| Author | Message | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1150 Registered: 6-2001 |
Riiky: My point isn't that you are young. It's that you're inexperienced. It wasn't a sign of disrespect, it was a statement that without a bit of experience, you might be a little easier fooled. A prime example are the varius authorities you have cited. You've not seen a single one of those items up front, you're taking their word. They might be right, but in my experience, I've seen my government and people lie. They do that for their own gain, and they do it all the time. As you age (not a good thing, trust me) you will experience people lying to you, you will see that sometimes when people have an agenda, you can't trust them. A way around that is to study a subject, read both sides, try to get as much information as you can about a certain subject, so that you don't just rely upon one side's information. If there is one thing I'm certain about it's that no one side has all the answers. I say that based upon almost 60 years of experience in dealing with the world. Things that were so black and white when I was your age or no long so clear cut, the older I get. Regards, Art | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 154 Registered: 2-2003 |
Thanks for the links, Rikky. Even though some, if not all of them came from biased websites, I still read them, with a grain of salt, just like the ones from pro-Iraq sites as well. "http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653833092.html - Small, but significant. Claims Iraqi soldiers fighting beside Al Qaeda members." 'Claims' mean that it's still not verified as 100% correct. I am not surprised if some of the Al-Qaeda do get involved, since Al-Qaeda proclaims the US as invaders and they'll use the old 'the enemy of our enemy is our friend' reason again, which is also used by all warring countries, not just the US. "http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html - Interview with former Iraqi Captain, talks of the known terrorist training camp. Saddam knew about this, and still supported it. This is much different than terrorists training in the backwoods of Montana with no one knowing about it. " Very revealing information. However, the page did mention that he was submitted by the INC, which has no love for Saddam, that we all know. If what he said was true, then why did the US sort of ignored it when they attacked Afghanistan in 2001, and blaming the Al-Qaeda as the perpetrators of 9/11, when this Khodada person said that Al-Qaeda is not capable of doing it? Why bother sending US troops to be killed by the Afghan mujahideens when you can go straight to the source and blame Iraq straight away? Why act now to attack Iraq, and even after a truncated weapons inspection, which still brought up little in terms of finding WMDs? Clearly, the general public needs to know the whole picture, yet the higher ups aren't bothering. "http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80961,00.html Saddam Hussein gives money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, thus supporting and harboring terrorism." He also gave money to other innocent victims of Israeli oppression too, not just to the suicide bombers or Palestinian soldiers, nice of you to omit that fact. The problem is, to the Israelis, they are terrorists, but to some people, they are freedom fighters trying to reclaim their land. Don't label me Anti-Semite just yet, but the fact is that the Israelis did steal their homeland. "http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html - A White House history of Saddam/Iraq's involvement with terrorism. " The list clearly omits the acts of terrorism done during the time when Iraq was allies with the US (circa 1980s), very convenient. All in all, just some more unanswered questions, and no where near in getting a full picture of the situation. Thanks though for sharing the links, I genuinely appreciate it (this is not sarcasm). | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Junior Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 81 Registered: 5-2002 |
Wow, I really am dissapointed at the lack of respect because of my age. I would have thought that because of your achievements and success in life (you are flying planes/driving Ferraris), or at least being here, showing your ambition to achieve this success, would mean that you were "ahead of the curve" so to speak, during your earlier schooling. The thing is, you probably were, and it is just because I am a conservative that you say my age is a factor in my evaluation and analysis of facts. If I was a liberal and spouting off against the war, would you have said the same thing, even if facts were not there? I put my thoughts and opinions ahead of 95% of adults, and probably rightfully so. I am not some idiot who just makes crazy accusations without proof. No, I do not mimic the ideas of my parents, as they have no ideas. I was kind of a lucky birth I guess. But that really doesn't matter, as I can back up everything that I said. Here are a few articles for you guys. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653833092.html - Small, but significant. Claims Iraqi soldiers fighting beside Al Qaeda members. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html - Interview with former Iraqi Captain, talks of the known terrorist training camp. Saddam knew about this, and still supported it. This is much different than terrorists training in the backwoods of Montana with no one knowing about it. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80961,00.html Saddam Hussein gives money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, thus supporting and harboring terrorism. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html - A White House history of Saddam/Iraq's involvement with terrorism. I am not making outrageous claims, just stating facts. I totally think that it is ok for you guys to believe that war is not the answer in this situation. I think that you are wrong, and that any alternatives would have been proven futile, but that is my opinion, and no one will ever know what the true answer to that question is. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1146 Registered: 6-2001 |
Randall: The term is "innocent until proven guilty". We have the rights until convicted. Can't work any other way. A prime example of why those rights are so terribly important is the recent finding in Illinois that a substantial percentage of those on death row were provably innocent. I seem to recall the number was about 5 - 10% of the total population. That why we have the ACLU, so that we don't trample our rights, because its very popular for people to say, criminals shouldn't have rights. What if you're wrong and you've got the wrong person. Only be maintaining our rights can we have a just society, and yeah it costs to do that, but in the last 230 years it has proven to be well worth it. In the 1920s and 30s this country was moving toward facism. A well known writer wrote a book called "It can't happen here" The author name was Marquand (ph spelling). It used to be required reading in HS. I'm sure its been dropped. I'd take a look at it, because he was brillant and described something close to what we are going through now. Art | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 209 Registered: 1-2003 |
Art- The ACLU does some good things, but they also do some bad. All the organizations seem to have to go to extremes to achieve their goals. I can't think of any of them that only do good, but that it my opinion. The ACLU will work to protect criminals rights, with the idea that since they are still people they still deserve rights. When someone breaks into a persons home, I feel they have sacrificed all their rights. If the owner catches the person and beats them senseless, oh well, the owner shouldn't be held liable. I wouldn't rather live in a facist country, and I have no desire to see the US turned into one. But I would like to see a lot of work done to our judicial and penal systems to lower crime rates. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1144 Registered: 6-2001 |
Randall: Stop blaming the ACLU. If you read a bit of legal history, you'll find that the reason our rights have been expanded is because when we had those rights, and the courts didn't enforce them, our security people (police) didn't respect those rights. All of the law that lead up to our various exclusions of evidence came about because the court initially said you can't do this, but didn't put any penalties on the cops for doing it. Examples of this type of behavior are set forth in a 60s case entitled People v. Rochin (sp). It had been illegal to do a search without a warrant in Califiornia, but the court hadn't imposed any penalties when the police violated an individual's rights. That case was the last straw. Same deal with Miranda v. Arizona. Although the founding fathers provided for safeguards our police paid little attention until the court started to say, you can't use the evidence of your illegal behavior. Does this let criminals off? You bet. However, it is a price we pay for our freedom. Want to eliminate crime? Put a cop in every house, 24/7, put another cop into the house to watch the first cop. Sound a little Orwellan? You bet. Army ads: Freedom isn't free. This is just another cost for our freedom. If you'd rather live in a facist state, be my guest, just don't turn the USA into one. Art | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 198 Registered: 1-2003 |
Jake- What makes you think Americans report crime more often than other people? I will agree that we have less crime than many African countries, but I was comparing us to countries that seem most similar. I would have to say Europe has more in common with America than Africa and South/Central America do. I think it's our light punishments and non-respect based culture that helps promote high crime rates. Not to mention that we rarely make adults responsible for their actions. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 902 Registered: 3-2002 |
mfz, my challenge was specifically directed at you because you are malaysian and i think your country is reasonably well run and a nice place to live or visit; hence you have the ability to lead muslim countries onto a better path. i very much doubt that if you made a stand that muslim women in the middle east and west africa should not be oppressed etc in the name of islam, that the usa would stand in your way or criticize much at all. as a matter of fact i think such action would be embraced and encouraged. this is the kind of help the west, and the rest of the world needs, from moderate and secular muslim democracies. it speaks far louder than constant bickering. | ||
| jake diamond (Rampante)
Junior Member Username: Rampante Post Number: 94 Registered: 4-2002 |
Randall, globally, 30% of crimes go unreported to the authorities--i.e. the appearance lower crime statistics. The US has a high % of victims reporting crimes to the police, et al. (therefore an illusion of a higher crime rate). Seems like the world's worst areas are Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. This information is from the United Nations OWN data: http://www.uncjin.org/Special/c1.html | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 197 Registered: 1-2003 |
Hawaii has the highest rate of burgalary in the nation. But nationwide the US has five times the murder rate as Europe. Crime is a problem in the US, you can deny it, say it getting better or just accept that it is a problem and then decide what can be done to fix it. Unfortunately between th ACLU and constitution there is no way to fix the crime in this country. | ||
| jake diamond (Rampante)
Junior Member Username: Rampante Post Number: 93 Registered: 4-2002 |
The last FBI stats showed an increase in all US crime of slightly over 1% . BUT, since 1992 crime is down almost 18% nationwide . So, where's the problem? Sounds like the Hawaiian Islands is a scarey place to live, Randall !! | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 196 Registered: 1-2003 |
MFZ- What's the quality of life like in your country? Ie., murder rate, heathcare system, crime, etc.? | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 139 Registered: 2-2003 |
I actually went to sleep, so I didn't answer Ross' challenge. "as far as the on-going plight of women in that country well...isn't religious fundamentalism run amok fun! if you feel so strongly about it why don't you, as a representative of a muslim nation, call on your government to make a stand 9in the un against the misuse of your religion for the sake of oppression. do something useful instead of spending 12 hours a day telling us how we do everything badly." We did make a stand, but since the US and most of the Western press doesn't seem to like our stand most of the time (we shunned the IMF during the 1997-98 economic crisis, we pegged our currency to the dollar at a fixed rate, we are outspoken in criticizing certain foreign policies of our neighbours and partners etc.), so most of our efforts are rarely highlighed by the press. If you don't believe me, try finding something about the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) of which we currently hold the rotating chair. I bet most of what you read will be condemnation and negative publicity. Admittedly Malaysia is a small country, do you expect the US to follow our advices all or even most of the time? You didn't even give France a chance, instead calling them pussies and cowards and losers of war. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 189 Registered: 1-2003 |
The correct idea is love it or change it. Otherwise the US will turn into an armpit of a nation with all the citizens that want to see it improved leaving. | ||
| "The Don" (Mlemus)
Advanced Member Username: Mlemus Post Number: 3315 Registered: 8-2002 |
Love it or leave it. It's that simple | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Junior Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 197 Registered: 2-2003 |
Randall, I'm a Communications-Computer System Admin, reservist now for 2 years and change, I spent 4 1/2 years active. When I was leaving tech school at Keesler AFB (didn't teach me much I didn't already know about PCs and networking) I was going to Hanscom, AFB for my first assignment, but I traded someone who was from Boston and headed to Germany and didn't want to go.. they were homesick. Didn't have to ask me twice to switch!! I did a overseas 2-year long at HQ USAFE at Ramstein AB, Germany working on computers and networks for C4/Command and Control systems and then a 2-year long in the 352 Special Operations Group out of RAF Mildenhall in the UK. I gained plenty of operational experience and really felt, first hand, what being in the service was about and that I was making a difference when I was at Mildenhall. Problems with my relationship were developing and I couldn't in good conscience let the service interfere with that any longer. While I was away in Mozambique for the relief effort, things started falling apart and then family hit some hard times in California, so I decided to turn down promotion and not accept another assignment. Would have made E-5 in near record time otherwise if I remained in. I was offered a SOAR scholorship for a CE/EE degree signed off on by the General in charge of the US Special Ops Command and our Command Chief Master Seargent if I were to remain in and served four years as an O1-E after I finished my degree, but I couldn't put the needs of my career and the military over those of my heart and family. I still regret the decision, but I'll be better off in the long run. Financially, I made the right choice so I can support my parents (Father self employed, no nest egg, he's going to need help if he likes it or not). I focused too much on the short term when I made that decision. Time will tell. In my alernate futures, I would either be in school, with the "full ride" and all bills paid by the service. Or, I would be supporting the computers/satellite/radio systems that support the helicopters doing combat search and rescue at a forward or rear staging base if not in school. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 898 Registered: 3-2002 |
mfz, no response to my challenge? don't want to raise a fuss within your own country? sound too much like hard work? instead of monday-morning-quarterbacking the usa all the time, maybe you and your government should try and help out. as a moderate and successful muslim country you could act as an example to other more restrictive societies that they could improve the lives of their people without trying to keep women subjugated (never mind raped,tortured, stoned etc). but that might be too much to ask of you, after all it is easier to just sit back and critique our efforts. thanks pal. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 183 Registered: 1-2003 |
Sunny, Where did you move to? | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Junior Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 194 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hi Art, I understand that. I'm not concerned with politics or money but that of doing what is morally correct and advocating for the removal of a regime I believe we should have in continuation of Desert Shield turned Desert Storm and had 10 years of building up Iraq instead of starting now. We'll do and continue to do what we think is right regardless of what the UN or any other country says using a might makes right attitude. We're removing a dictator concerned with his own well being then that of his people. Thats all the reason I need if I were still Active Duty and an American. I left for issues regarding my relationship and family, otherwise in my capacity I would be in one of those surrounding countries in uniform. I knew someone in Special Operations who could have pulled a trigger and killed Saddam years ago. My how times change or do they. | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Junior Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 193 Registered: 2-2003 |
Counts for something, but should have not needed prompting to destroy them. Would many have been happy by modifying them permanently to reduce range? Sure. I would have been, but its a small piece in a larger issue, of course. Even if we withdrew, did nothing, were not involved at all, the "goodwill" is not there and it won't be there, so it suddenly becomes our right to do something about it. Hmmm. I'm glad for a regime change, legal or not, and I pray that in the long run, the Iraqi people are better for it. Like in the topic of this thread, a peace lover getting owned by an Iraqi. Can't please all of the people all of the time. At least we have this freedom of expression. This on the Internet in China, is locked down. Probably even more restrictive, illegal, and threatening if done in Iraq. Yes, we could use the billions to help countries worse off then Iraq, like Mozambique. We could kill the subsidies and feed the world, not because of what we expect in return, but simply because we can and it would be the moral, correct, thing to do. I can't describe with words the poverty and quality of life I've seen there compared to any other country when I was there in Beira Airport as a computer administrator in a joint relief effort making a different for those people, dishing out food, and rescuing people who would be dead without the assistance. It warms my soul that the sacrifices I endured in my personal life made a difference for someone, even if it was one person. I believe the regime in Iraq should have been overthrown when it saw fit to invade Kuwait. There are no more freebies, we're not "giving up Poland" in so many words before the outbreak of WW2, we're not sacrificing Kuwait or the Kurds, Saddam's time in power is done with. If we have to carve our way through his military to do so, so be it. And as soon as the world body says, ya know, that Bush has to go or the US will change its foreign policy or face the consequences because might doesn't make right, good on them. We can make the US a better country to live in too. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 178 Registered: 1-2003 |
MFZ- You have much more patience than me. After people ignore the facts for too long I typically give up. "but it will change the the way things work in iraq for the better, and it will change the way things work in the rest of the middle east for the better." We'll see. But the real result will probably be increased hatred for the US. I know if someone blows up my home, kills a loved one and then says they did it for my own good and now my life will be better, but my life doesn't change except for the parts that were taken, I would do whatever it takes to kill the people I blame. For your comments about me being in the military. 30% of the US(on average) has been against this war the whole time. The only areas of the military that I would say don't follow the statistics are the areas that don't require much in the way of education. Some people are more geared toward following orders, w/o any questions as to why. In my field we are told to always ask why. As for me not being there to defend my colleagues around me if they are in need; I'm submarine designated. If someone needs help, you help them. If you don't everyone pays a price. And if this war is all about the concern of safety for Americans, why don't we do something to lower the crime rates in the US? The crime rates alone keep me from saying this is the greatest country on the planet. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1136 Registered: 6-2001 |
Sunny: Actually the 91 war terminated a little differently than we commonly believe. I suggest you take a look at UN resolutins 678 and 1441. From my illerate perspective, neither authorizes war upon breach. The no-fly zones were once imposed to protect the various minorities in those areas, they kept the Iraqis from using air power to attack their minorities in those area. However, once that had been accomplished, those no-fly zones turned into two things: 1. A place to attack Iraqis, and 2. a place to gain intelligence. When the French realized what had occured, they no longer particpated. Art | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 129 Registered: 2-2003 |
"I'm going to answer your question with a question, why did France participate in them until 1996 if its illegal?" A question back would be, why did France stop in 1996? The answer would probably be because they finally found out that it's illegal and doesn't serve any purpose other than to add more misery to the civilians? "As a soldier, if there's a cease fire and yet conflict continues, regardless of the political motivations and legalities, your still at war. Be it President Bush senior, President Clinton, President Bush junior, Saddam, his generals, we've been fighting continously because of what both sides believe in." I assume fighting doesn't necessarily mean shooting them in a cease fire, because that would violate the cease fire now, wouldn't it? We should keep our gurad up, but I still have issues with this pre-emptive strike startegy, which is more of a provocation than a deterrent. "Regarding the Al Samoud missiles, the issue is why build them in the first place when they knew they were illegal with those specifications." The real issue is, the missiles were built well within the set limits, but tests has shown that the missiles can fly a bit farther by a few miles, which is probably too insignificant anyway. Even then, the Iraqis did destroyed them, so doesn't that count for something? | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 128 Registered: 2-2003 |
Thanks Art. I was just replying to Ross' comments that seem to imply that the US is going at great lengths to protect their and supposedly our safety, and then blaming us for either not doing much or objecting to their ways. While I don't like the Taliban as much as the Al Qaeda, the fact is that the way the US has handled what's left of Afghanistan can almost be described as a disaster. If not for the PR spin that managed to shield the Americans what has happened post-Taliban rule, people probably would know what has happened since then. Also, have you noticed that for some reason, Osama and his terrorist org. is now on the backburner? If/when the next terrorist attack happens, who will the US blame next? | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Junior Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 192 Registered: 2-2003 |
The UN didn't sanction it, nor a Security Council resolution though one is used as a blatant excuse for them. I'm going to answer your question with a question, why did France participate in them until 1996 if its illegal? Why do we? Is it possible that countries, people, governments do things because they believe in them regardless if they are illegal or not, just like some conform to the Geneva Conventions, illegal or not? Some do it in the defense of freedom and others do it as an excuse to hurt others and sometimes both. As a soldier, if there's a cease fire and yet conflict continues, regardless of the political motivations and legalities, your still at war. Be it President Bush senior, President Clinton, President Bush junior, Saddam, his generals, we've been fighting continously because of what both sides believe in. Just as we in this thread on F-chat are sticking with our convictions. Regarding the Al Samoud missiles, the issue is why build them in the first place when they knew they were illegal with those specifications. Self defense? If another country invaded Iraq with the intent to take it over after the Gulf war and before these skirmishes escalated more and more since 1991, would we defend their sovereignty? Your damn right we would have, because like it or not, we've painted ourselves into a corner protecting other countries interests when we could have turned our back on everyone. Allow weapon inspectors to return? Another concession in a long list, but it was not enough for us and other nations who took a stand with us. I'm disappointed we violated the hell out of Iraq's sovereignty after we repelled them from Kuwait, but neither side could let it end there. These concessions will never end until a drastic change is made in that regime to truly cooperate, or in ours in trying to force them to in the name of freedom and the Iraqi people to protect against a threat we concocted. I'm a soldier. I'm glad we're breaking their toys, again. Hopefully, the politicians will make good on the rebuilding process. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1132 Registered: 6-2001 |
MFZ: While I may agree with a good deal of what's you've said, you are waay of when you are talking after afganistan. The Tailband were active participants with Al Qaeda, and we had to deal with them, after they tried to kill some 40,000 Americans (I know that a lot less died, but if those folks hadn't gotten evaculated, we'd have had 40k dead) I'd keep your arguments consistent and factual, otherwise you give these other folks who haven't clearly thought their comments through, an opportunity to make your arguments appear to be biased, etc. Art | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 124 Registered: 2-2003 |
"your analogy of the person carrying the weapon needs to be carried to the next step, ie the person is holding a weapon and has directly or indirectly indicated that he will use it against you or others in the future. in america we call that sufficient provocation, and we react." So by just holding a weapon, he can be perceived as a threat? You mean we can't go to gunshops and have a look at that hunting rifle, because then the storeowner can perceive you as a threat? Back to the real world, when has Iraq indicated that they are going to use the weapons (that may or may not exist) to terrorise the world, in the 12 years or so that they have been under close UN scrutiny? "so karzai is a puppet, but everybody we did not replace is a bloodthirsty warlord. make up your mind, you want a replacement for all of the leaders or just one of them. you want us to do something to affect the behaviour of these warlords or do you want us not to interfere in the sovereign nations internal problems. tough decisions aren't they? try thinking through these conundrums with both sides of your brain, not just the emotive one." The problem in Afghanistan is that instead of making it better, as you've promised them and the world, it's no better than when the Talibans ruled it. Instead of one united leadership, you have a leader in control of one city, while others have declared that the city that they are in are theirs exclusively and does not fall under the jurisdiction of the appointed leader. Also, last time I read about it, it's the US who willingly went into Afghanistan to find the perpetrators of 9/11, the world never asked you to step in and remove the Talibans from power by force while you were at it. And from the looks of things while the US has managed to remove the Talibans from power, the real targets, the Al-Qaeda, is still out there, probably plotting to attack the US now that they have attacked yet another Islamic nation. You're right, I shouldn't be wasting my time refuting and countering the posts which clearly show the biased and sometimes just plain wrong/ignorant views of certain people. I'll leave for now with these words again: "Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, 1916, Ch.9 | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 123 Registered: 2-2003 |
BTW, Indonesia has already acted to find the perpetrators of said bombing, and also has arrested several people who are likely suspects, despite the cries of many of the suspects supporters, in case you are ready to accuse them of not acting to stop more bombings. "MFZ, the only reason I need and to understand is when you come under fire, illegal or not, you defend yourself." Does defending yourself including attacking and invading other countries that has no links whatsoever to the organization that attacked you in the first place? "The minute Saddam stopped cooperating years ago, and yes, the no fly zones are legal, something should have been done. My friends are in Operation Northern and Southern Watch. This attack was long long overdue." Saddam didn't stop to cooperate years ago, if he did, how come he allowed the inspectors to return even after the US ordered them to leave back in 1998? I have read information and facts that has actually implicated the US in making the decision for the inspectors to withdraw from Iraq in 1998. I think he's cooperating in the most recent inspections, though the level of cooperation isn't 100%, a fact that the inspectors do agree with, but you can't deny that he isn't cooperating AT ALL. If not, why did he bother to destroy those Al Samoud missiles? Sunny, please show me where it says that the no-fly zones were legally implemented by the UN. There's no mention of a no-fly zone in the UN sanctions. Those no-fly zone patrols by the US and their allies are done outside of the UN's jurisdiction as I've mentioned earlier. I'm sorry to say that your government has deceived your friends about those no-fly zones. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 897 Registered: 3-2002 |
mfz, you are painting yourself into a corner. terrorism is not isolated to america, but we react to it differently than others, sorry. your analogy of the person carrying the weapon needs to be carried to the next step, ie the person is holding a weapon and has directly or indirectly indicated that he will use it against you or others in the future. in america we call that sufficient provocation, and we react. israel is a poor example. they may have failed in your opinion because they do not live in peace and without fear of terrorism. but they have remained in existence on their terms. the difference between the usa and the israelis is that we have overwhelming force and will now use it. ridicule that notion if you want, but its the truth so might as well get used to it. so karzai is a puppet, but everybody we did not replace is a bloodthirsty warlord. make up your mind, you want a replacement for all of the leaders or just one of them. you want us to do something to affect the behaviour of these warlords or do you want us not to interfere in the sovereign nations internal problems. tough decisions aren't they? try thinking through these conundrums with both sides of your brain, not just the emotive one. as far as the on-going plight of women in that country well...isn't religious fundamentalism run amok fun! if you feel so strongly about it why don't you, as a representative of a muslim nation, call on your government to make a stand 9in the un against the misuse of your religion for the sake of oppression. do something useful instead of spending 12 hours a day telling us how we do everything badly. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 120 Registered: 2-2003 |
I still stand by my assertation that terrorism is not a unique problem to the US only, and also, pre-emptive strike is not the way. It's like executing someone just because that particular person happens to own a weapon that closely resembles the one that killed the victims. "i place iraq's potential to deliver chemical or biological agents into the usa on a par with whatever al queda did or plans to do. they are not the same, they may never have had any contact, but their intentions are similar. so our reaction to that threat is similar, and now preemptive." How do you know they have similar intentions? Did they exhibited these intentions during the past 12 years or so that the US administration has pinpointed out as the period of which they have been dormant? There's no simple cure to all problems, unfortunately, the US has chosen the same cure again and again. Some cures simply don't work, and other cures may even cause severe repercussions. Pre-emptive strike is definitely one cure that doesn't work in this case. See Israel if you don't believe me. "as for afghanistan, i have been there and seen it first hand, and if you think we moved them back by 10 years, then that would place them at about 50 b.c. vs 40 b.c. our bombing didn't destroy that much because they didn't have that much to bomb, and one of these days the reconstruction efforts will actually get them ahead of where they might have been anyway." I'm not talking about the bombings only, I'm talking about the aftermath of the removal of the Talibans. Only Kabul is lead by Hamid Karzai (who is a puppet leader really), the rest of the country is run by the same warlords that ruled parts of Afghanistan before the Taliban came. Women, despite being more freer than before are still not treated adequately, rapings have actually increased, stoning to death is still practiced in certain parts, and gangs can do whatever they want at nighttime. | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Junior Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 191 Registered: 2-2003 |
MFZ, the only reason I need and to understand is when you come under fire, illegal or not, you defend yourself. The minute Saddam stopped cooperating years ago, and yes, the no fly zones are legal, something should have been done. My friends are in Operation Northern and Southern Watch. This attack was long long overdue. We're doing something about it when no one else wouldn't, so I suggest you find a political soapboax, or put on a uniform, and start making a difference. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 895 Registered: 3-2002 |
mfz, now you stand accused of the same failure you have pointed out in others: misreading your posts. i said 'possible frontline', not exclusive. yes they will strike anywhere anytime, but i am not going to wait for the indonesians to make a stand. i place iraq's potential to deliver chemical or biological agents into the usa on a par with whatever al queda did or plans to do. they are not the same, they may never have had any contact, but their intentions are similar. so our reaction to that threat is similar, and now preemptive. as for afghanistan, i have been there and seen it first hand, and if you think we moved them back by 10 years, then that would place them at about 50 b.c. vs 40 b.c. our bombing didn't destroy that much because they didn't have that much to bomb, and one of these days the reconstruction efforts will actually get them ahead of where they might have been anyway. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 118 Registered: 2-2003 |
"this is where you are not completely correct. 9/11 showed that our homeland is now the possible frontline of any future battle that will be brought to us; and we are every crazy's ultimate target. therefore it is our problem, much more than it is for example your country's. so other countries opinions do not matter to us on this issue. " Oh, so what happened in Bali, INDONESIA, roughly one year and a month after 9/11 has nothing to do with it now? The terrorists will strike wherever they see fit, not just confined to US shores. Also, are you one of the many Americans who are still unconvinced by the fact that what happened in 9/11 is unrelated to the Iraqi issue? That statement I made is in reference to what the US has done to Iraq, which is making it an easy scapegoat for what happened in 9/11. Let us not forget what happened to Afghanistan either, in which the US war operations there has literally sent back the Afghans 10 years back in time. I'd provide the necessary links to verify my claims, but I bet people will just scoff it off. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 893 Registered: 3-2002 |
to quote mfz: 'To elaborate further, I object the way the US has done to do something about it, to the point that the US has ignored the opinions of other people/countries on how they see to solve the problem. It's not the American's problem only, you know.' this is where you are not completely correct. 9/11 showed that our homeland is now the possible frontline of any future battle that will be brought to us; and we are every crazy's ultimate target. therefore it is our problem, much more than it is for example your country's. so other countries opinions do not matter to us on this issue. however, there is one sense in which your statement is correct, and that is that the more resistance we encounter to the completion of our objective, the longer it will be before things get better for everyone. this in turn will have a knock on effect on the world economy, of which all these countries are a part of. make things worse now, and suffer longer financially and otherwise. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 113 Registered: 2-2003 |
"you object to the usa taking it upon itself to do something about it. this is our basic disagreement. we'll leave all the quibbling to one side." To elaborate further, I object the way the US has done to do something about it, to the point that the US has ignored the opinions of other people/countries on how they see to solve the problem. It's not the American's problem only, you know. "i think we have the right and the obligation to do something about him; whereas you are happy to keep him festering. which is worse for the world, which is worse for his people? " I and the other countries most certainly did not let him fester on. If you recall, the UN and the world has forced Iraq to submit to weapons inspections and crippling sanctions since 1991. Some think that's enough, though I think that there's more to be done, like for example have a larger team of inspectors etc. assisted by UN peacekeepers but that's a moot point already, isn't it? "but it will change the the way things work in iraq for the better, and it will change the way things work in the rest of the middle east for the better." We'll see in a couple of years, if indeed what is being done in Iraq right now will be for better or for worse. There are signs that point to both good and bad things to happen post-invasion of Iraq, I guess time will tell. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 887 Registered: 3-2002 |
ok mfz. so you agree saddam is not a model citizen of the world. but you object to the usa taking it upon itself to do something about it. this is our basic disagreement. we'll leave all the quibbling to one side. i think we have the right and the obligation to do something about him; whereas you are happy to keep him festering. which is worse for the world, which is worse for his people? there is no way i can buy the arguments that what we are doing is worse than what has already been attempted, or what has been suggested. it may not be to your liking because it once again demonstrates our dominance, but it will change the the way things work in iraq for the better, and it will change the way things work in the rest of the middle east for the better. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 112 Registered: 2-2003 |
As for Randall, he's only a soldier, not a policymaker. The people who are pushing for war are mainly the advisors to the President. Why do all the work when someone else can do it for you? The soldiers will have to follow the orders, or else they could be charged with treason I assume. Personally, I feel sorry for all the coalition troops currently fighting in Iraq. They are and will be seen as invaders, do you expect all of the Iraqis will welcome them with arms waving? Finally, here's a few quotes that I find interesting and might relate to the current situation: "They make a desert and call it peace." -- Tacitus "Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, 1916, Ch.9 "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi "The first casualty when war comes is Truth" -- U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson, 1917 "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II, April 18, 1946. (This quote is said to have been made during the Nuremburg Trials, but in fact, while during the time of the trials, was made in private to an Allied intelligence officer, later published in the book, Nuremburg Diary.) | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 886 Registered: 3-2002 |
art, you are misunderstanding my point as evidenced by your rebuttal: 'If other nations have to fear our behavior, if they disagree with us, what do you think they will do to ensure that we can't do to them as we've apparently done to Iraq? If I had to bet, my answer would be: they will arm to the teeth. ' i did not say that other countries who disagree with us, need to fear us. i said other countries who threaten us and our way of life, will need to fear some form of retribution. 'threaten' and 'disagree' are very different things. if they weren't, the french would be in trouble (smiley face). | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 111 Registered: 2-2003 |
That is why I have highlighted in another forgotten thread that people just don't read thoroughly what is written on them, except for a few. I have mentioned several facts that does make Saddam look bad, if you bother to read my old posts, you'll find plenty. See the old 'fwiw, i think we bomb Iraq this weekend' thread here: http://www.ferrarichat.com/discus/messages/132929/212552.html?1048186122 "you constantly ask for proof (which is in many cases very difficult for us to provide to you)," Why is this proof so hard to find then? Is it because most, if not all of this proof is indeed as I see it, mere fabrications? If there's proof, then show it. I see that even the Bush and Blair administration have failed to provide adequate proof at times. "and when somebody does quote or provide links you discount them as being fabricated or irrelevant." Which is again true for the most part. Most of the links that the poster put up actually do point out the fact that some of the info on those links are speculation or unconfirmed. Some even actually backfire on the poster's original assertations, which is why I was posting 'LOL' comments several times. "you yourself offer examples of your own contentions, which can just as easily be refuted - (so does the battling over proofs actually get us anywhere?)." So how come no one refuted my evidence then? If it is so easily refuted, how come none decide to take up the challenge, instead changing the subject? Is it because you can't refute the truth? "so given that you consider him, and everybody else with a placard or a weapon brandished against the usa, to be the good guy, i have to conclude that you are deluding yourself for some ulterior reason. what is it? what did america do to you, your family, or your country?" I never said that just because you are against the US, you are the good guy. That's what bothers me, this 'good versus evil' undertone. Who is really good and who is really evil? The US has aided Saddam in the past, so shouldn't they be considered evil, because they had aided a 'supposedly' evil man in the past? I just want the uninformed people of the US to see for themselves what other people of the world think, and what is really happening. I've seen poll results that say 51% of Americans think Saddam had something to do with 9/11, when evidence say there's no link at all. I've also read poll results that say 11% Americans can't even find the US on a world map! Call me deluded for all you care, I consider myself well-informed because I read and see all the pro-war and anti-war reports, on and offline, on the TV and on the internet. As for your question, I have nothing against America or any other countries, other than the fact that the US government has used it's economic, political, social and military might to force it's way into the world, and forcing the rest of the world to accept it's way as the right way. I feel that if the US can invade another country such as what it is doing in Iraq right now, who's to stop them from invading other countries? I feel that the US is bullying it's way into making every country 'toe their line', even though 'the line' is probably not beneficial at all to that country. I feel that way because certain people have said that it's the way the US have operated, it's the US's right to act this way and nothing will change because it's 'the American way'. You could say that this is why I'm doing what I'm doing now. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 885 Registered: 3-2002 |
randall, thank you for the link. interesting. i see from other threads that you are employed by the military but that you don't particularly like anything about it, you are just taking the money (in part provided by my tax dollars). i used to read your comments and not really get too bothered; they were just your opinions. but within the last week, your attitude has started to grate a bit. you aren't by any chance related to the soldier who grenaded his own comrades are you? of course not. if you were you might be on the front lines right now actually able to shake hands with those good people of the republican guard who never really hurt anybody right? what i am saying is that despite the fact that you are evidently competent at your job, and we should be grateful for your services that few other people could duplicate, i would prefer that you actually quit the military. with friends like yourself (in the same vein as france), who needs enemies. do your colleagues around you know that you cannot be counted on to defend them if they were ever in need? | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 177 Registered: 1-2003 |
Regarding MFZ's comments, I never saw him say Saddam is a good guy. Although the request for links to sites was there, not a single person came up with a link. And MFZ is correct about the no-fly zones. No-one is supposed to fly in them, and that was the reason for never striking back when they DEFENDED their countries air space. Here's another interesting site that dispels a lot of myths Americans believe: http://islandimage.net/oc/13myths/Factsheet.cfm?ID=5 | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 882 Registered: 3-2002 |
mfz, it has become patently obvious that you do not believe anything or anybody that in any way shows saddam in a bad light. you constantly ask for proof (which is in many cases very difficult for us to provide to you), and when somebody does quote or provide links you discount them as being fabricated or irrelevant. you yourself offer examples of your own contentions, which can just as easily be refuted - (so does the battling over proofs actually get us anywhere?). so given that you consider him, and everybody else with a placard or a weapon brandished against the usa, to be the good guy, i have to conclude that you are deluding yourself for some ulterior reason. what is it? what did america do to you, your family, or your country? | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 110 Registered: 2-2003 |
"No one seems to remember our enforcing of the the no-fly zones all these years and the firing on our pilots, our planes, the threat to our personnel." Do you even realise the fact that those no-fly zones are actually done illegally by the US? And that the UN never drawn up a no-fly zone as one of the settlements of the 1991 Gulf War? Talk about not knowing your facts. The Iraqis probably had a right to shoot at the planes as the planes were illegally flying over their air space. But because of the might of the US Air Force, and also some slick hiding of the facts on the part of the US government, nobody gave a damn. "The first instance we came under fire, we should have mopped up and began where we left off a decade ago." When did the US was under fire? 9/11 was done by a group of terrorists, not the Iraq government. Or are we still blaming them even though evidence have proven otherwise? Make up your mind. "I encourage you to take a trip to the The Wall, put your hand on it, and while you soak it in, maybe saying a silent prayer of thanks for who protect/have protected what you enjoy today, to think about that memorial found in an Iraqi government building celebrating the twin tower terrorist attack against us." Where oh where is this monument located again? Does it even exist? Or is this another made up or unconfirmed evidence presented as facts? Even the commander of the coalition, General Franks, when asked if the camouflaged factory they found was making chem/bio-weapons, he said it's too early to tell. | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Junior Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 190 Registered: 2-2003 |
No one seems to remember our enforcing of the the no-fly zones all these years and the firing on our pilots, our planes, the threat to our personnel. A relatively benign extension in comparison and of Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm. The protection of interests beyond ours. War, or conflict, never ceased, it mearly subsided from the public eye. The first instance we came under fire, we should have mopped up and began where we left off a decade ago. I encourage you to take a trip to the The Wall, put your hand on it, and while you soak it in, maybe saying a silent prayer of thanks for who protect/have protected what you enjoy today, to think about that memorial found in an Iraqi government building celebrating the twin tower terrorist attack against us. We don't need any more reasons. I think many of you need to digest a very famous movie rant. "You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And while my existance, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as a backbone of a lifetime spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post." We are doing this for ourselves and for a people who can't do it by themselves. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 176 Registered: 1-2003 |
If regime change is the reason, then the people of the country should do it. It appears that they all have fully automatic guns, I see no reason why other countries need to fight their battle. Americans that believe that Saddam is a threat to the US and run around saying that just make me embarassed to be American. Saddam wasn't a threat until Bush made him one. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 108 Registered: 2-2003 |
My valid reasons to go to war is not much. Regime change sure is one, but as I've seen from both pro-war and anti-war news reports on TV, even some of the people in Iraq interviewed said that they prefer regime change, but rather have they themselves do it, and not have the US/UK coalition forces do it for them. Saddam should've been brought down from his position a long time ago, but unfortunately, he's a smart man who have managed to ensure his place in the Iraqi regime for years to come. Also, Iraq may have WMDs, if they started using them AGAIN, then there might be a REALLY GOOD reason to go to war. Right now, they haven't, so I think that the US going to war now is a bit of a premature reaction. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 175 Registered: 1-2003 |
Here's the only good one: ALL THAT OIL. | ||
| jake diamond (Rampante)
Junior Member Username: Rampante Post Number: 90 Registered: 4-2002 |
MFZ-- What are your VALID reasons for going to war ?? | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 107 Registered: 2-2003 |
So just because someone has left-leaning tendencies, we should ignore it altogether? I read each and every response, whether right or left or neutral, so I will know all three sides to every story. People should consider doing that before forming their opinions, IMO. There are valid reasons for going to war, unfortunately there are more valid reasons NOT to go to war, that is my stand. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 106 Registered: 2-2003 |
No, he promised links to back up his facts, but he didn't do so. I am willing to believe anything as long as the links came from credible news sources. Actually, I know of a few links that do support his facts, and I never denied the fact that Saddam Hussein has gassed the Kurds, executed traitors and other things that he did, but I find it funny that people who normally doesn't know jack •••• about other countries other than their own have suddenly, in the past 3 months have become so 'knowledgable' and spouting the line that 'Saddam is so evil, we've let him live to do evil stuff for 12 years already etc. etc', when the real truth is far from it. It's hard to feel convinced by their arguments when the people saying them never cared for what happened before, but now that there's some financial gains to be made, these people are suddenly being so righteous and all. "you live in a nice town. it has its rougher neighborhoods though. in one of these there is a crack house. the owner sells drugs to local kids. there have been violent altercations and people injured and killed on the premises of this crack house, but nobody has been able to prove the owner did it." As for your analogy, I think there are several flaws in it. Assuming that the drugs you mentioned are WMDs, then Saddam can't be a dealer, because he doesn't sell 'drugs/WMDs' to other 'kids/terrorists', but he uses them for his 'own/on his people', which makes him a user. There's a distinct difference between being a user and a dealer. "the police decide that for the good of the neighborhood, the kids who might be dragged into addiction, and to prevent any more violence as result of the owner and his business, to raid the place. as they go in, the owner starts shooting back and is killed, along with some other lesser drug dealers living there, and an unfortunate relative visiting the owner but not a dealer. one of the dealers is only injured." Also, you still need a search warrant, which I think is where the UN resolutions part come in. And like you have mentioned, there's no proof that he did all those things, so you have to either find one (via the UN inspectors) or plant evidence so the charges will stick. "however, most of us would rejoice at the initiative taken by the police to rid us of this scourge that has broken the law, injured and killed innocent people, and was helping to spread drug addiction around the town. we would all regret the killing of the one innocent victim who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but we would stay focused on the good that had been done for the town. the crack house would then be pulled down and in its place a community service center would be erected." Problem is, from your own analogy, you yourself wrote that there's no proof to support your accusations of the 'user' killing people, or getting more people to join in on the 'drug addiction/weapons making'. I don't like drug users or dealers as much as the next person, but if they don't bother me, I don't bother them. Sure, I'll report to the police if they do start doing bad things like killing or pushing drugs/WMDs to kids, but like you yourself wrote, there's no evidence yet of they doing so. Well, maybe killing people, but still, the evidence is murky at best. And still no hard evidence of them selling drugs/WMDs to terrorists. I certainly don't want them to flourish, so that's why they have to be either pushed out of the neighbourhood, or they have to change their ways. Since they are probably more of a 'drug user' than a 'drug dealer', from your own description and mine, I think going to 'rehab' would be better. 'Rehab' of course means more weapons inspectors so they don't start their 'habit' again (building more weapons for motives other than self-defense). That's all just my opinion, and apparently the majority of the world agrees with me as well, but unfortunately, the 'self-appointed policeman' of this world thinks otherwise. | ||
| John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Member Username: Jjstecher Post Number: 398 Registered: 1-2002 |
good catch Jake I was going to post that as well. | ||
| jake diamond (Rampante)
Junior Member Username: Rampante Post Number: 89 Registered: 4-2002 |
Regarding Randall's web-link : The author Stephen C. Pelletiere ( who wrote one of the links) is associated with http://www.snowshoefilms.com/index.html click on the snowshoe films website to see the type of films they produce ! A very "leftist slant" on everything, therefore, I don't find his reasoning anything that I would concur with. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 888 Registered: 5-2002 |
I switched to Pepsi during the time that Britney Spears was their spokesperson. Dr.Pepper is my mainstay. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 648 Registered: 1-2002 |
Arlie- You still drinking coke, or have you switched to Pepsi? | ||
| Nika (Racernika)
Member Username: Racernika Post Number: 859 Registered: 12-2001 |
Just have to watch this http://www.inetguru.us/stuff/watchlist.asf | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 887 Registered: 5-2002 |
But my example concerning the Coca Cola lawsuit is the same as my stand on the Iraq situation: It doesn't matter how many people are against you, when you're right, you're right. It doesn't matter whether you are the Allied forces standing up against the Nazis in World War Two, or the U.S., British, and coilition forces standing up against Saddam Hussein's evil empire, or one individual standing up against the all powerful corporate empire of the Coca Cola Corporation, the situation is still the same. It doesn't matter what the popular opinion is or how many people are against you, when you're right, you're right! Stand by your convictions and full speed ahead! (When our guys take over Baghdad, I'll toast them with a cold glass of Coca Cola!) | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1131 Registered: 6-2001 |
Arlie: Please re-read my original post. I was telling you that what I was doing had nothing to do with the example you used. Art | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 886 Registered: 5-2002 |
Art, please explain to me how I can be "wrong" on all counts. The GIANT beverage company that I was refering to was in a court battle with an Arkansas attorney who represented his client. It was a classic tale of David and Goliath that the politically correct media never bothered to cover. Here's the link: http://www.guerrillanews.com/cocakarma/ If you can spare the time to read all the info, you'll find it very interesting. Little guys finish last even when they're right if they go up against the big money. Suppress the truth at all costs would seem to be their motto. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 173 Registered: 1-2003 |
Here's something that all of you who are u in arms about Saddam gassing "his own people" should read. http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/02/NYT010203.htm and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1130 Registered: 6-2001 |
Arlie: Wrong on all counts. If indeed you are interested, drop me an email. Facts are as I set them out.But hey, don't let the FACTS interfer with your ideology. I've offered you a look at honest people doing what they believe is the right thing. You can either deal with or not, you're call. Art | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 172 Registered: 1-2003 |
Today the Pentagon had said that 10 short range ballistic missile were fired, no SCUDS. The media was calling them scuds as soon as they saw missiles in flight. | ||
| John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Member Username: Jjstecher Post Number: 397 Registered: 1-2002 |
Robert from the reports I read they fired mostly the Al Somud (sp?) rockets, but also that there were if I remember correctly 3 SCUD missles shot down in Kuwait. The BBC had the story about 3 days back on their website. | ||
| Robert Callahan (Rcallahan)
Junior Member Username: Rcallahan Post Number: 145 Registered: 7-2002 |
John, Those weren't scuds they fired. They were the smaller, slower rockets (Al Somud?). We should know in the next few days what Iraq has. If they have gas and chem and WMD we'll certainly know it. | ||
| John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Member Username: Jjstecher Post Number: 395 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art - Also hasn�t Saddam already fired multiple SCUD missiles at Kuwait City? Aren't these the same missiles that he has said not to have had since they were all destroyed after the 1991 war? My guess is if a defendant lied this blatantly in a trial you were involved in you would rip him to shreds? Most lawyers I know here in Minnesota agree they would. Also for all the other doubters out there that Saddam has WMD's how can you explain the gas masks and chemical suites found in the Iraqi hospital by Basra...which is also an illegal staging ground for combat...or the fact that satellite images have shown decontamination units delivering ordnances to Iraq troop around Baghdad? Maybe they were just delivering pizza. I want peace as much as the next person but the world will never be safe enough that everyone�s "feelings" matter most to what is the proper course of action. As the war has progressed the evidence has become more and more clear that Saddam and his chorts needed to be removed. Keep kicking ass Greg and come home safe!! | ||
| John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Member Username: Jjstecher Post Number: 394 Registered: 1-2002 |
A friend of mine in the UK sent me this article this morning about a man involved in the human shield operation that drove a London bus to Iraq to shield against bombing. It is a very interesting read about how once again just how bad it really is in their country and how much none of us truely understand what these people are going through. http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/03/23/do2305.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/03/23/ixop.html Once again I support my men and women out there laying everything on the line so that men and women can be free. They are the real heros of this world! Art - Also today in the news the government is going to open bidding to non-US companies for reconstruction contracts in Iraq. I talked to a few friends and have been told it will more than likely be a 50/50 mix of US and internation based companies rebuilding. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 931 Registered: 1-2002 |
Hey Greg: STAY SAFE, and thanks for putting yourself in harm's way on our behalf. You and your colleagues have the gratitude of our nation!! | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 885 Registered: 5-2002 |
Art said: "I've got a great example of a large entity using its power to put it to someone without the economic resources to fight back." Are you referring to the GIANT soft drink company that, through a chain of forgotten events, FORGOT to renew their copyright to their main logo, and after another little guy obtained a copyright to his design which included that same logo, that meant the little guy now had legal claim to their main logo? And that meant that MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars worth of licensing fees paid to the GIANT soft drink company were actually obtained under a copyright license that had expired? Therefore the fees were illegally obtained? Do you know about that case? I guess that famous pro football player never really murdered his wife either? | ||
| Jesse Hoffman (Hoffmeister)
New member Username: Hoffmeister Post Number: 17 Registered: 12-2002 |
Greg, Are you out of the 1AD 4th BDE 2-501 AV? Jesse Camp Bondsteel | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 647 Registered: 1-2002 |
Greg- I echo Art's comments. In all of my deliberation of why and weather or not we (as a nation) should be in Iraq, I hope all the soldiers return safely, and without injury. We all know who pays the price. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1128 Registered: 6-2001 |
Gerg: I may disagree about whether or not we should have done this, but I wish you and yours the best, don't get hurt, and get back here safe and sound. Art | ||
| Greg Stitt (Gregstitt5)
New member Username: Gregstitt5 Post Number: 4 Registered: 12-2002 |
All, There are some things in life that you must fight for. This war, as a preventative measure against further terrorist training/attacks and as a humanitarian effort for all oppressed under the Hussein regime, is such a time. As we all know, the soldier is the last person who wants to see war, for he or she must fight it. That said, my wife as a Blackhawk pilot and I as an Apache pilot are awaiting further orders to support CENTCOM's area of responsibility. (read between the lines) I have two objectives: accomplish my given missions, and bring your sons and daughters home safe. Now in my ninth year of service, I understand the need to prepare myself and my troops for the events to soon come, even to the point of passing up opportunities to take my GTS out for a spin, in order that everything can and will be done for our troops and our country's sake. Warm regards from all here serving to everyone at home supporting us, 1LT(P) Greg Stitt | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1126 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ross: We apparently disagree over this issue. I ask you this though: If other nations have to fear our behavior, if they disagree with us, what do you think they will do to ensure that we can't do to them as we've apparently done to Iraq? If I had to bet, my answer would be: they will arm to the teeth. If you think that is a good resolution for ensuring our country, we have a disagreement. I think that if we encourage debate, argument, etc. with those who have differing views, we are a bunch better off than those who would use force. Remember that GW, and his coherets are suggesting that regime change throughout that region is their ultimate goal. Again this is the Israeli solution to their problems, beat their opponents into submission. Well, they haven't not been at war, and the likihood of their ever getting peace if rather dim. While they have be forced into that situation, given the history, I don't particularly think that this model is a good one for us, unless you want us in a constant state of war. By the way, apparnetly one of the major networks is showing a special on the 9/11 tragedy tonight (I can't recall which one), and the middle east's perspective on why it happened. Might be interesting reading, and might provide an insight into the other side's version of reality. Art | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 881 Registered: 3-2002 |
probable cause and the search warrant have already been established and issued - thats what all those previous un resolutions are about. the chemical factory camouflaged and hidden in the desert sure seems like a good spot to brew up some poison, but we'll have to let the un inspectors sniff that one out. i have no doubt that something damning will be found. unfortunately many people will choose to believe it is fabricated evidence and will discount it. the cynical have somehow construed (and convinced the uninformed) that any faults of the usa are equivalent to saddam's atrocities. gwbush is the most dangerous person in the world - if you are a person or a country that is intent on threatening the united states or its people at home or abroad; and i like that just fine. this is a watershed moment in world history. the result of this conflict will shape events and the direction of the world in a positive way for the next 50-100 years. as usual, we are the ones directing and molding this evolution. it matters little to me that there are protests in many countries against the war - we are changing the way things work and that is always unsettling to people. what should we do about it? i for one am patiently trying to explain the reasoning of this new perspective to anybody who engages me on the subject. the more people understand the realities of the situation in the usa and in iraq (and other parts of the world) the better. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1125 Registered: 6-2001 |
ross: good bar question. However we have a 4th amendment which specifies that we must have "probable cause" for government entry into a private residence. If the police had a search warrant, then a magistrate or a judge would have reviewed the facts leading up to the request for entry, and would have made a decision if he should allow that entry. If that was done properly, then I suspect that there would be no dispute aboutwhether or not this was legal or appropriate. On the other hand, if the local police department made a decision to force entry into a private residence, without court approval, and a valid warrant, then I suspect we have a problem. In our society, we provide different mission statements to the various entities in our society. The police are there to enforce the laws, and the courts are there to judge if the potential miscreans are indeed guilty of any breach of the laws. There is a long line of cases where the police have gotten their mission statement confused with that of the judiciary, i.e., they forgot it is the court's duty to impose punishment. Our governments have had to pay substantial sums, when these police forget what their job is or is not. The same thing well applies to Iraq. There is an entity who sets forth the standard, an entity which Iraq agreed could set standards that Iraq would comply with. See Jon Kofod's detailed response to the various UN resolutions relating to Iraq contained in I believe this thread. We didn't or couldn't obtain authorization for our behavior, and acted like the out of control police department we discussed a little earlier. My question to you is: what should be done about us, if no one finds weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Are the British people right, in that the greatest threat to the planet is George Bush? Time will tell, but these are serious questions, and Bush, et al, certainly haven't clearly thought this out, in my humble opinion. Regards, Art | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 880 Registered: 3-2002 |
art, here is an analogy for you. you live in a nice town. it has its rougher neighborhoods though. in one of these there is a crack house. the owner sells drugs to local kids. there have been violent altercations and people injured and killed on the premises of this crack house, but nobody has been able to prove the owner did it. the police decide that for the good of the neighborhood, the kids who might be dragged into addiction, and to prevent any more violence as result of the owner and his business, to raid the place. as they go in, the owner starts shooting back and is killed, along with some other lesser drug dealers living there, and an unfortunate relative visiting the owner but not a dealer. one of the dealers is only injured. i realize that your first reaction would be to rush to the defense of the haitian drug dealer only injured by the police during the raid, and make sure that his rights had been read to him correctly in his native creole. however, most of us would rejoice at the initiative taken by the police to rid us of this scourge that has broken the law, injured and killed innocent people, and was helping to spread drug addiction around the town. we would all regret the killing of the one innocent victim who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but we would stay focused on the good that had been done for the town. the crack house would then be pulled down and in its place a community service center would be erected. in case you missed it, iraq is the crack house, and the owner/dealer is saddam. both behaviours are reprehensible. people such as yourself and mfz may have issues with police powers and some of their decisions and methods, but the rest of us get over it and are happy that they do their job and stopped the crack dealer before he got to our kids. we don't care that people from the next town over think we over reacted. we don't care that the neighborhood watch board didn't approve the police intiative. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 879 Registered: 3-2002 |
mfz, so let me get this straight. you are now saying that saddam's henchmen did not kill any kurds by gassing them because arlie did not include a link to somewhere on the internet to prove it? if so, please tell me so that i can disregard even some of the valid points you have made since coming to this board. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1123 Registered: 6-2001 |
Arlie: I suspect you haven't seen too many trials or lawsuits from the inside. I understand you work for a TV station. Ever thoght it might be newsworth to do just that. While I'm not perfect, unlike you, I make my best attempt at using reason, rather than loud noises to make my point. If you want to do such a story, I've got a great example of a large entity using its power to put it to someone without the economic resources to fight back. This might very well be educational to you, and althought I doubt it, might even change some of ideology if you would listen, rather than yell and scream. Art | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 171 Registered: 1-2003 |
All I asked for were simple links instead of BS propaganda put out by Bush. I won't argue that Saddam is a good person, but then I don't think a lot of people are. I just don't think he's worth wasting billions of dollars and American lives on. But really, can anyone provide a link? And the whole Kurds thing is a trivial issue. Yeah, a lot of people were killed, but it was done in a war-like situation. America did it to Japan in WWII, or have we all forgotten that? My main arguement is Saddam was contained on not a threat to America, and it seems no one has an arguement against mine. On a side note, why is Saddam more important to Bush than Bin Laden? We are spending way more money to get Saddam, but he has done nothing to us when Osama has. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 3309 Registered: 2-2001 |
Because if it's not on the internet it can't be true, I mean the internet is obviously the end all in knowledge... | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 105 Registered: 2-2003 |
Where are the links then? | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 882 Registered: 5-2002 |
How about the dozen or so people that Saddam's boys executed the day he took power in 1979? Or the dead bodies of the Kurds that were attacked by poison gas. Or the testimony of Iraqi citizens who were tortured or the testimony from the families of those who were killed. Or how about the testimony of U.S. soldiers who were beaten and abused while held as prisoners of war during the Gulf war in 1991? Would that be substantial enough? | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 170 Registered: 1-2003 |
Like I said give me proof in the form of links to valid sites. I don't want accusations by Bush, but rather something a little more substantial. | ||
| Tenney (Tenney)
Member Username: Tenney Post Number: 330 Registered: 2-2001 |
Agree, Arlie. Although common sense doesn't seem too common of late. Randall, Saddam openly paid (reimbursed?) the families of suicide bombers who paid periodic visits to Israel. In the U.S., those suicide bombers are referred to as terrorists. As others have stated, the anti-Israeli effort (of which 9/11 was a byproduct, IMO) is also financially supported by other Arab sources. Evidentally, many Palestinians have come under the impression that they are being ethnically cleansed at the hands of the folks in Israel, of which the U.S. is deemed a (the?) prime supporter. They (the Palestinians) have become desperate to the point of suicide attacks. Some Muslims in the area view the situation as a direct attack on their faith by the Israelis. And so, would doubt Iraq is the last stop unless an equitable long-term resolution is established re: Israel/Palestine. That, or it's all about oil. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 537 Registered: 8-2001 |
Arlie, You are right though I venture to guess that had that one person stood up and said "you're all crazy" he would have been dead within an hour. Jon | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 881 Registered: 5-2002 |
World opinion actually means nothing in the battle for good over evil. Recall that Adolph Hitler held his Nazi Party rallies in Nuremburg stadium. From what I remember reading, there were several hundred THOUSAND people present at those rallies listening to Hitler's speeches. If even ONE person had stood up at those rallies and said "YOU'RE ALL WRONG AND YOU'RE ALL CRAZY", then THAT person would have been RIGHT even though he was outnumbered three hundred thousand to ONE. Popular opinion doesn't mean much in the battle of good versus evil. Common sense is much more important. | ||
| Andrew Wanamaker (Androza)
New member Username: Androza Post Number: 3 Registered: 2-2003 |
I support this war completely. Most of the reasons why we shouldn't go to war are bollocks. Lets see, no UN support? The UN is a weak body that hasn't enforced its own resolutions on Iraq. Its too split up to be of any use, especially when considering it has no real power. Iraq has numerous weapons on mass destruction. Saddam has proven that he has no problem in using such things, against the Kurds and against the Iranians. This becomes more of America's problem, since Saddam is a monster of our own creation. Iraq's people live in horrible conditions. Subject to torture, execution, whatever Saddams whim is. And truly horrific tortures too. Nitric acid drip rooms, feeding people into meat grinders, gouging out the eyeballs of young children in an attempt to persuade their parents to confess... This is the main reason I support this war. I believe that it is our duty as a world superpower to put an end to such practices. If it means supporting American imperialism, then so be it. If the rest of the world disagrees, so be it. Any country that would doom a population to senseless massacres (most of Africa, North Korea, etc) then they don't deserve to have a role in world affairs. I fully support military action in any country that matches the profile of Iraq. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 880 Registered: 5-2002 |
"As a lawyer who tries cases I find that if I don't understand the other side's position, I can't adequately represent my clients." Don't you mean that if you don't understand the other side's position, then you can't adequately SUPRESS and ignore the REAL truth if that truth happens to be detrimental to your client? In other words, you have to understand the entire BIG PICTURE before you can black out those portions of the picture that don't help your client's position. From what I've seen, trials and lawyers aren't about exposing the truth, their about stacking the deck so that one side WINS over the other side at all costs, and if the truth gets mangled beyond recognition, too bad? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1121 Registered: 6-2001 |
Rickky: A junior in HS expressing those views. I would hope that you would take a little time to figure out what is true and what isn't. When your as young as you are, people can tell you a tale, and you don't have the experience to know when their shoveling sh*t into your ear. The conservative mantra against liberals is a perfect example of the above. I suggest you read Brock's book: Blinded by the Right. It's written by an ex-conservate writer and talks about what he saw and did. Having said that, I think that the conservates have had an occassional good idea or two. But then again so have the liberals. Personalizing or demonizing those who think differently than you do is probably a good way to show a lack of insight. As a lawyer who tries cases I find that if I don't understand the other side's position, I can't adequately represent my clients. Bottom line: there is usually two sides to every story. Make sure you're not deaf when the're talking. Art | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 169 Registered: 1-2003 |
Rikky- to quote you, "Saddam has chemical/biological weapons," Probably fact. "Saddam doesn't care about the U.S." Why should he? "Saddam aids terrorists and harbors terrorism" Aids terrorism? Not really a fact since no proof has been given. If you can find CIA or FBI reports that prove it please post a link. As for harboring terrorists, what do you mean by that? Do you mean people that have gone through Al Quaida training? If so you can through in all of the Middle East, most of Europe and America. "The logic is simple... we are at risk while he has these weapons." Using that SIMPLE logic is an extremely bad idea. If you want to say we should attack anyone that has weapons, does that mean you want to start a war with all of the Middle East? Or maybe just the countries that have dictators? I'm glad you said you're a junior in HS. That means you're probably just sharing your parents views. If you choose to respond, I'd love to see a few links to support your views. Make sure it's links to reports and not editorials. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 639 Registered: 1-2002 |
The guy is playing semantics. Yes, that girl was a bit neive in conveying her intent, but "muhammed" was playing semantics; i.e., leaving Hussein in power is effectivly supporting a regime (this has been my question to most "pro-peace" individuals); conversly, my question to most "pro-war-ites" has been: how do you justify a war on a soverign country, thats has neither 1. threathened the US, 2. made attack upon us, or 3. made any attempt to threathen our interests (further, how do you not call 'taking' over a soverign country not imperialism??) If anything, all this postuering has done nothing but hurth the US econmony, it's relations to it's allies (which seem to be VERY few), and has undercut the fundamental tennants of diplomacy; i.e., the attempts to "buy" Syria, et. al. I've made longwinded replies eslewhere and leave them there, unless anyone wants me to specifically repudiate anyone of my statements. Further, if you look into the HISTORY of the US/Iraq relations, you'll see instances of the US turning a blind eye to acts of domestic tyranny, by Hussein, and the US and it's Security Council turning a blind eye; now a trump card of dissolving a regime for humanitarian causes is being used that wasn't previously b/c the US was selling Hussein arms. Read Below: In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Between October 1983 and the autumn of 1988, Baghdad deployed 100,000 munitions, containing mainly mustard gas, which produces blisters on the skin and inside the lungs, and nerve gas, which damages the nervous system, but also cyanide gas, which kills instantly. From initially using these lethal agents in extremis to repulse Iran's offensives, the Iraqis proceeded to use them as a key factor in their assaults in the spring and summer of 1988 to regain their lost territories, including the strategic Fao peninsula. That the Pentagon had first-hand knowledge of Iraq's use of chemical agents during these offensives was confirmed by the New York Times two weeks ago. 'After the Iraqi army, with American planning assistance, retook the Fao peninsula, a Defense Intelligence Agency officer, Lt Col Rick Francona, now retired, was sent to tour the battlefield with Iraqi officers,' wrote Patrick Tyler of the Times. 'Francona saw zones marked off for chemical contamination, and containers for the drug atropine scattered around, indicating that Iraqi soldiers had taken injections to protect themselves from the effects of gas that might blow back over their positions.' In 1986, it was with the aim of recapturing the Fao peninsula, taken by the Iranians in February, that Saddam's military used chemical agents so extensively that the UN Security Council stopped accepting its routine denials. Following an examination of 700 Iranian casualties, UN experts concluded that Baghdad had deployed mustard and nerve gases many times. Instead of condemning Baghdad for this, the Security Council, dominated by Washington and Moscow, both pro-Iraq, coupled its condemnation of Baghdad with its disapproval of 'the prolongation of the war' by Tehran for refusing a truce until the council had named Iraq the aggressor. Despite its repeated reiteration of neutrality, the US had all along been pro-Baghdad. It lost no time in supplying Iraq with intelligence collected by the Saudi-owned but Pentagon-operated Airborne Warning and Control Systems (Awacs) plying in the region. Once Iraq and the US had resumed diplomatic links after the re-election of Reagan as President in November 1984, the military cooperation blossomed. Starting in July 1986, aided by the Pentagon, which clandestinely seconded its air force officers to work with their Iraqi counterparts, Saddam's air force greatly improved its targeting accuracy, striking relentlessly the enemy's power plants, factories and bridges, and extending the range of its strikes to Iran's oil terminals in the lower Gulf. Under the rubric of escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers, the US built up an armada in the Gulf, which clashed with the small, under-equipped Iranian navy and sank two Iranian offshore oil platforms in the lower Gulf in retaliation for Iran's missile attack on an American-flagged supertanker docked in Kuwaiti waters. Against this background, Iraq started hitting Tehran with its upgraded Scud ground-to-ground missiles in late February 1988. To retake Halabja from Iran and its Kurdish allies, who had captured it in March, Iraq's air force attacked it with poison gas bombs. The objective was to take out the occupying Iranian troops (who had by then left the town); instead, the assault killed 3,200 to 5,000 civilians. The images of men, woman and children, frozen in instant death, relayed by the Iranian media, shocked the world. Yet no condemnation came from Washington. It was only when, following the ceasefire with Iran in August, Saddam made widespread use of chemical agents to recapture 4,000 square miles controlled by the Kurdish insurgents that the Security Council decided to dispatch a team to find out if Baghdad had resorted to chemical arms. Saddam refused to cooperate. But instead of pressuring him to reverse his stand, or face a ban on the sale of American military equipment and advanced technology to Iraq by the revival of the Senate's bill, US Secretary of State George Shultz chose to say only that interviews with the Kurdish refugees in Turkey and 'other sources' (which remained obscure) pointed towards Iraqi use of chemical agents. These two elements did not constitute 'conclusive' evidence. This was the verdict of Shultz's British counterpart, Sir Geoffrey Howe: 'If conclusive evidence is obtained, then punitive measures against Iraq have not been ruled out.' As neither he nor Shultz is known to have made a further move to get at the truth, Iraq went unpunished. That was the end of the story - until the hawks in the Bush administration recently began bandying about the revolting phrase of 'gassing his own people' for their partisan ends. Taken from: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Junior Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 79 Registered: 5-2002 |
Saddam has chemical/biological weapons, Saddam doesn't care about the U.S., or anyone except himself, Saddam aids terrorists and "harbors terrorism" The logic is simple... we are at risk while he has these weapons. He has openly states his amibtions to control the Middle East. He is a crazy man, who kills his people. The train of thought seems clear to me, he must go. Just because Saddam's buddy Chirac doesn't want us to go to war, and screwed us out of getting U.N. approval, is not a valid argument against the war. If Chirac would not have deceived us, then we would have had the majority, but guess what, you'd all (anti-war people) still be complaining... also, to let it be known, I'm a junior in hs now... It really is sick how most of my teachers are liberals, and how people are affected by it. There are several libertarians, but a lot of liberals. Even with libertarians, I am not too keen on this whole pro choice(murder) thing, but at least they don't want to raise taxes :-\ | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 164 Registered: 1-2003 |
A lot of protesters say there was never really a Saddam problem. That he was contained (hence the no-fly zones). That he knew better than to atack the US (no history of him doing it or planning too). That given time the inspectors would have found found watever the US said is there. Some protesters are idiots. Some supporters are idiots (the ones that blame Saddam for 9/11). About 1/3 of the country is against this war. But worldwide it is majority against it. Going with the idea that a valid reason to attack Iraq is they may have threatened or attacked us in the future leads me to believe we should also attack Iran, Pakistan, India, China and North Korea. And that seems like a really stupid idea. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1105 Registered: 6-2001 |
John: As to the issue that there is a money component here: If the oil fields need rebuilding, who will get the work? Will it be profitable? Won't the cost of that be taken from the oil production? What do you think the changes are that Haliburton will get that work? Who will decide, without an open bidding process who gets the work? Bet your answers are similar to mine. No, we don't plan on making money on this do we? If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. Art- | ||
| Jaime Torres (Chevarri)
New member Username: Chevarri Post Number: 35 Registered: 1-2003 |
GO MOHAMMED!! And Go Brian for his last comment before the clip ends. I would shake his hand if I met him. Mark, I couldnt agree with you more, they are indeed shletered from the REAL world as Mohammed said. John, Reading what the guy from McD's said is absolute crap, and what he said was proof of his ignorance. | ||
| John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Member Username: Jjstecher Post Number: 393 Registered: 1-2002 |
yep this weekend I had the chance myself to ask some of these protestors here what their solution to the Saddam problem would be. Most told me there was no problem and we were just after oil to make our country richer. (This is I am sure some reason behind the war, but it will not make this country richer, all oil production is governed by OPEC), I pointed this out then got called many a names. Secondly I was then told that we were killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. I disbuted this fact and pointed out the massicare that Saddam has performed on said Iraqi civilians, girl had no idea what I was talking about when mentioning Kurds, but was told that I was just believing what I had saw on television and had no idea what was really going on in Iraq, even though I am really sure the 17 year old girl telling me this did! Last but not least I was told that "majority" of America was against this war. When bringing up the latest polls on msn.com which over 400,000 people responded to as well as other polls showing 65-70% support for this war I was told once again that I was just believing the "smoke and mirrors tactics of a leader not even fairly elected". When I asked them how president Bush was creating these fake polls once again all I did was get called a "war monger". Sometimes I guess logic just doesnt play a part in peoples decisions. On leaving the protesters and finally going to enjoy McDonald's I was told that the world could never be free as long as the US was in it. To which I got really upset having my father in Vietnam and both grandfathers in WWII, I confronted the man making the statement and stated that the only reason he is able to protest here today in safety, with my tax money paying the police blocking off the streets, is because millions of Americans gave everything they had for his rights. To this he responded that I was full of s*it and told me I was the son of a baby killer. All I could do was shake my head and walk away. It's sad how many of these protestors have no idea what the real world is like, or even what it means to these people in other countries to see the liberation forces roll through. Hell most of these people have never even probably been out of Minnsota. | ||
| D B (Threesixty)
Junior Member Username: Threesixty Post Number: 142 Registered: 8-2002 |
Wow, that was a great clip..."simplistic nickelodean diplomacy"....great! Thanks! | ||
| Adam R (Arymarcz)
Junior Member Username: Arymarcz Post Number: 64 Registered: 8-2002 |
There was a WTO march out here a little while ago.. one of the bystanders interviewed by the media said "I find it so amusing that some of them (the protestors) are wearing Nikes, given Nikes proposed involvement in child labor and all..." What a good one  | ||
| Marq J Ruben (Qferrari)
Member Username: Qferrari Post Number: 261 Registered: 2-2002 |
I hear ya, Doug O! A local radio station here in the DC area did a segment on this recently. It appears that there exists some 'professional protesters' that go from demonstration to demonstration, with only the signs they carry being different. The commentator was wondering what kind of benefits and retirement plan they have. | ||
| Doug O (Little_o)
New member Username: Little_o Post Number: 32 Registered: 6-2002 |
Does anybody notice how the anti-war protestors are the same people who march against WTO, save the whales, and any other numerous causes. Seems like all they do is change the signs. When do they work? | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 103 Registered: 2-2003 |
I see Ross is still spouting the line that Iraqis didn't spend their money on food, medicine etc. here "iraq has about $7 billion in their escrow account at the un from oil-for-food sales. they have elected not to spend it. more poignantly, they have elected not to spend it on food, medicine, premi incubators, anesthetic etc etc. so whose fault is that?" when it's been documented that it's the US and it's allies that has been halting those very things that they needed from reaching them. I'd say the US is at fault, not the Iraqis. Don't believe me? Believe Reuters: "The UN's humanitarian programme in Iraq has been hampered by a record $5.3bn (�3.7bn) worth of blocked supplies, mainly by the US, it was revealed yesterday. The contracts include some $4.6bn worth of humanitarian supplies and $703m for oil industry equipment, the UN office of the Iraq programme said in its weekly report." Taken from "Washington blocks $5bn supplies to Iraq" - Reuters, as reported in The Guardian, February 21, 2002. The UN reports the figure as $5 billion. Iraq includes other material that is not blocked but just delayed, and so reports a figure of $8 billion." And now the war's started, the oil-for-supply deal is now suspended. Thanks again, American government. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 877 Registered: 3-2002 |
ok. oil sands are mined, oil from shale is mined. oil like it is in iraq, is drilled for. i suppose you could even call that mining of a sort. semantics i guess. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 83 Registered: 12-2002 |
Tim, Rather than saying what I said, and what I backed up with facts, is "the most ridiculous thing you have ever heard", how about backing it up with some facts of your own? Do you have any facts to back it up? Do you understand what controls oil prices? Do you know that OPEC controls the flow of oil and thereby largely sets the price? And do you know that commodities traders in the USA, along with OPEC determine what you pay, not how much oil is flowing out of Iraq. And what exactly do you think happens to Iraqi oil right now? Do you think they pump it right to their gas stations? Who do you think buys the oil? What do they do with it? Where does it end up? To claim another argument as "ridiculous" shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation. So, I challenge you to back up your assertions. Tell me why this is all about oil and why us "taking over" Iraq would drive gas prices lower? You're completely wrong, but I'll enjoy watching you try to back it up | ||
| Tim N (Timn88)
Advanced Member Username: Timn88 Post Number: 2644 Registered: 6-2001 |
"How do you figure us "taking over" means cheap oil? It still has to be mined, refined, and transported. Iraqi oil is not cheap and easy to get here like Venezuelan or US oil. And who will do the mining, refining and transporting? That's right - US corporations. And unless the government was about to force them to fix their prices, it would have NO effect on US oil prices." no affect at all? are you joking? Look how cheap gas is in iraq. Based on gas prices there, how can you say it would have NO affect on gas prices? IMO this is possibly one of the most ridiculous things i have heard in my life. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 868 Registered: 10-2002 |
Iraq has over 40 Billion in it's UN account. Oil is mined. The tar sands are mined and the oil (Heavy) is extracted using steam. Most of this occurs in Canada. (Much more costly than mideast drilled for) Oil can also be extracted from mined shale, although not at a viaible price. "Oil" ( Ethonol) can be distilled from grain and corn but not IMHO at a price that makes sense nor produces as much energy as it takes. I agree with Ross stable oil at a reasonable price will help everyone on the planet. Jim | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 82 Registered: 12-2002 |
Ross, Thanks for the clarity... but some oil is mined I may have misquoted some items - I have a friend who'se company does a ton of work for the larger oil companies, and my utterance was largely a result of my discussions with him. On a side note, a new biz venture of his is mining equipment for oil - yes you read it right. Something to do with extracting oil from a sand/oil mixture. I am not sure if the sand is put into the cavity to absorb the oil and seperated later, or if the sand and oil are pre-mixed, but it was interesting. I've heard different numbers from you on the cost to produce usable oil from an Iraqi supply vs. a Venezuelan supply, but I can't claim to know the true costs - although I do think it's silly to think Bush has some oil-company motivation to go after Iraqi oil, so I think we're in agreement. As for Iraq's production, I've read alot of different numbers, just like I've read alot of numbers about how much the Saudis hold back and how much they can easily produce. Suffice it to say if we were just attacking for oil, Saudi Arabia would be a better target. I also hope the oil contracts are "spread out" over a few countries. I hope France gets squat from it. I tend to think the rebuilt government (which I HOPE will be created by the US and UK) will be in charge of oil contracts, and I have to believe the US *may* get some preferential treatment in that scenario, but until it happens, nobody will really know. It is nice to talk about this stuff with folks who have some intelligently conceived stance rather than the starbucks dropouts whining that "war sucks" | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 855 Registered: 5-2001 |
Greg - no offence meant to the smart ones like you. I was just venting from that download. Hell, I was a loudmouth college guy once myself. Thought I knew everything. Then one day I got a real full time job and started having to pay bills and support myself. Kinda changed my perspective on some things. Especially the first time I had to pay some real taxes. | ||
| Mfennell70 (Mfennell70)
Junior Member Username: Mfennell70 Post Number: 104 Registered: 7-2001 |
"iraq has about $7 billion in their escrow account at the un from oil-for-food sales. " I was not aware of that. More reading for me! | ||
| John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Member Username: Jjstecher Post Number: 391 Registered: 1-2002 |
Anyone who blames the infant mortality rate on the sanctions is insane, as pointed out Iraq has had billions of dollars in their internation accounts, and have also refused medical supply from other countries. You tell me how this is our fault? In line with post this audio clip in the first place I have been reading on bbc.com the many opinions people have posted about the war. It is SO funny that almost all the people against this war are from Europe, Asia, and the US. When the people that really matter in this war and have the life expereince to know which side to support, the middle easterners are almost 100% supporting the war effort and looking forward to having the people of Iraq be free. The real result of this war is going to be a much better life for the Iraq people because of the billions of tax payers dollars that the US and allies will pour into the region. For all the protestors that I ran into today coming to work that told me we are going to kill "millions" of Iraqi civilians they need to wise up and actually start paying attention to what is really happening. Oh yeah here is the bbc link if anyone is interested http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2833037.stm | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 873 Registered: 3-2002 |
un sanctions responsible for infant mortality in iraq? thats always a puzzler for me. iraq has about $7 billion in their escrow account at the un from oil-for-food sales. they have elected not to spend it. more poignantly, they have elected not to spend it on food, medicine, premi incubators, anesthetic etc etc. so whose fault is that? | ||
| Mfennell70 (Mfennell70)
Junior Member Username: Mfennell70 Post Number: 100 Registered: 7-2001 |
" agree that a few iraqui casualties are a drop in the bucket (as much as i hate to say it) to the # that saddam will kill in the future." More importantly, without Saddam, the UN sanctions will finally be lifted. They killed at least as many as Saddam did. Look it up. Infant mortality in Iraq has more than doubled since '91. Doesn't make us look so benevolent, eh? The anti-war folks aren't all ignorant children. Norman Schwarzkopf was against it. My father, a munitions designer, Vietnam vet, and history buff, was as well. Not for "make love, not war, pass the bong" reasons, but simply because they think it's a bad precedent to set. History will tell, I guess. Door's open now though. No point in whining about it. | ||
| Greg Rodgers (Joechristmas)
Member Username: Joechristmas Post Number: 716 Registered: 3-2001 |
I am a college student and don't share the same views as many of them. I completely support this Great Country we Live in. Plus I do agree that most college students don't know a lot about anything but there are exceptions. It upsets me as well to hear the protestors etc. speak out about topics they know little about. From my experience it is always the same crowd doing it too. (protesting some new building or posting 50 envir. stickers on their VW bug which has an extremely high CO output level). Then there bashing/judging others. Why don't they do productive tasks. (Pray for our troops anything or leave and visit another country to see how others live) I have a feeling they will want to come back. Anyway, I just wanted to say that as a college student I am not this way. God Bless America!!!! | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 869 Registered: 3-2002 |
mike, just to clarify a few things, in rough figures: (oil is drilled for btw, not mined). - iraq (lately) puts out about 2-2.2 mbd (million bbls/day) - saudis quota is about 8 mbd, but they have about 10-10.5 mbd actual capacity, they are currently putting out about 9.4mbd to help with the situation (the remaining excess is rather more difficult to get at, and damages the well's long term capacity). - iraqi oil (like most of the middle east) is actually pretty cheap to get at, the cost for finding, drilling, piping out is about $1.5-2.00/bbl, vs vens at closer to $4/bbl (depending on whther its on or off shore), and far cheaper to get at than american oil (of which there is little of the easy stuff left). transportation from iraq to the usa is of course higher than ven, but in normal times this doesn't amount to too much. - who will help the iraqis get their oil moving again in the near future is up in the air. i think for political reasons it won't be any anglo/american company. it will probably not be any russian or french company either (at least i hope not). imho it should be somebody from the coalition of the willing, like repsol, agip, bhp, and i would also throw in somebody like petronas so that the fundamentalists can't point fingers too much. - oil prices definetely have more to do with traders than oil companies. traders set the prices for the world. however, it doesn't matter who controls the oil, nor where it goes, nor which origins eventually come to the usa. more oil (which is to be expected from post saddam iraq) means more oil on the world market (altho opec will likely curb their current overproduction). more oil on the world market means lower prices than when there is less oil. trying to fix prices is not a good idea and won't happen. imho, the iraqi situation is not directly about oil in the sense of who holds the key to the taps; but it is an indirect (but very important) objective to have a stable and reliable country controlling the flow. and what the rest of the unwilling keep forgetting about is that if/when we have a stabel iraqi govt controlling their own natural resource, the oil prices will drop to rational and sustainable levels around $18-25/bbl, which will allow the usa economy to rebound and grow, which in turn will allow the world economy to sell us their stuff and allow them to grow and prosper. so if you are indonesia and want to improve your lot in life, don't protect saddam just because his poor suffering subjects are muslim, think about what will make your economy grow. | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Junior Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 179 Registered: 2-2003 |
I'm with Mike and Dr. Tommy on this.. simply amazimg. I either worked with or know the people involved in the Pave Low crash and those who went to rescue them. That group was my old one doing infil/exfil/CSAR missions. Imagine my shock reading CNN this morning. I say a silent prayer for anyone in uniform and assigned in the region. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 81 Registered: 12-2002 |
Tim, How do you figure us "taking over" means cheap oil? It still has to be mined, refined, and transported. Iraqi oil is not cheap and easy to get here like Venezuelan or US oil. And who will do the mining, refining and transporting? That's right - US corporations. And unless the government was about to force them to fix their prices, it would have NO effect on US oil prices. Also, oil prices have a lot more to do with commodities traders and OPEC than it has to do with whether Iraq sells us oil or not. Did you know that the *excess capacity* of Saudi Arabia (meaning the oil they "hold back" from selling) is FAR in excess of the ENTIRE Iraqi oil production. The Iraq situation is nothing to do with oil. | ||
| Tim N (Timn88)
Advanced Member Username: Timn88 Post Number: 2641 Registered: 6-2001 |
College kids think they know everything!! Im glad the US is a democracy. This way i dont have to think. my elected officials can do all the thinking for me. I agree that a few iraqui casualties are a drop in the bucket (as much as i hate to say it) to the # that saddam will kill in the future. I seriously dont see why we dont take this god-forsaken country over, if for no reason other than its oil. 200 years ago no one would have a problem with us taking to over for that reason! If that were to happen i predict gas preices under $1.50 a gal for premium. | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 852 Registered: 5-2001 |
That's just what we need, a bunch of pansy-ass kids who are cruising thru college on their parent's checking account, telling us what it's really like out here in the real world. sure, I'm listening. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 80 Registered: 12-2002 |
It's telling that most of the protesters are college kids. Have they ever had a taste of life? I don't think so. This girl is like all of them. She says she is against the killing of innocents. Ironic how an Iraqi is telling her about the millions Saddam killed and she is against doing anything about it. So, she really isn't anti-killing, she is really pro-killing, and ironically she is the one PROMOTING barbaric acts. You really should be 25+ to vote in this country. It scares me that these mental midgets can actually vote and reproduce. | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 851 Registered: 5-2001 |
The war has started. The protestors have lost. It's time for them to get a real job during the day like the rest of us and actually be productive for a change. | ||
| Mark Lambert (Mlambert890)
Junior Member Username: Mlambert890 Post Number: 68 Registered: 4-2002 |
The problem is that our liberal college kids have typically only had to deal with problems as big as which kind of hash to smoke and how to hustle mom and dad out of another grand so they can buy more vintage clothing and beer. They're not exactly in tune with what it's like to live under the rule of a man who feeds people into a meat grinder for the hell of it. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that their favorite mantra is "Bush is the REAL genocidal criminal!". | ||
| Taek-Ho Kwon (Stickanddice)
Junior Member Username: Stickanddice Post Number: 200 Registered: 11-2002 |
I'm so glad that this is up on the board. A lot of my college friends are from the middle east. One of my groomsmen is Kuwaiti and some of the friends we hang out with are from Iraq. I think most of the American public would be surprised to hear their views in general. From my experience talking to Iraqi folks, I think they are more pro war than Americans are. | ||
| William Huber (Solipsist)
Member Username: Solipsist Post Number: 725 Registered: 9-2001 |
Do I care? nah... | ||
| Brian C Thenhaus (1day)
New member Username: 1day Post Number: 18 Registered: 3-2003 |
War is never the most desirable course, but after more than a decade of failed diplomacy, what do these people want?! You simply cannot reason w/ those that are not reasonable. I hope people can put their political views aside and get behind our troops now that the bombs are flying. They are fighting the good fight and deserve our support! | ||
| John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Member Username: Jjstecher Post Number: 386 Registered: 1-2002 |
Damn right Jim, my fathers old Ranger unit deployed today so may god be with them. I am predicting a month at most before Saddam and his crew either goes into exile or is captured. I talked with a couple of Iraqi people at work today here at IBM and they have the same feelings as the guy on the phone. Its funny how the people that lived there want this so much but yet some people who have never left this country are against it so much. Seems strange sometime. | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 845 Registered: 7-2002 |
It does seem that any peace preachers have no answer other than more talk. The war has begun so lets get it over and done with. | ||
| John J Stecher (Jjstecher)
Member Username: Jjstecher Post Number: 385 Registered: 1-2002 |
http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~boe/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3 As you know I support my troops fully and always have. This is a funny tidbit I ran across this morning from a radio show in Seattle where a protester was talking about how the worlds problems can be solved with love and what not, then a Iraqi who immigrated to the US calls in and tells her a first hand view of what goes on in the world. Just wanted to share with my friends. | ||
| Anonymous |
poker casino poker 337 |