know that by first hand experience. (I am an Arab after all :))
The two countries really hated in the middle east are the USA and Israel. Israel we all know why, and America because they basically provide Israel with free weapons, equipment and lots of funding.

[DeadRabbit]

Ok,

We've come to a point where you will find I am 100% in agreement with you.

Yes, sanctions are absolutely pointless and do only harm innocents, as anybody involved and I mean "properly" involved with Saddam will have the means to bypass any effect they may have.

But, unfortunately no, I really do think that war is the only answer. In fact had this been decided many years ago then we probably woldn't be in the state of affairs that we are in today, where there is worry about his possible nuclear arsenal.

And also, yes I do think that what I saw on the television was more than enough reason.

Let's (with regret I'm sure) return to my point about the holocaust. I'm sure everyone agrees that it was probably the worst aspect of WW2. If this is so, then how is what Saddam has done any different. Why does he get some kind of leniancy over this issue ?

People are incredibly good at talking about how evil people are, and how righteous they are themselves, but unfortunately as history has proved, they are extraordinarily lethargic when it comes to backing their good words with deeds.

[2fast4u]

But, unfortunately no, I really do think that war is the only answer. In fact had this been decided many years ago then we probably woldn't be in the state of affairs that we are in today, where there is worry about his possible nuclear arsenal.

lets also not forget the oil thingie im not willing to repeat at this point. imo the weapons are just the reason they want us to believe to make it look legitimate.

[vampireuk]

War is not the last option though, if you have heard about the latest proposal by France,Germany and Russia it should at least interest you.

Double the weapons inspectors and use spy planes all through Iraq airspace - this covers the weapons case

UN Peacekeepers in Iraq - These will protect the Iraqi people and help them recieve the aid that they should get and ends up with Saddam.

War is not the only option but the Bush administration is not even looking at this proposal which is really bugging me. They chose war over peace, what kind of goverment is that to have in the "free world".

[Slougi]

Originally posted by DeadRabbit
Ok,

We've come to a point where you will find I am 100% in agreement with you.

Yes, sanctions are absolutely pointless and do only harm innocents, as anybody involved and I mean "properly" involved with Saddam will have the means to bypass any effect they may have.
Well, at least we agree here :)


But, unfortunately no, I really do think that war is the only answer. In fact had this been decided many years ago then we probably woldn't be in the state of affairs that we are in today, where there is worry about his possible nuclear arsenal.
It has been somewhat unavoidable ever since the original gulf war. Had the USA acted differently war could have been averted. It is now not possible anymore. The US would loose their face if they pulled out now; and they will not let that happen. However by fighting they will be despised as well. More good would come out of no war, in my opinion; but I do not see that happening anymore at this point. It is a lesson to be learnt and applied in the future. Unfortunately humans seem incapable of this...


And also, yes I do think that what I saw on the television was more than enough reason.

Let's (with regret I'm sure) return to my point about the holocaust. I'm sure everyone agrees that it was probably the worst aspect of WW2. If this is so, then how is what Saddam has done any different. Why does he get some kind of leniancy over this issue ?
He does not. The point is that a war would kill many innocent people too; at least as many as killed by Saddam Hussein. A peaceful solution should be pursued. It seems the current US administration lacks the political insight to do this though.


People are incredibly good at talking about how evil people are, and how righteous they are themselves, but unfortunately as history has proved, they are extraordinarily lethargic when it comes to backing their good words with deeds.
Quite true, quite true :)

[Trotterwatch]

What I would like? Double the number of inspectors, spyplanes, US Peacekeepers.... just like the Nato plan, but I also don't want Saddam to escape without anything happening. But what can happen to him, I doubt very much he would just consent to being tried for War Crimes.

I don't think anyone wishes any harm to the Iraqi people they are the ones suffering more than anyone - perhaps if we lift the sanctions then the people of Iraq can at least lead semi-proper lives.

The ultimate dream must be to have Iraq as a Democracy (or anything other than despotism), is that achievable? I for one hope so.

[AlphaWolf]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
spot the guy with the cristall ball :P show some proof before you make accusations like that


Yeah well - - - (sudden pause)

Wait a second, aren't the same baseless accusations being made in our direction?

Must the teapot call the kettle black?

[Slougi]

Originally posted by AlphaWolf
Yeah well - - - (sudden pause)

Wait a second, aren't the same baseless accusations being made in our direction?

Must the teapot call the kettle black?
What accusations are you referring to specifically?

[AlphaWolf]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
... they just want him to be gone so we can have ourselves a little oil well opening and our people can drive 500 meters to the grocery store again.



Originally posted by Trotterwatch
I doubt very much he would just consent to being tried for War Crimes.


Theres the Achielles heel of the ICC

[vampireuk]

Are you saying the teapot is racist?:D

[2fast4u]

establish some context first, please. what baseless accusations?

[AlphaWolf]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
establish some context first, please. what baseless accusations?

Ok here it is a second time:


Originally posted by 2fast4u
... they just want him to be gone so we can have ourselves a little oil well opening and our people can drive 500 meters to the grocery store again.


I will probably get more warning points for making the same argument again, but I realy don't care:

Now, the teapot calling the kettle black, is an old expression, has nothing to do with race. What I mean by this, is that you guys, who have a pretty dirty history I might add, constantly insist that the US is some evil rogue state bent on some evil motive.

You guys constantly make these baseless arguments that the US is after ulterior motives (e.g. oil). Making similar assumptions, its logical that we could assume that you're after the same thing, is it not? This is why you shouldn't assume too much, because you're making an ass out of u and me in this argument.

This is exactly why I made that statement to x2f4u earlier. This one will probably be edited too, but oh well, I said it.

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by AlphaWolf
Now, the teapot calling the kettle black, is an old expression, has nothing to do with race. What I mean by this, is that you guys, who have a pretty dirty history I might add, constantly insist that the US is some evil rogue state bent on some evil motive.


rofl I was joking

and stop been a little bitch about having your post edited. You know what you said was wrong so stop trying to play the innocent victim

[AlphaWolf]

My comment was more wrong than say...you telling me all of that shit about the stars and stripes? especialy the bit about how you "wipe your ass with the stars and stripes"?

The stars and stripes mean a lot more to me and my peers than you can probably imagine, yet this is the first time I have griped about your comments, let alone had the desire to "gag" you.

[vampireuk]

There is a difference between talking foul of a goverment and talking foul of the people. You spoke foul of the people whereas I have never done. I'm no getting into this BS with you, stop whining and act like a man about it instead of crying about it every chance you get.

[AlphaWolf]

Originally posted by vampireuk
There is a difference between talking foul of a goverment and talking foul of the people. You spoke foul of the people whereas I have never done.

First consider how government and people relate, then re-read that statement a few times.



I'm no getting into this BS with you, stop whining and act like a man about it instead of crying about it every chance you get.


/me grins

I love the irony. Seriously! :happy:

[vampireuk]

And bush was elected fairly was he? ;)
No? Then he does not relate to the people

The fact is alpha you have no shut up about your post been edited since it happens and its pissing me off. I dont see anyone else complaining when they have something edited :rolleyes:

[Sukh]

Are you two ladies constantly at each other's necks? I mean cam'on, chill Winston! (that sounded so lame I know, but meh to j00).

Now talking from the perspective that I've only read the last two posts in this thread, I have come to the conclusion that you both suffer from Hanfezichika.

Hanfezichika - A disease commonly associated with over arrogance, pride and ignorance. Exibited by the mass majority of humans. Cure: Sex (at least once a year) AND exposure to the sun.

:D har har har

[vampireuk]

Dude I'm allergic to sun, and I get sexx0r from you everynight anyway :P

I'll go with the pride thing but there is no way i am listening to the ignorance bit:satisfied

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by vampireuk
I dont see anyone else complaining when they have something edited :rolleyes:

I seem to remember nearly a month of posts being edited / threads being closed which seems to have died a death at last which pretty much split the mods/admin down the middle and pissed off a lot of users.

[vampireuk]

The only threads that were closed were spam threads such as those "sig testing" and other random crap. Which we actually agreed to in the staff room ;)

If posts were edited and threads closed then they were against the forum rules.

And the month or so you are refering to is no doubt when martin got back and the forum was going down the crapper, so we took a zero tolerance approach. And it worked :P

[Slougi]

I gotta agree with Vamp here. The forums were crazy while martin was away and we couldn't mod everything because mods of other boards were lazy etc. He came back, got a few new mods, a few threads went clickety-lock. And here we are, with a quality forum again.

[Macca]

Look, as vamp says, everything about the forums has been sorted out since thy master’s return. Now if you have a problem, go pm the person you have a problem with and stop the public bitching. If the problem is so amazing huge that has to be spoken out aloud, tell it to your mum because I’m sure she cares the same amount as everyone here. In short, shut up and dance!

/me dances lalalalalalala

[ShadowPrince]

As a neutral observer,I don't think this is the case in this thread.
What i see here is 3 moderators editing posts and warning users,who trying to argue with them.

Lesson: don't try to argue with mods.

[blizz]

as a jaded moderator I think the attached song sums up my feelings regarding this matter.

Lesson: Chiyo-chan's cuteness solves all ills. :D

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by ShadowPrince
As a neutral observer,I don't think this is the case in this thread.
What i see here is 3 moderators editing posts and warning users,who trying to argue with them.

Lesson: don't try to argue with mods.

Well if thats what you wish to think, fine. However I believe you have access to the staff room. Check on the two posts that were edited as they are mentioned there. I encourage a good argument as long as it stays civil and it doesnt go too far. Which in two cases it did and they were edited. I don't warn people for having a different view to mine, if I did I wouldnt be a mod ;)

Edit:

/me dances:happy:

[ShadowPrince]

Originally posted by blizz
as a jaded moderator I think the attached song sums up my feelings regarding this matter.

Lesson: Chiyo-chan's cuteness solves all ills. :D

heh,nice songy :) .

[ShadowPrince]

Originally posted by vampireuk
Well if thats what you wish to think, fine. However I believe you have access to the staff room. Check on the two posts that were edited as they are mentioned there. I encourage a good argument as long as it stays civil and it doesnt go too far. Which in two cases it did and they were edited. I don't warn people for having a different view to mine, if I did I wouldnt be a mod ;)

Edit:

* vampireuk dances:happy:

I see there only mention about first comment ,that is "summary of the last 100 years of German history" .Here my two cents about it .
I happen to be from Russia originally,the country that lost
about 25.000.000 lives in WWII ,more then all others together ! You know this is kinda hard to forget and forgive country,who initiated that war.
Germany was the country that invented chemical weapons .Germany actively used gas in WW1,and believed to use some kind of biological weapons on russian soldiers and civilians near the end of WW2. You have to remember gas showers , concentration camps,wears from human skin as a special treatment for jews .
Germans should feel ashame and guilty for what they did in 20 century.Sorry if i "insulting" 85 M germans,i really care more about memory of those who die in that war .

[vampireuk]

That was in the past and that was in Nazi germany, not todays Germany.

Both sides used gas in the first world war and both sides commited attrocities. It is a terrible thing, but making a sick comment about it will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Germany should not feel ashamed about anything, they have put that in the past and made ammends for what they did in the past under a different regime. Where the majority would not dare speak out against it in the first place.

ummm going off topic:D

but the point is no matter what has happened comments like that wont be tolerated. The rules apply at all times without exception:)

[2fast4u]

this is all very true shadowprince, but dont forget that the last 2 generations of germans have absolutely no fault that all this happened. its important to keep this memory alive to prevent a future takeover by fascists, racists or other fuckwits but imo thats "all" there is to it. we get told ALOT (a HELL lot) about the nazi regime and its crimes and we understand very good. believe me, there is no country in the world more opposed to right wing opinions than germany is. and thats a good thing.

in case you didnt know, im german.

[blizz]

ShadowPrince:

We all care about the memory of those who died in WW2, however it is fallacy to see the world through the WW2 prism, and I personally do not want my generation to have to play or indeed pay for the silly WW2 name game, all countries involved have paid a heavy price for it and like all events in history it should be learned from but not dwelt upon

[DeadRabbit]

Hi again,

I kinda stepped back from this topic, as soon as I realised that I had been given a warning for it.

However, after some consideration, I have decided to re-enter this debate and feel compelled to add to it again. Of course I accept the warning FULLY, and I also realise that adding any more views might land me with a ban from the message board altogether. However, this is just a chance I'm going to have to take I guess.

The one question I would like to start by asking though is that if I had stated that "'IRAQ'S" main hobby over the last 12 years has been gassing people" then would I have recieved a warning for "Racist/Prejudiced remarks" (this is what my warning was for).

After looking again at the above question, I realise that I know the truthful answer already, regardless of the answer I might/might not be given.

It is NO.

BTW. If I happen to use "caps lock" it is not because I am shouting, it's a way I use to emphasise the words.

I can't shout anyway, as I have a 1 year old baby, and 3 children asleep in the next room :)

[vampireuk]

Actually if you had said that I would have warned you.;)

[Flash]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
this is all very true shadowprince, but dont forget that the last 2 generations of germans have absolutely no fault that all this happened. its important to keep this memory alive to prevent a future takeover by fascists, racists or other fuckwits but imo thats "all" there is to it.

That's why, i think Germany is against Bush's plans. It looks like fascism.

Somebody dislikes other country leader and wants some oil... What they will do ? BOMB CILVILIANS. They already bombed
children in Kosovo and used
nukes when Japan was almost capitulated (with main purpose to show Soviet Union american “machismo”) :angry:

And more - some of Pentagon generals really deserve to be hanged : they tested nuclear weapons on their own people in 60s. People came on picnics and looked at "beautiful mushroom " from distance in 30-50km. And these generals knew about that people were irradiated!!! After Hirosima they could perfectly imagine consequences...

Now new bastards will test new weapons on cilvilian targets as they do before. "Non-lethal chemical weapons" they said… Non-lethal in 90% for adults but can kill up to 80% of children...

High-power EM bombs. Almost any major country works on EM pulse weapons. But Russia, France etc. have prototypes of EM beam-like pulse generators with various range but defined frequencies and power (up to 3 gigawatt (effective against electronics but harmless even for hamsters, if not put them directly into emitter :) (safe distance for a human (he can lose the consciousness and there's a little possibility of short-term amnesia) in case of 3GW is 30m, of course for one impulse,
(2 min and he's barbecued :) but you will need 5 big nuclear power plants to make 2 min 3 gigawatt microwave beam :) ) and effective radius not more than 10 km. So you can knock military base out but leave nearby village intact

What is EM bomb - some thing (i will not give even brief description because
while miltary grade bombs is impossible to build in your garage,
3 kW "baby" can be easily made from the car and tv spare parts and can cause some troubles in the hands of the idiots (nobody wants to see their computer or tv fried, right ? :) )) that can make extremely powerful noise-like signal for a short time.

Imagine consequences of broadband nondirectional noise-like signal with power about 20-60 gigawatts. It’s bombs, which the Pentagon intends to test in Iraq.


3km - all electric, electronic equipment is destroyed, possible (multiple) human casualties (within 200m it's like big microwave oven) , guaranteed amnesia.
10-40km - all silicon-based electronics is fried , but some tube electronics will survive. High risk of
aggravation of the psychic illnesses and short-term amnesia and possibility of lethal outcome for the weakened people still remains.
80-100 km - only very sensitive devices (but include artifical pacemakers can be damaged) For people, who doesn’t need any life support systems it’s safe distance.

And this not a top secret information, but facts are known to any qualified doctor or even radio engineer.


Grreat !!! “Non-lethal” anti-children weapons. Perfect thing for genocide…

Some kind of 4th Reich is coming. But actually without any political or national idea.
War for peace with preventive strike ?. Nonsense. It’s all about profit. Cheap oil, etc.
It’s not a liberation war, but conquest. I prefer to call things their own names.

Hitler was paranoiac. Bush – he may be dumb but not insane, and those, who who stand after him perfectly know what they doing…

[sytaylor]

ok there was not one single fact in that post, it was propaganda laieden and probbaly full of lies...


They already bombed children in Kosovo

Oh yea? You mean when kosovo was bombed and the civilian casualties were tiny? When people were dancing in the streets to have milosovic removed? Convenient how you left that part out isnt it?


Now new bastards will test new weapons on cilvilian targets as they do before

Ever seen the film conspiricy theory? :happy: Where do you get this crap from?


Hitler was paranoiac. Bush – he may be dumb but not insane, and those, who who stand after him perfectly know what they doing…

Bush may be a moron with too much power, but hitler he aint. I deeply believe he wouldn't attack someone because they're different. I also seriously doubt its about oil (as i have stated and offered my evidence for several times in this thread, have a read of some of it, food for thought).

[ShadowPrince]

This is kind of propaganda ,that people get in Russia from media .

I think it's better if you think more on what Russia made in Chechnia and then talk about others.
And your comment that USA bombed Japan with Nukes just to show something to Soviet Union is ridicule at least. They were allies at this time ,it's much later soviet media started to interpret it that way. Go read some history books about it,not newspaper articles.
Japan was far from capitulating,actually war may continue another several years and cost another hundreds of 1000s lives of american and japan soldiers and civilians. Its a fact ,
that Japan lost MUCH more civilians with "conventional" bombing of it's cities. It was a choice between bomb it with nukes and end it quickly with minimal losses for US,or invade Japan home isles with HUGE losses and for another moths of war.
Also it was pretty damn effective way to take a revenge for Pearl
Harbour.
Btw,how about several Japan isles,that Soviet Union grabbed in the last HOURS of war,when Japan oficially signed capitulation ,
they are still in Russia posession ,and it's with the fact that Japan never declared war on Soviet Union.

[Ryoga]

This discussion is much too serious, so lets play a game.
Match the people with the following statements:

A) George W. Bush
B) Colin Powel
C) Condoleezza Rice
D) Bill Clinton
E) Donald Rumsfeld
F) Tony Blair

1) Urged americans to be ready for a possible attack on Iraq, and he warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had used biological weapons against his own people -- and would likely use the weapons again unless he were prevented from doing so.

2) "Hussein threatens the security of all the rest of us."

3) "It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them"

4) "Iraq still poses a threat to the national security of the United States and the 'freedom-loving world'."

5) "Force can never be the first answer but sometimes it's the only answer."

6) "The U.S. has the military means to achieve the objective and secure the 'vital strategic interests' of the United States in the Gulf region."

[ShadowPrince]

4 sounds definitely as Bush : 'freedom loving world'. LOL


Other are guesses based on intuition :
1.Clinton
2.Condoleeza Rice ( she is not relative of Rice,the 1964 author ?:)
3.sounds like Blair .
5 Colin Powell
6.Donald Rumsfeld

[vampireuk]

Lets play another round with only one quote

"I'm a tit, I'm a tit. I am a enourmous tit *humps Bush's leg* Did I mention im a tit?"

So is it

A) Tony Blair
B) Tony Blair
C) Tony Blair
D) Tony Blair

:D

[Trotterwatch]

Thought you'd like this....

[sk8bloke22]

seriously, i think this war is a joke. there is no exlusive evidence about saddam. u cant just attack some one if there is no obvious reason, and to me the only reason usa and uk want to attack is cos of oil, and cos bush wants to finish off wat his father started. if anyone saw mark thomas: weapon inspector on channel 4 in the uk a couple of weeks ago, u will know that there are plenty of high-grade weapons that should not be here. yetr the uk can get away with it, cos they r not a threat. saddam has not actually done anything yet, he hasnt even got the capabilities to reach anything near the usa, so its not like the us is an immediate threat or anything. a couple of days ago, the Dr. Blix (spelling?) gave his speech on the current evidence found from weapon inspectors, and there was no conclusive evidence of biological or nuclear weapons. furthermore, certain so-called evidence taken from us spy planes were apparently greatly inaccurate (i cant remember what the exact information was, but if u want im sure its off any news site).

after going on the anti-war rally in london , what is estimated by organisers to be, with 2 million people, im pretty convinced that a large amount of the population are against this. the fact that even ministers of the labour party are going against blair (which, considering his huge majority in the house of commons says quite a lot), indicates how unsure many are whether or not this is a just war.

seriously, the us is walking on dangerous grounds by completely ignoring the UN, and now even more countries are going against the us and the uk. this is not gonna be a short war, it will be a world war, without any real justification.

[AlphaWolf]

Well, if you look at it that way, I don't think we have ever had a justified world war :P

The first war began with the death of an archduke.

The second war began with Hitlers appeal to German pride.

[2fast4u]

well i went to the anti-war rally in stuttgart yesterday where a MIGHTY 50k of people gathered. may not sound like much, but stuttgart aint a really big city either, so we can consider this alot.

these pics show a few parts:

http://www.rothenburg-net.de/pub/pictures/demo_stuttgart/cimg0406.jpg

http://www.rothenburg-net.de/pub/pictures/demo_stuttgart/cimg0481.jpg

i think its save to say that nobody in europe actively wants this war, besides tony blair and hes ready to sign anything that is sent from washington.

[sk8bloke22]

Originally posted by AlphaWolf
Well, if you look at it that way, I don't think we have ever had a justified world war :P

The first war began with the death of an archduke.

The second war began with Hitlers appeal to German pride.

yeh, but this time we're the instigators of the war. the first world war was a combination of different conflicts arising through various crises. the first world was not necessary at all, and the amount of people who died due a ridiculous millitary strategy should make everyone shiver at the thought at war. the second world, to some extent, was the result of extremism, i.e hitler, but if anything it was a result of the harsh reparations forced onto germany, and the division of europe set by the league of nations and ther Treaty of Versailles. its quite fair to say that if there was no first world war, there would have been no second as fascism was a reaction to the harsh punishments given by the allies.

this time, the us and the uk are starting something without a conflict. saddam hasnt (yet) tried to attack us in the recent years, the only original justification was that iraq is part of the 'axis of evil' that bush invented, and so it must be destroyed. its all just rhetoric bullshit.

btw, nice pictures 2fast4u. i wish i brought my camera now. i took pictures on my new phone which has pretty decent quality (its the sharp gx10) and it was quite amusing as i tried taking a picture of the crowds from a big height and the camera on the phone fucked up the focus like i have never seen before cos there was so much going on it couldnt focus.

[sytaylor]

sk8... read the entire thread i offer some pretty good reasons as to why oil is not the primary concern... which i cant be arsed posting twice :holiday:

[Flash]

Originally posted by ShadowPrince
This is kind of propaganda ,that people get in Russia from media .



No. I'm not listening radio, watching tv etc too much - i don't
have time. I i have two other things - my brain and my friends father (I think military intelligence have more information


[quote]

I think it's better if you think more on what Russia made in Chechnia and then talk about others.


Then think about how many people Chechen bandits kindapped, killed, tortured. 11 september. Well it's tragegedy How about several houses and thousands of people in Moscow. Nobody remembers it .

If some civilians was killed - it's bad but it's war.

About several houses thousands of people, exploded in Moscow.And This Only Moscow. And go into Chechnya, ask local people, that they think about all this. You will be wondered by answers. Sectarian manicas and simple thugs terrorizing local population...



And your comment that USA bombed Japan with Nukes just to show something to Soviet Union is ridicule at least.


Not just but when they decided to bomb or not to bomb factor "let us show the entire world large bomb" it also played it'srole.







They were allies at this time ,it's much later soviet media started to interpret it that way. Go read some history books about it,not newspaper articles.

I know history. Yes was allies. But you know it not too much for politicians.

Japan was far from capitulating,actually war may continue another several years and cost another hundreds of 1000s lives of american and japan soldiers and civilians.





Also it was pretty damn effective way to take a revenge for Pearl
Harbour.


Maybe but biological weapons is more effective. Why just not use them. I think all kinds of mass destruction weapons must be destroyed and be forbidden for all times.


Btw,how about several Japan isles,that Soviet Union grabbed in the last HOURS of war,when Japan oficially signed capitulation ,
they are still in Russia posession ,and it's with the fact that Japan never declared war on Soviet Union.
You need to read some history books again too.

But anyway if we will give those isles back to Japan it can lead to many local territorial conflicts. (For example what if Mexico will want to get Texas back ?) That's way
This is why Japanese position did not obtain support in the UN.

[vampireuk]

You know this reminds me of that old Texas saying

one two three fuck the mexicans!

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by sytaylor
i offer some pretty good reasons as to why oil is not the primary concern...

interestingly enuff all of em were trashed and u didnt care to backup your opinions either :holiday:

[2fast4u]

well i felt like summoning all this shit up a bit, in handy layout and easy to understand for anyone ... reasons why the usa MUST invade iraq (you saw that coming, didnt you?):

REASON N0. 1: OIL

> iraq is the country with the 2nd highest ammount of oil ressources in the world, yet only touches about 1/2 of its ressources. overthrowing this government installing either a military government (as proposed) or another kind of puppet/usa-friendly government would help united states based companies to acquire large territories and build up infrastructure for oil rafineries. the control over the oil in the gulf would be theirs.

> in 2002, the united states was lacking 2,5 million barrels of oil - by DAY that is! need i point out the significance of overtaking iraq?

> bush has decreased the budget for researching alternative energie sources by 40%...now whats left? i think oil it is.

> furthermore, the order to search for oil in national parks (!)

> juniors cabinet is almost entirely made up of corporate figures with either present or past in the oil or automobile industry. prime examples: dick cheney, cordolezza rice, spencer abraham.

REASON NO. 2: REVENGE

> juniors is running (or is being run) by a junta of business partners of his daddy. the same persons who have already been there during the vietnam war and the gulf war 1991. his dad failed to overthrow saddam, now can u guess whos gonna finish the job?

REASON NO. 3 (finally, my conservative friends): WEAPONS

> lets face it, iraq does have weapons. we know that because its widely known that the united states used to be saddams best friend before he started developing a mind of his own. also we know that chemical weapons were sold from the (former) ussr and europe to iraq. we also have confirmed knowledge that most of these weapons were destroyed after the gulf war. however, taking our knowledge they can be used to threaten israel at the most IF they still exist. this is why iraq must be disarmed. there can be no doubt about that. now thats where our un inspectors come in. the pure accussation (i dont see any permissible proof, do you?) of having weapons is not exactly enuff to start a war.

hard facts, my friends.

either i cant read properly, or certain people have failed to present evidence that there are better reasons for a iraq war.

call me anti-american, you know im not.

(edited for clarification purposes)

[Ryoga]

Ok, to refresh your memory, this is the question I posted 6 days ago:

Originally posted by Ryoga
This discussion is much too serious, so lets play a game.
Match the people with the following statements:

A) George W. Bush
B) Colin Powel
C) Condoleezza Rice
D) Bill Clinton
E) Donald Rumsfeld
F) Tony Blair

1) Urged americans to be ready for a possible attack on Iraq, and he warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had used biological weapons against his own people -- and would likely use the weapons again unless he were prevented from doing so.

2) "Hussein threatens the security of all the rest of us."

3) "It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them"

4) "Iraq still poses a threat to the national security of the United States and the 'freedom-loving world'."

5) "Force can never be the first answer but sometimes it's the only answer."

6) "The U.S. has the military means to achieve the objective and secure the 'vital strategic interests' of the United States in the Gulf region."
And now for the answers...
It was really a trick question used to try and illustrate a point (sorry Shadowprince). All six statements were taken from a single speech given by only one of the people listed. So the 'correct' answer that I was looking for was:
1) D - Bill Clinton
2) D - Bill Clinton
3) D - Bill Clinton
4) D - Bill Clinton
5) D - Bill Clinton
6) D - Bill Clinton
They were taken from here. (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/)
So if Bush is saying the same things that Clinton did, does that mean that Clinton was also:

1) Only doing it for greed (post 7)
2) Only doing it for oil (post 8, 10, 11, 19, 68, 99, 106, 114)
3) Is as bad as Saddam (post 17)
4) Chose war over peace (post 69, 70)
5) Dumb/moron (post 99, 100)
6) Wants to finish what Bush Sr. started (post 106, 114)
7) Had a cabinet made up of 'corporate figures' (post 114)

Bush really hasn't done anything yet, only made speeches.
Clinton has already launched an UNPROVOKED attack on Iraq WITHOUT any evidence and WITHOUT UN approval!
Let me refresh your memories. (http://europe.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.07/)
Where were these peace protesters then?
Or the organizations behind the protests?
Where were the accusations of being only in it for the oil?
If these people are so devoted to avoiding war at any cost and willing to sacrifice themselves in an effort to stop it, then where were they back in 1998?
I must admit though that up until these last few posts, after a few of you came back from these propaganda fests...sorry 'peace protests', the arguments against war with iraq were well thought out.
Now we're getting the all this Anti-Bush junk as if he is the one that started it, when in fact Clinton did.
It looks to me that Bush is only picking up where Clinton left off.

[AlphaWolf]

I just read on google news that the UN has decided to fully support the US, and France is sitting in a corner all by themselves.

[Ryoga]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
in 2002, the united states was lacking 2,5 million barrels of oil - by DAY that is!
So US oil use dropped by 2.5 million barrels a day or 912.5 billion barrels of oil for the year 2002? Sorry last I checked US oil consumption has risen every year since 1979.


bush has decreased the budget for researching alternative energie sources by 40%
I've seen this kinda speak before with "cuts" in other programs. What is really happening is that, say the budget for a program is scheduled to increase from 100 dollars to 200 dollars but instead is only increased to 150 dollars. Those opposed to the 'cuts' will say that the funding is being decreased by 50%. You can tell when this is happening because they will only use a percent or say how much it is being 'cut' by and not acctually list what the previous budget was and what the new budget will be. If you can point me to an article that shows what the 2000 budget for research was and what the 2001 (cut) budget for research was, then I will believe you.


the order to search for oil in national parks
It's national park. One. And have you seen the pictures of the barran wasteland that is the section of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge where they were talking about drilling, and not just the pictures put out there by the environmentalists? You can see some here. (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg072701.shtml )

...I've stayed up too late, will probably be back tomorrow to refute your other "reasons why usa must attack iraq"

[2fast4u]

in regard to your first post:

all facts correct so far but pushing all the shit on clinton doesnt make the war any better :P after all bush was the one who actively threatened with an INVASION .. and pulled around 150 000 troops in the gulf. the usa has repeatedly been attacking iraq after the gulf war. (clinton was the only guy in charge after bush senior) and bush has picked that one up too. now where the difference comes in is that clinton was indeed NOT preparing a full invasion of iraq.

leaving party allegiance aside (obviously you are a republican) it comes down to (indeed) bush preparing a FULL WAR, i mean an INVASION, not just a few air strikes.


If these people are so devoted to avoiding war at any cost and willing to sacrifice themselves in an effort to stop it, then where were they back in 1998?

erm .. they were there in 1991, they were there in 1998. theyve been there all the time. just not as many as now so you probably didnt notice em.


Where were the accusations of being only in it for the oil?

again, it wasnt an invasion. the usa DID NOT want to seize control of iraq back then .. unlike now.

[2fast4u]

So US oil use dropped by 2.5 million barrels a day or 912.5 billion barrels of oil for the year 2002? Sorry last I checked US oil consumption has risen every year since 1979.

i take it you misunderstood me ... what i was saying is that the united states had 2.5 million barrels SHORTAGE / day.


I've seen this kinda speak before with "cuts" in other programs. What is really happening is that, say the budget for a program is scheduled to increase from 100 dollars to 200 dollars but instead is only increased to 150 dollars. Those opposed to the 'cuts' will say that the funding is being decreased by 50%. You can tell when this is happening because they will only use a percent or say how much it is being 'cut' by and not acctually list what the previous budget was and what the new budget will be. If you can point me to an article that shows what the 2000 budget for research was and what the 2001 (cut) budget for research was, then I will believe you.

if this is right (which is cant approve or disappove) it still comes down to the fact that alternative energies have been decreased funding and priority and furthermore "old" energie sources will be used.


It's national park. One. And have you seen the pictures of the barran wasteland that is the section of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge where they were talking about drilling, and not just the pictures put out there by the environmentalists? You can see some here.

point?

[2fast4u]

found one more:


7) Had a cabinet made up of 'corporate figures' (post 114)

please, try to see facts. take a good look at the history of the guys in bushs cabinet and tell me what you think.

[ShadowPrince]

Originally posted by Ryoga
Bush really hasn't done anything yet, only made speeches.
Clinton has already launched an UNPROVOKED attack on Iraq WITHOUT any evidence and WITHOUT UN approval!
Let me refresh your memories. (http://europe.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.07/)
Where were these peace protesters then?
Or the organizations behind the protests?
Where were the accusations of being only in it for the oil?
If these people are so devoted to avoiding war at any cost and willing to sacrifice themselves in an effort to stop it, then where were they back in 1998?
I must admit though that up until these last few posts, after a few of you came back from these propaganda fests...sorry 'peace protests', the arguments against war with iraq were well thought out.
Now we're getting the all this Anti-Bush junk as if he is the one that started it, when in fact Clinton did.
It looks to me that Bush is only picking up where Clinton left off. [/B]

Its the most original point of view i ever heard about this crisis.
What exactly you trying to blame Clinton for ? For attacking Iraq with missiles or for not invading it ? Clinton had much more reasons to start a second war in the Gulf,than Bush now.Let me remind you , that Iraq expelled UN inspector by this time.It was clearly against the treaty. So all those attacks were attempts to get Iraq allowing inspectors back. Another thing,that those attacks had zero effect on Saddam , beside several civilians injured . Now as you know inspectors are inside Iraq ,so not more main "reason" to start a war . I don't say there are no other reasons left . But i hear this one more offten .

On the other hand best argument against war is all those babes on TV building "NO WAR" ,"STOP WAR" ... with their naked bodies on the ground ,really fun to watch :). Yes,they were there in 1991
too,they always there,no matter whats going on . Usa should just close eyes on Iraq invading Quwait,and let him continue with other neighbors . People just not learn from history.

[2fast4u]

hehe, sorry but i just had to vent ... i read over your post again and found this:


Now we're getting the all this Anti-Bush junk as if he is the one that started it, when in fact Clinton did.

i didnt see clinton pulling 150 000 troops in the gulf, looking for military support all around the world, creating a diplomatic crisis with europe, threatening to overrule the un descisions and in fact INVADE a country. im repeating myself, but i wanted to point this out.

clinton was the one ordering a few air strikes, mostly cuz us jets were being attacked by iraq ground troops in the no-fly zone. if this was right or not - who knows but likely not. then there were some other issues that ShadowPrince pointed out. the situation was very unlike now and yet so FEW happened.

bush on the other hand is the guy wanting to overtake the whole country. this my friend is a hugeass difference.

so, sorry, no .. clinton didnt. bush does.

[vampireuk]

Hmmm tell me my "enlightened" friend was the man who started the first gulf war a republican? hmmmm yes?

Now the second man who is jumping on Saddam oh oh hes a republican!!!

Clinton has nothing to do with this situation at all so stop trying to pass the blame :rolleyes:

[sytaylor]

He's talking about clintons appeasement, not his actions

Amusing side point: At the anti Iraq demonstrations in london someone was pictured with a sign "Peace in our time". The phrase that historically nailed appeasement as a form of diplomacy into the ground until rescent years.

(If you don't know what i'm talking about read up on chamberlains world famous "white peice of paper")

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by sytaylor
He's talking about clintons appeasement, not his actions


Bush really hasn't done anything yet, only made speeches.
Clinton has already launched an UNPROVOKED attack on Iraq WITHOUT any evidence and WITHOUT UN approval!
Let me refresh your memories.
Where were these peace protesters then?
Or the organizations behind the protests?
Where were the accusations of being only in it for the oil?
If these people are so devoted to avoiding war at any cost and willing to sacrifice themselves in an effort to stop it, then where were they back in 1998?
I must admit though that up until these last few posts, after a few of you came back from these propaganda fests...sorry 'peace protests', the arguments against war with iraq were well thought out.
Now we're getting the all this Anti-Bush junk as if he is the one that started it, when in fact Clinton did.
It looks to me that Bush is only picking up where Clinton left off.

like hell he does :P

[sytaylor]

ok i stand corrected, but when i blame clinton at least you know why :)

[vampireuk]

Yup is his blaming clinton for starting the entire iraq situation, of course republicans can find no wrong in their leaders so it was bound to happen ;)

[Ryoga]

I never blamed Clinton for the situation. I'm just trying to point out that what Clinton said back in 1998 as justification for launching over 200 missles at Iraq, and what Bush is saying now are virtually identical. And that what people are accusing Bush of trying to do (attack without evidence, attack without UN support) Clinton has already done. Your right though that Clinton just launched airstrikes and Bush is talking about going in and removing Saddam. You mean it would be OK if Bush changed his mind about 'invasion' and decided to only launch airstrikes against Baghdad?


Hmmm tell me my "enlightened" friend was the man who started the first gulf war a republican?
No, most of them wern't even US citizens. It was the United Nations Security Counsel that started the Gulf War by passing Resolution 678 which authorized the use of force if Iraq failed to withdraw from Kuwait by midnight January 15, 1991.

BTW if 'warmonger' Bush hadn't gone to the UN to get Resolution 1441 then there wouldn't be any inspectors in Iraq.

Oh yeah, the ANWR thing.. the point is that when ANWR was created, they knew there was oil there and so set aside the section of ANWR that contained oil as special and that drilling could occur there with a single act of congress. But you make it sound like he is going to go into Yellowstone and dig up Old Faithful to get the oil.

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by Ryoga


BTW if 'warmonger' Bush hadn't gone to the UN to get Resolution 1441 then there wouldn't be any inspectors in Iraq.


rofl you really think he was going to go to then UN?:happy:

[2fast4u]

And that what people are accusing Bush of trying to do (attack without evidence, attack without UN support) Clinton has already done.

yeh, but thats not an excuse and it doesnt make the whole thing one tad better.

[Ryoga]

Originally posted by vampireuk
rofl you really think he was going to go to then UN?:happy:
Dosn't matter if you think he wasn't, the fact is that he did. Do you think that if Bush hadn't started talking about Iraq that France or Germany or the UK for that matter would have put the inspectors back in on their own?


Originally posted by 2fast4u
yeh, but thats not an excuse and it doesnt make the whole thing one tad better.
not an excuse and not supposed to make it better. War is never a good thing, but a neccessary evil when all other options have failed. Clinton was justified in launching missles against Iraq if his goal was, as he stated, to reduce Saddam's capacity to create weapons and to get him to let the inspectors back in to oversee the disarmerment. When that failed to work, then Clinton's next step shoud have been to go in with the military and force Saddam to disarm. This is where he dropped the ball and made it look like he was only using the attack on Iraq for 'other things' (NOW i'm blaming Clinton). Bush is picking up the ball where it was dropped and continuing along the line of consequences for Saddam's continued defiance. From reading some of the posts here you would think that this whole situation is Bush's fault, that the only reason he's doing it is for Iraq's oil, and that Saddam has no weapons. Latest news is that the long range missles that the inspectors have already found that are in violation and have said must be destroyed, Saddam, in an interview w/Dan Rather, says that he will not destroy. Instead he wants to debate Bush. The question is whether Saddam is disarming on his own or not. Yes or no. True or false. There is nothing to debate.

[2fast4u]

thats not really a logical string ...

bush didnt "pick up the ball" right away after he got in office. it had to take 9/11 and a war in afghanistan before he even reacted. i can see no link between clinton launching missiles and bush preparing that invasion.


that Saddam has no weapons.

read my rant when u came in debatting again. there is no question about saddam having weapons (and i never claimed that either) - especially since the united states, europe and the ussr sold them to him, but if there is no proof about weapons of mass destruction, that they still exist. if buhs claims to have proof, where is it?


he's doing it is for Iraq's oil

im still standing straight for that point. the whole weapons debate was an excuse in the first place. besides turning to other points you have yet failed to present evidence that would make one change his mind too.

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by Ryoga

Dosn't matter if you think he wasn't, the fact is that he did. Do you think that if Bush hadn't started talking about Iraq that France or Germany or the UK for that matter would have put the inspectors back in on their own?


thats not an assumption. its the fact that he was merely pushed into considering the un's opinion. good job on you denying that btw.

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by 2fast4u

im still standing straight for that point. the whole weapons debate was an excuse in the first place. besides turning to other points you have yet failed to present evidence that would make one change his mind too.

I really have to re-itterate... ok i will...

Bush could simply do a Chirac and cut a dirty deal with saddam in a hearbeat. If he wanted oil, or even control to some degree american money would be a far easier way to get it than american force which costs more in the short term and causes more problems on the international stage.

Please forget about the oil, its not the oil, its nothing to do with oil because if it was saddam is the PERFECT person to have in charge (if oil is your only goal).

[Ryoga]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
bush didnt "pick up the ball" right away after he got in office...
OK, there is a gap. But he was coming off of an election he just barely won (don't even start there, several newspapers paid to finish the recount and came to the conclusion that Bush would have won anyway if the counts had been finished) and a mess with the plane going down over China. We have no way of knowing what his plans were for the remaining three (possibly seven) years of his term before 9/11 came and changed everything.


there is no question about saddam having weapons (and i never claimed that either)...
Sorry, didn't make myself clear. When I say weapons refering to Iraq, I mean the weapons that everyone is talking about, i.e. those specifically banned by UN resolutions, and not guns or tanks.


good job on you denying that btw.
Thanks.

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
well i felt like summoning all this shit up a bit, in handy layout and easy to understand for anyone ... reasons why the usa MUST invade iraq (you saw that coming, didnt you?):

REASON N0. 1: OIL

> iraq is the country with the 2nd highest ammount of oil ressources in the world, yet only touches about 1/2 of its ressources. overthrowing this government installing either a military government (as proposed) or another kind of puppet/usa-friendly government would help united states based companies to acquire large territories and build up infrastructure for oil rafineries. the control over the oil in the gulf would be theirs.

> in 2002, the united states was lacking 2,5 million barrels of oil - by DAY that is! need i point out the significance of overtaking iraq?


REASON NO. 2: REVENGE

> juniors is running (or is being run) by a junta of business partners of his daddy. the same persons who have already been there during the vietnam war and the gulf war 1991. his dad failed to overthrow saddam, now can u guess whos gonna finish the job?


An unstable leader like saddam would be far easier to cut a deal with than a UN agreed puppet. The US would be silly to over throw saddam if they just wanted oil.

If the US is missing so much oil howcome theyre all still using it in a day to day basis... Gas stations should have "Sorry no oil left" surley...

His dad didn't "fail" he just didn't go any futher because the UN had said if Saddam invaded kuwait then saddam must be stopped with force (note: this wasn't Bush seniors idea). Dubya however has seen over the last few years peoples failure to deal with saddam, and the fact that he's a damn dirty ape, but nobody cares.


...and to something someone else said
The idea that lifting sanctions will help, pleeeeeease, the country gets a tonne of food aid but do the people see it? Nope, why? SADDAM! The guy has got to go!

[vampireuk]

If bush was to cut a deal with saddam can you say "propaganda"

Saddam would milk it for all its worth and get bush into even more trouble.

[sytaylor]

At this point in history yes, but before the last 6 months or so without the media attention saddam making noise would be pretty much ignored. I'm sure he'd far rather have america as an allie than an enemy

[2fast4u]

im just gonna argue later ... soccer be on tv :satisfied

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
im just gonna argue later ... soccer be on tv :satisfied

It's football damnit!!:doh:

[2fast4u]

An unstable leader like saddam would be far easier to cut a deal with than a UN agreed puppet. The US would be silly to over throw saddam if they just wanted oil.

overthrowing saddam = oil + revenge ... daddy demands it ;)


If the US is missing so much oil howcome theyre all still using it in a day to day basis... Gas stations should have "Sorry no oil left" surley...

you have heard about the california energy crisis right?



...and to something someone else said
The idea that lifting sanctions will help, pleeeeeease, the country gets a tonne of food aid but do the people see it? Nope, why? SADDAM! The guy has got to go!

hrm .. actually the sanctions prevent food and medication from being brought into the country .. the problem is split fifty fifty

you have just seen for yourself why the sanctions are useless. they go past saddam and hit the population cuz hes controlling everything. same thing with the food aid. saddam is a bastard, absolutely no doubt about that, but there is still no sense in keeping up sanctions that dont hurt him and make it even worse for his oppressed population.

germany, france and russia will probably face economic sanctions after the 2nd un resolution has been bashed off by their veto .. now where be that constitution..? /wanders off

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by 2fast4u
overthrowing saddam = oil + revenge ... daddy demands it ;)

you have heard about the california energy crisis right?

hrm .. actually the sanctions prevent food and medication from being brought into the country .. the problem is split fifty fifty

you have just seen for yourself why the sanctions are useless. they go past saddam and hit the population cuz hes controlling everything. same thing with the food aid. saddam is a bastard, absolutely no doubt about that, but there is still no sense in keeping up sanctions that dont hurt him and make it even worse for his oppressed population.

germany, france and russia will probably face economic sanctions after the 2nd un resolution has been bashed off by their veto .. now where be that constitution..? /wanders off

First point: Now your saying things without backing them up..

Second: Calafornia is one state, one huge, massivley populated state with financially crippled energy suppliers because of some over-regulation

Third: If you agree Saddam is doing bad with the aid he gets, why should we lift the sanctions if he is just going to do the same?

Fourth: Please, I guess you also think Putin is gonna put the iron curtain back up and Cold War 2 is gonna start? Conspiracy theorys do not make a good political backbone from which to share your views. Sanctions on France, Germany and Russia there goes some of the biggest players in the world, I know you think Bush is stupid but give him a shred of credit, he knows how to breathe(!)

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by sytaylor
he knows how to breathe(!)

Mr Pretzl disagrees:satisfied

[sytaylor]

He knows how to choke too

[2fast4u]

First point: Now your saying things without backing them up..

i am? actually its pretty obvious. the way u interpret things is always your own stuff tho.

btw, wheres j00 proof for the underhand deal? :P


Third: If you agree Saddam is doing bad with the aid he gets, why should we lift the sanctions if he is just going to do the same?

if hes going to do the same with or w/o sanctions, whats the point of sanctions? (rhetorical question) with sanctions in place there aint even chance for the population, w/o there is. plus, have u thought about what the sanctions make the iraqis think about the usa? im sure they will be rather suprised if the guys who have sanctioned em for 12 years AND bombed the shit out of their country come in and claim to bring them democracy ... *rolls eyes*


Fourth: Please, I guess you also think Putin is gonna put the iron curtain back up and Cold War 2 is gonna start? Conspiracy theorys do not make a good political backbone from which to share your views. Sanctions on France, Germany and Russia there goes some of the biggest players in the world, I know you think Bush is stupid but give him a shred of credit, he knows how to breathe

my bad, actually the statement was sarcasm

[2fast4u]

i sense the debate is getting slow so i thought i could feed the fire a bit ...

[2fast4u]

.

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by 2fast4u

btw, wheres j00 proof for the underhand deal? :P

if hes going to do the same with or w/o sanctions, whats the point of sanctions? (rhetorical question) with sanctions in place there aint even chance for the population, w/o there is. plus, have u thought about what the sanctions make the iraqis think about the usa? im sure they will be rather suprised if the guys who have sanctioned em for 12 years AND bombed the shit out of their country come in and claim to bring them democracy ... *rolls eyes*


Blair stated on british tv that he could cut the underhand deal and in effect saddam would calm down a bit, but he wouldn't stop torturing his people.

Also, lets not forget sanctions aren't just imposed by the USA, but the UN, the USA are simply the biggest figure head and therefore scapegoat for hatred.

[2fast4u]

Blair stated on british tv that he could cut the underhand deal and in effect saddam would calm down a bit, but he wouldn't stop torturing his people.

could u date that statement?


Also, lets not forget sanctions aren't just imposed by the USA, but the UN, the USA are simply the biggest figure head and therefore scapegoat for hatred.

good point but the usa i not only a figure head but the leading power and usually the force that pushes for respective action. its not like they are only blamed for shit.

[sytaylor]

I could search for the date, but it was a number of weeks ago, 3 possibly 4.