Colin Powell speech

[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

 

[Trotterwatch]

Can we go to war? Can we, can we?

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

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:

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

rant

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:

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.
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.
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]

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.

...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 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]

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. [/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.