Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#304872 03/17/2003 7:55 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 338
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Offline
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 338

You are:
against war
For war




Sponsored Links
Dawg_dup1 #304873 03/17/2003 9:34 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,369
I type Like navaho
I type Like navaho
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,369
Tough to say. I'm against war. But I think we are doing what we need to do to insure our safety in the future. So I support what the military is doing.

Daine #304874 03/17/2003 10:21 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 68
Power User
Power User
Offline
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 68
against, bush said something like "taking out sadaum will end terroristm"

Which no it wont. Terrorism isn't a country, it can be anyone, anywhere. Killing other people, pissing off there familys and whatnot will only make things worse.

=\


"We're sorta like the 7-11. We're not always doin' business, but we're always open"
Daine #304875 03/18/2003 12:10 PM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
User
User
Offline
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
looking for freedom

George Bush senior - 6 January 1991 at tv:
"we used two hundred times military force in our history, and I believe, it gave five declarations of war".

George Bush junior - 7 October 2001 at tv:
"We are a peaceful nation".


1. 1775-1783 revolution war against Great Britain
2. 1775-1776 Canada
3. 1798-1800 France (without declaration of war)
4. 1801-1805 Tripoli
5. 1806 Mexico (Spanish area)
6. 1806-1810 gulf of Mexico
7. 1810 west Florida (Spanish area)
8. 1812 occupation of the island Melia (Spanish area)
9. 1812-1815 Great Britain (declaration of war takes place)
10. 1812-1815 Canada
11. 1813 west Florida (Spanish area)
12. 1813-1814 Marquesas islands
13. 1814 Spanish Florida
14. 1814-1825 Kariben
15. 1815 Algiers
16. 1815 Tripoli
17. 1816 Spanish Florida
18. 1817 island Amelia (Spanish area)
19. 1818 Oregon
20. 1820-1823 Africa (fight of the slave trade)
21. 1822 Cuba
22. 1823 Cuba
23. 1824 Cuba
24. 1824 Puerto Rico (Spanish area)
25. 1825 Cuba
26. 1827 Greece
27. 1831-1832 Falkland Islands
28. 1832 Sumatra
29. 1833 Argentina
30. 1835-1936 Peru
31. 1836 Mexico
32. 1838-1839 Sumatra
33. 1840 Fiji islands
34. 1841 Samoa
35. 1841 Drummond islands
36. 1842 Mexico
37. 1843 Africa
38. 1844 Mexico
39. 1846-1848 Mexico
40. 1849 Smyrna
41. 1851 Turkey
42. 1851 Johanna island (eastern of Africa)
43. 1852-1853 Argentina
44. 1853 Nicaragua
45. 1853-1854 Riukio and Bonin islands (Japan)
46. 1854 China
47. 1854 Nicaragua
48. 1855 China
49. 1855 Fiji islands
50. 1855 Uruguay
51. 1856 Panama
52. 1856 China
53. 1857 Nicaragua
54. 1858 Uruguay
55. 1858 Fiji islands
56. 1858-1859 Turkey
57. 1859 Paraguay
58. 1859 Mexico
59. 1859 China
60. 1860 Angola
61. 1860 Colombia, gulf of Panama
62. 1863 Japan
63. 1864 Japan
64. 1864 Japan
65. 1865 Panama
66. 1866 Mexico
67. 1866 China
68. 1867 island Formosa
69. 1868 Japan
70. 1868 Uruguay
71. 1868 Colombia
72. 1870 Mexico
73. 1870 Hawaii islands
74. 1871 Korea
75. 1973 Colombia
76. 1873 Mexico
77. 1874 Hawaii islands
78. 1876 Mexico
79. 1882 Egypt
80. 1885 Panama
81. 1888 Korea
82. 1889-1889 Samoa
83. 1888 Haiti
84. 1889 Hawaii islands
85. 1890 Argentina
86. 1891 Haiti
87. 1891 Beringsea
88. 1891 Chile
89. 1893 Hawaii
90. 1894 Brazil
91. 1894 Nicaragua
92. 1894-1896 Korea
93. 1894-1895 China
94. 1894-1895 China
95. 1895 Colombia
96. 1896 Nicaragua
97. 1898-1899 China
98. 1898 Nicaragua
99. 1898 American-Spanish war
100. 1899 Samoa
101. the 1899-1901 Philippines
102. 1900 China
103. 1901 Colombia
104. 1902 Colombia
105. 1902 Colombia
106. 1903 Honduras
107. 1903 Dominican republic
108. 1903 Syria
109. 1903-1914 Panama
110. 1904 Dominican republic
111. 1904-1905 Korea
112. 1904 Tanger, Morocco
113. 1904 Panama
114. 1904-1905 Korea
115. 1906-1909 Cuba
116. 1907 Honduras
117. 1910 Nicaragua
118. 1911 Honduras
119. 1911 China
120. 1912 Honduras
121. 1912 Panama
122. 1912 Cuba
123. 1912 China
124. 1912 Turkey
125. 1912-1925 Nicaragua
126. 1912-1941 China
127. 1913 Mexico
128. 1914 Haiti
129. 1914 Dominican republic
130. 1914-1917 Mexico
131. 1915-1934 Haiti
132. 1917-1918 the First World War
133. 1917-1922 Cuba
134. 1918-1919 Mexico
135. 1918-1920 Panama
136. 1918-1920 Soviet Russia
137. 1919 Honduras
138. 1920-1922 Russia (Siberia)
139. 1920 China
140. 1920 Guatemala
141. 1921 Panama Costa Rica
142. 1922 Turkey
143. 1924 Honduras
144. 1924 China
145. 1925 China
146. 1925 Honduras
147. 1925 Panama
148. 1926-1933 Nicaragua
149. 1926 China
150. 1927 China
151. 1933 Cuba
152. 1940 Newfoundland, Bermuda, St. Lucia, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Antigua, Trinidad, British Guayana
153. 1941 Greenland [ Danish area ]
154. the 1941 Netherlands (Netherlands Guayana)
155. 1941 Iceland
156. 1941 Germany [ attacks on German ships ]
157. 1941 US entrance into the Second World War
158. 1941-1945 Germany, Italy, Japan
159. 1942 Labrador
160. 1945-1960 China (CIA)
161. 1946-1947 Italy (CIA)
162. 1947-1955 Greece (CIA)
163. the 1945-1955 Philippines (CIA)
164. 1950-1953 Korea war
165. 1949-1953 Albania (CIA)
166. 1955 Germany (CIA)
167. 1953 Iran (CIA)
168. 1953-1954 Guatemale (CIA)
169. 1955 Costa Rica (CIA)
170. 1956-1957 Syria (CIA)
171. 1957-1958 the middle east
172. 1957-1958 Indonesia (CIA)
173. 1955-1965 Western Europe (CIA)
174. 1945-1965 Sowjetunion (CIA)
175. 1955-1975 Italy (CIA)
176. 1945-1975 war in Vietnam (CIA)
177. 1955-1973 Cambodia (CIA)
178. 1957-1973 Laos (CIA)
179. 1959-1963 Haiti
180. 1960 Guatemala
181. 1960-1963 Equador (CIA)
182. 1960-1964 Congo (CIA)
183. 1961-1961 Brazil (CIA)
184. 1960-1965 Peru (CIA)
185. 1960-1966 Republic of Dominican (CIA)
186. 1950-1980 Cuba (CIA)
187. 1865 Indonesia (CIA)
188. 1966 Ghana (CIA)
189. 1964-1970 Uruguay (CIA)
190. 1964-1973 Chile (CIA)
191. 1964-1974 Greece (CIA)
192. 1964-1875 Bolivien (CIA)
193. 1962-1985 Guatemala (CIA)
194. 1970-1971 Costa Rica (CIA)
195. 1972-1975 Irak (CIA)
196. 1973-1975 Australien (CIA)
197. 1975 Indonesien [CIA]
198. 1975-1985 Angola (CIA)
199. 1975-1978 Zaire (CIA)
200. 1976-1980 Jamaika (Economic war)
201. 1979-1981 Seychellen
202. 1979-1984 Grenada
203. 1983 Marocco (CIA)
204. 1982-1984 Surinam (CIA)
205. 1981-1989 Lybien
206. 1981-1990 Nicaragua [Causing the civil war ]
207. 1969-1991 Panama (CIA)
208. 1990 Bulgaria [CIA]
209. 1990-1991 Irak
210. 1979-1992 Afghanistan (CIA)
211. 1980-1994 El Salvador [CIA]
212. 1986-1994 Haiti (CIA)
213. 1992-1994 Somalia
214. 2001-Afghanistan
215. 2003-?????????

A PEACEFULL NATION ????

Ohton #304876 03/18/2003 12:33 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 338
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Offline
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 338

Sponsored Links
Ohton #304877 03/18/2003 5:38 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,286
Veteran
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,286
[]patt said:
1. 1775-1783 revolution war against Great Britain
2. 1775-1776 Canada
3. 1798-1800 France (without declaration of war)
4. 1801-1805 Tripoli
5. 1806 Mexico (Spanish area)
6. 1806-1810 gulf of Mexico
7. 1810 west Florida (Spanish area)
8. 1812 occupation of the island Melia (Spanish area)
9. 1812-1815 Great Britain (declaration of war takes place)
[/]

The American's know when they are beaten by the British


Fans Focus - Focusing on Fans of Sport

(Okay - mainly football (the British variety wink at the moment - but expanding all the time....)
Dawg_dup1 #304878 03/19/2003 2:58 AM
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
Junior Member
Junior Member
Offline
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
In war, everyone loses. The side that loses the least is declared the winner...

No matter how it goes down innocent people, people who don't care about politics or agree with the decisions of their government, are going to die. Should someone be punished just because they happen to have been born in a country like Iraq? I think not...

jacksonm99 #304879 03/20/2003 12:47 AM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,079
Likes: 3
I type Like navaho
I type Like navaho
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,079
Likes: 3
These people you are talking about really have suffered enough, that's the whole reasoningf behind the war. When it's over, you'll hear from the people of Iraq who've been mutilated, beaten, and have had family members gassed, and otherwise murdered at the hands of sadamm and his sons. Here's a recent story that has come out about Iraq and Saddam's henious crimes:
[]
THE ENEMY: Please read Ann Clwyd's devastating piece in the Times of London today. Here's how it starts:

"There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food ... on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders."

What Clwyd says - clearly, unforgettably, indelibly - is something that some people think is unsophisticated or crude or manipulative. What she says is that the Saddam regime is evil. I'm aware of the argument that there are many evil regimes in the world and we aren't invading to destroy all of them. But there comes a point at which such arguments say less about the world and more about the people making them. Saddam's regime is certainly one of the vilest on earth. Its malevolence and brutality is documented beyond dispute. In a world in which morality matters, the leading theologians and moralists and politicians would not be bending over backwards to find arguments to leave this regime alone, to lend credence to its lies, and to appease its poisons. They would be casting about for reasons to end it. I think that is what has given Blair his strength these past few months. He knows he's right. So does Clwyd:

"I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight."
[/]
(thanks Andrew Sullivan)

Freedom isn't free, there's always a price to be paid.


- Allen wavey
- What Drives You?
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
Junior Member
Junior Member
Offline
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
War isn't something to be taken lightly. There have to be some very strong reasons for engaging another country in conflict. Yes, there are stories of atrocities and I hope that they are true because they are being used to fule support for this war...

Don't believe everything you see and read Allen -it's very easy to manipulate a population into supporting bad decisions. Now I'm not comparing the States to Nazy Germany, but I'm sure there were people in Nazy Germany who felt a sense of patriatizm and nationalizm and thought their government could do no wrong.

Do you forget that the US practicly gave Sadam a "green light" for invading Kuwaitt back in the early 90s? We didn't take him out the first time, so what's the motivation for taking him out how? The US sat back and watched genoside in Bosnia for years before finally stepping in to do something about it, even though it was Europe's problem. Europe sat back and did nothing because they knew the US eventually would. Now the UN can sit back and do nothing cause the US will step in and do their dirty work for them. But why did it take so long for the US to act in Bosnia? Was it because there was nothing to gain from it finantialy?

Some top Saudi citizens (who have ties to or are in the Saudi government) donated money to front companies who supported terrorists. Money that may have been used to finance September 11th. And yet we are not attacking Saudi Arabia. Why? Things that make you go hmmm...

My point is: Don't get caught up in the hype. Things are not always as they seem. And there is going to be a lot of hype in the current conflict because the US is trying to drum up support for a very unpopular war...

jacksonm99 #304881 03/20/2003 10:50 PM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,079
Likes: 3
I type Like navaho
I type Like navaho
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,079
Likes: 3
[]Dalantech said:
Things are not always as they seem. And there is going to be a lot of hype in the current conflict because the US is trying to drum up support for a very unpopular war... [/]

What part do you see as 'hype'? The fact that he gasses whole villages in his own country? Or fact that he has had his own relatives killed who he didn't trust? Or facts that he has lied for 12 years about the treaties and 17 UN resolutions he has thumbed his nose at?

What makes a war 'popular'? Who in their right mind is 'pro-war'? The people of the US overwhelmingly support the troops and the decision to go into Iraq (the polls were up to >70% for it as of Tuesday).

We aren't for war, tho it is a necessary evil at times. I noticed you left out the Italians and Mussolini in the 30's and 40's - he wasn't much if any better than Hitler. The only thing neccessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

While you are answering my questions, please tell us how the US 'gave Saddam the green light for invading Kuwait in the early 90's'... the UN upheld something being done in Bosnia during that time as well.


- Allen wavey
- What Drives You?
Sponsored Links
Dawg_dup1 #304882 03/20/2003 11:32 PM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
User
User
Offline
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 26

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 68
Power User
Power User
Offline
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 68
I'm going to quote what one of a poster said on another forum []I don't know what democratic country everyone thinks they're living in, but I live in a capitalist country. Money dominates all government decisions. As a small background on this, we do not have national healthcare, even though it would greatly help the people and lower everyone's cost on healthcare a month. We do this because America doesn't help the people UNLESS it can make them money. Homelessness is another issue. The programs set up to assist are put together sloppily and need to be centralized in an agency. Since the homeless won't contribute enough however, it will not be taken care of.

Now let's enter the Iraq situation. Saddam Hussein has not been any more of a danger to us than he has been for the last 15-20 years. A few years ago, weapons inspectors during the Clinton times reported that Iraq had dismantled so many weapons, it was unprecendented in history. In addition, Iraq has been destroying weapons ever since then. They are of little danger to us. That argument is out the window.

The treaty is another story. While I believe we could have given more time to the inspectors, as progress was being made, I do see the point in this. It's been too many years since the treaty took effect, and something needs to be done about it.

Thirdly, the freeing of Iraqi people. While Bush's argument of Iraq gassing it's own people at Hablaja(sp?) has been proven false, Hussein is still an evil son of a bitch. If this war will bring about peace in Iraq, then at least something good will come out of it. I don't believe we're here for that however, because if we were, we wouldn't be waiving the Massive Ordnance Air Blast around in a threatening way. There's no way we'll waste them on small bases, they were made to hit cities, as they have the explosion of a nuclear blast, minus the radioactive fallout.

The reason I first mentioned capitalism is because I believe we're in Iraq for three main reasons, all money producing. The first two are pretty well known.

1) Military funding-self explanitory

2) Oil-well known, don't be a fool. Everyone knows we have this agenda.

3)water-very unknown but legitimate cause for war in Iraq

I have to get to sleep, but I'm going to follow this up tomorrow with details on all three reasons for going into this war capitalistically. I'll also discuss our "freedoms" that will change in the new Patriot Act 2, that is waiting for the next terrorist attack to be passed. Someone already presented pieces of the first Patriot Act in this post, stating how the fourth amendment right has been done away with. Just remember people, open up your third eye. Everything isn't always as it seems on the surface.
[/]


"We're sorta like the 7-11. We're not always doin' business, but we're always open"
AgentDrek #304884 03/21/2003 2:24 AM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,079
Likes: 3
I type Like navaho
I type Like navaho
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,079
Likes: 3


How does nationalizing healthcare make it cheaper? Does money then appear magically out of thin air to pay for it?

Anyways, back on topic

Please ask the guy you quote to back up his 'facts' with something a little more concrete than hearsay - it is well-known that Saddam gassed villages of Kurds in northern Iraq.

Here's something by Andrew Sullivan that might explain a bit better:
A Just War - The morality of ousting Saddam

[]
But can the war be legitimate without the sanction of the U.N.? Of course it can be. Traditional just war theory leaves the responsibility for grave decisions like these to the relevant authorities, i.e. the parties to the dispute and the countries planning on taking action. We do not live under a world government. We live under a system in which nation states wield authority, in cooperation with one another. A coalition of the willing - a majority of the states in Europe, the U.S., Britain and other countries - easily qualifies as a legitimate source of authority for launching war.

Is there a credible alternative? Well, there is one obvious alternative to war: continuation of economic sanctions on Iraq. But these sanctions have long been abused by Saddam to allow him to finance his weapons programs, while leaving thousands of Iraqis, including children, to starve or die for lack of good medical care. Is it moral to allow this intense suffering to continue indefinitely while we congratulate ourselves for giving "peace" a chance? We have long been told that these sanctions have resulted in the deaths of countless thousands of innocents, including children. Is it more moral to maintain that horror rather than to try and win a quick war to depose Saddam, free the Iraqi people from tyranny and end the sanctions?

War is an awful thing. But it isn't the most awful thing. No one disputes the evil of Saddam's brutal police state. No one doubts he would get and use weapons of mass destruction if he could. No one can guarantee he would not help Islamist terrorists get exactly those weapons to use against the West or his own regional enemies. No one disputes that the Iraqi people would be better off under almost any other regime than the current one - or that vast numbers of them, including almost every Iraqi exile, endorses a war to remove the tyrant. If we can do so with a minimun of civilian casualties, if we do all we can to encourage democracy in the aftermath, then this war is not only vital for our national security. It is a moral imperative. And those who oppose it without offering any credible moral alternative are not merely wrong and misguided. They are helping to perpetuate a deep and intolerable injustice.
[/]


- Allen wavey
- What Drives You?
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
Code Monkey
Code Monkey
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
you are ignorant of the conditions and should educate yourself about iraq and it's leadership, as well as it's past, and the governments treatment of it's people.

You also might want to consider the sanctions put against Iraq, as well as the time allotted to comply with them.

Innocent people have and will die, IT WILL BE FAAAAAAR LESS THAN THE NUMBER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE THE HAVE BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO DIE UNDER IRAQI LEADERSHIP IF THIS WAR DID NOT TAKE PLACE.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,369
I type Like navaho
I type Like navaho
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,369
Didn't he torture his Olympic teams when they didn't win?

Gee.... I thought they loved him... after all, he won a Unanimous Election. ha ha Like not one person in the country would mistakingly choose the wrong option like here in the states? LOL

The best footage today, was the american soldier tearing down the Picture of Sadam, then the Iraqi citizen hitting the picture of Sadam on the nose with his shoe. Yeah, they love him.

After they've given up, they are happy to see the american soldiers, hugging and greeting them. Shaking their hands.

Hopefully, given the success so far, it'll be over very soon... quickly and without much loss of life.

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
Junior Member
Junior Member
Offline
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
[]AllenAyres said:

What part do you see as 'hype'? The fact that he gasses whole villages in his own country? Or fact that he has had his own relatives killed who he didn't trust? Or facts that he has lied for 12 years about the treaties and 17 UN resolutions he has thumbed his nose at?
[/]

During the Iraq / Iran war Sadam was a friend of the US. His military wa trained by Americans! The US has consistently created the very same bad guys that they have had to fight. I was actually glad when Turkey voted to turn down all the money that the US was throwing at them to allow the US to use their bases: After giving the Turks +26 Billion dollars they could turn into the next problem in the region...

[]AllenAyres said:

What makes a war 'popular'? Who in their right mind is 'pro-war'? The people of the US overwhelmingly support the troops and the decision to go into Iraq (the polls were up to >70% for it as of Tuesday).

We aren't for war, tho it is a necessary evil at times. I noticed you left out the Italians and Mussolini in the 30's and 40's - he wasn't much if any better than Hitler. The only thing neccessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
[/]

First: I'm an American. So your using Mussolini as a way to assassinate my character and weaken my arguments is limp at best Oh, the US did nothing in Bosnia for years, and Maloshavich (sp?) almost succeeded in his genocide...

[]AllenAyres said:
While you are answering my questions, please tell us how the US 'gave Saddam the green light for invading Kuwait in the early 90's'... the UN upheld something being done in Bosnia during that time as well. [/]

Because he took his plans for invading Kuwaitt to the Sr. Bush's administration and they did not tell him no. You really need to watch more than CNN or Fox News. Kuwait was slant drilling into the Iraqi side of an oil field that is on the border between the two countries. After the Kuwaitis pumped out oil that belonged to Iraq they sold that oil on the world markets below the price that was set by OPEC. Sadam confronted them about it and Kuwait ignored him.

Now, I'm not trying to defend Sadam Hussein: I think he needed to get overthrown 12 years ago. But the US must stop creating problems in the world by supporting countries only when it's beneficial, and then abandoning them when there is no longer any profit to be had! We trained Sadam's military. It's common knowledge that the CIA sent advisors to Iraq during their war with Iran. How much of what happened to the Kurds is our fault Allen? That's what I mean when I say that things are not always as they seem...

jacksonm99 #304888 03/22/2003 1:59 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 68
Power User
Power User
Offline
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 68
It’s been said that, America educates 80% of the world’s terrorist


"We're sorta like the 7-11. We're not always doin' business, but we're always open"
AgentDrek #304889 03/22/2003 2:14 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,369
I type Like navaho
I type Like navaho
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,369
Someone posted this on my board... and it made me laugh.

Maybe it will lighten the mood.

[]http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_makelove.jpg[/]

Daine #304890 03/22/2003 4:15 PM
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
Junior Member
Junior Member
Offline
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
ROFLMAO!

BTW: I think Sadam should have been over thrown 12 years ago. I just like to argue sometimes

jacksonm99 #304891 03/24/2003 2:49 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 64
Junior Member
Junior Member
Offline
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 64
rolf - great pic Josh.

By all reports, Saddam is getting is but kicked.

jacksonm99 #304892 03/24/2003 6:20 PM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,079
Likes: 3
I type Like navaho
I type Like navaho
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,079
Likes: 3
[]Dalantech said:
[]AllenAyres said:

What part do you see as 'hype'? The fact that he gasses whole villages in his own country? Or fact that he has had his own relatives killed who he didn't trust? Or facts that he has lied for 12 years about the treaties and 17 UN resolutions he has thumbed his nose at?
[/]

During the Iraq / Iran war Sadam was a friend of the US. His military wa trained by Americans! The US has consistently created the very same bad guys that they have had to fight. I was actually glad when Turkey voted to turn down all the money that the US was throwing at them to allow the US to use their bases: After giving the Turks +26 Billion dollars they could turn into the next problem in the region...

[/]

Again you avoid my questions and answer obtusely. What part was hype?
[]Dalantech said:
[]AllenAyres said:

What makes a war 'popular'? Who in their right mind is 'pro-war'? The people of the US overwhelmingly support the troops and the decision to go into Iraq (the polls were up to >70% for it as of Tuesday).

We aren't for war, tho it is a necessary evil at times. I noticed you left out the Italians and Mussolini in the 30's and 40's - he wasn't much if any better than Hitler. The only thing neccessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
[/]

First: I'm an American. So your using Mussolini as a way to assassinate my character and weaken my arguments is limp at best Oh, the US did nothing in Bosnia for years, and Maloshavich (sp?) almost succeeded in his genocide...
[/]

The US did nothing in Bosnia at the request of the UN, if it weren't for the impeachment of Clinton, we would have never done anything in Kosovo either. Things that should have been done kept getting punted, hoping that there was enough field to get out of his 8 years without another Vietnam war. There's Rwanda in '94, Saddam's continued development of WMD throughout the 90's, Korea, Iran, etc etc etc. Instead the administration went through the UN for more resolutions which the countries immediately ignored.

[]Dalantech said:
[]AllenAyres said:
While you are answering my questions, please tell us how the US 'gave Saddam the green light for invading Kuwait in the early 90's'... the UN upheld something being done in Bosnia during that time as well. [/]

Because he took his plans for invading Kuwaitt to the Sr. Bush's administration and they did not tell him no. You really need to watch more than CNN or Fox News. Kuwait was slant drilling into the Iraqi side of an oil field that is on the border between the two countries. After the Kuwaitis pumped out oil that belonged to Iraq they sold that oil on the world markets below the price that was set by OPEC. Sadam confronted them about it and Kuwait ignored him.

Now, I'm not trying to defend Sadam Hussein: I think he needed to get overthrown 12 years ago. But the US must stop creating problems in the world by supporting countries only when it's beneficial, and then abandoning them when there is no longer any profit to be had! We trained Sadam's military. It's common knowledge that the CIA sent advisors to Iraq during their war with Iran. How much of what happened to the Kurds is our fault Allen? That's what I mean when I say that things are not always as they seem... [/]

First, I don't have cable TV, so I do not watch CNN or Fox.

Second, please point to any verification that Iraq brought their invasion plans to Bush Sr. and the greenlight given. Don't care where, just somewhere. Kuwait had been forced by Iraq to forgive the huge debt owed to Kuwait for their financial backing during the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq then used the claim that Kuwait was drilling an oilfield that straddled their border (while not sharing the profits) as an excuse to invade and annex Kuwait. The Arab states tried to mediate and Iraq invaded anyway. Kuwait didn't want to appear to be a puppet of the West, so they didn't ask for help until the invasion and annexation was already done (the invasion and annexation only took ~8 hours).

Third, the Iran/Iraq war has little to do with the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq in '89, other than Saddam was involved in both. Iran had stopped supporting the Kurds in 1975. Saddam gassed the Kurds because they were a seperatist group who wanted independence and this was Saddam's way of quelling that (yes, a simplistic description, but the salient points, nonetheless).

How would this have been handled differently if it were up to you? Would you have had the US more involved throughout the 70's, 80's, and 90's (definitely not something the Arab states would have tolerated), or would you have had the US ignore the pleas for help when the smaller countries were swallowed up by the larger ones?


- Allen wavey
- What Drives You?
SurfMinister #304893 03/24/2003 10:51 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
Code Monkey
Code Monkey
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
there's a great documentary, I saw it on oeta which is an oklahoma network but anyway it was called "frontlines" I think. It showed footage of iraqi helicopters chasing the kurds north and shooting at them as thousands of them ran. They killed women and children. It also showed Iraqi soldiers kicking the ever living $#!+ out of those who tried to rise up against them post desert storm.

Check this article out: blood brothers

These people want to be liberated and relieved of this tyranic dictator.

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
Junior Member
Junior Member
Offline
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
The Digital Collegian

From Mike Warren:
  • ``Saddam reacted predictably to Bush's encouragement, publicly threatened to use force against Kuwait and moved his troops to the border. To be certain he had U.S. backing for the invasion, he then summoned U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to his office and asked her what Washington's position was on his dispute with Kuwait. Glaspie, acting on Bush's cable of the previous day, gave Saddam the barely disguised go-ahead by saying that "the President had instructed her to broaden and deepen our relations with Iraq" and to deliver America's warm sympathy with his problems. She then stated, "We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait....[Secretary of State] James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."44 Senior Pentagon officials had feared Bush's cabled instructions would send a signal that it was all right with the U.S. if Iraq invaded Kuwait.45 "This stinks," one said about the cable. But Bush had prevented a Pentagon effort to draft a sterner message that might have shown American opposition to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.''
As for your other questions: You're asking me to define "hype", and what is hype to some is truth to others...

P.S. The US gave Saddam 3 billion (yes, that's with a b) dollars in "agricultural loans" which he used to buy military equipment.

I'll say it again: The US government needs to stop creating the very monsters that it has to fight...

jacksonm99 #304895 03/26/2003 10:10 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 36
jma Offline
User
User
Offline
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 36
Interesting to read the replies back and forth, hope you don't mind me making a comment or two. I like what both DaLanTech and Allen are saying -- you guys offer healthy discussion on a difficult topic. I appreciate that you both are grounded in your views and can have this dialogue.

Like both of you, I can't stand Saddaam and for the sake of his people, want him gone. But I do agree with DaLanTech that this is not the US's war. We are there for one reason, to re-draw the region boundaries and to get a reward (oil) for doing so.

That is where the hype you seek is Allen. When you hear our leadership saying "we want to liberate the Iraqi people" you should cringe. Pure bullshit. Don't get me wrong, when this war is done and Saddam gone, the end result will be the liberation of the Iraqi people -- but that is not the main objective of our president, it's simply a by-product of the effort.

My God, the blue print for this war was written years ago by Reagan cronies who now happen to be part of Bush's cabinet (Wolfowitz, Perle, et el). Nothing here is new. The problem is that you can't liberate a people who don't want to be liberated. Like any other liberating change, it must start from within. This war might be over within the coming weeks, but the regime has been in power for more than one generation, we won't be getting out any time soon. What will that breed for America? It's just more bad foreign policy.

More hype? Who supplied the chemical weapons to Iraq? The US -- that's why we know Saddam has them. We supplied the weapons when he was using them to kill Iranians. So what makes what we did any less criminal than what Saddam did to his own people? We gave them the weapons and trained them in its use. We did the same with Bin Ladan. We did the same with Noriega. We did the same all over South America. And technically, we did the same with McVeigh. All of these people, along with many others we don't know of, were trained by the US and when they turned on us, we cry "monsters!" Yes they were all monsters.

Now try and look at what I've just stated from an outsiders point of view and you'll get a better pictures of why so much of the world has the opinion they do of the US. Why aren't we fighting the tyranny in half a dozen African countries? There are monsters there that are killing their own. Why did it take so long to get involved in the Balkans? Why aren't we stopping the oppression and atrocities taking place in Palestine? And what of the threat in North Korea? NK is the real threat to the US -- they have nukes that CAN reach our shores.

Sorry for the dissertation but this sort of discussion is invigorating. May God bless our troops and bring them home safely.
Respectfully,
Joe.

KimberlyQ #304896 03/26/2003 10:45 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
Code Monkey
Code Monkey
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
I disagree that this war is about oil. It may be that we want to be able to have access to this oil, but this is not nearly the main reason. I agree that "liberating" the Iraqi people is MOSTLY bullshit (makes for good reason though). A main part of this war is as stated, and that is to rid us of the threat of SADDAM HUSSEIN and his abilities to use weapons of mass destruction, which is becoming more and more evident with the findings of late.

This man has killed tens of thousands of his own people, he tortures and is a brutal tyrant. It is not safe for anyone in this world to allow a leader like this to exist, and to exist in a region as unstable as the middle east. It is a danger that must be removed.

Nobody wants war. War is EVIL, but sometimes, and in this case, is necessary. People are going to be mad, and upset, and there is going to be alot of tension in the world until this is over.

If we (the U.S. and U.K.) demonstrate that we had the best interest of Iraq and the arab world in mind then I think a different light may be shed on US and a better opinion of "us" will come about.

If not, what did we lose? The arab world already hates us. If we rid ourselves and everyone else of an evil, dangerous dictator, create a democratic society in the middle east, and increase our "access" to a large supply of oil, AND they still hate us, I think we did okay.

wilstephens #304897 03/26/2003 11:25 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,759
Addict
Addict
Offline
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,759
This war is not about oil. Less than half of all of the US oil imports is from the mid-east. Nearly 2/3 of it is from canada and south america. Saudi Arabia is the single largest country that exports oil to the US, but still nearly all of our oil comes from north and south america, with some help from the arab countries.


KimberlyQ #304898 03/26/2003 11:48 PM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,079
Likes: 3
I type Like navaho
I type Like navaho
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,079
Likes: 3
Dalantech's 'verification' is just speculation on the reasoning why the US stayed out of the Iraq/Kuwait conflict until asked. "Special-investigative-reporting-of-leaked-documents-no-one-else-has-ever-seen" is conspiracy theory at best. If we gave money for agricultural purposes and they turned around and bought military equipment, how is that our fault? The loans between kuwait and iraq was money owed to kuwait, not the other way around, aannndd... the 'disputed lands' was kuwait itself - iraq still thought it had a claim to them because it was part of them during the ottoman empire.

Had the US done anything about Iraq's stance before they actually invaded kuwait would have brought the Arab states to Iraq's aid, a case of damed if you do, damned if you don't. Once iraq invaded, then it was a clear case for going in and righting the wrong.

Spending $100,000,000,000+ (per year mind you) to get favorable oil pricing has to be the weakest argument you guys could toss up, please think of something original. When Gulf nations nationalized American oil companies operating in their territory over the last half century, the U.S. did nothing. Assuming that after the U.S. liberates Iraq it is going to turn around and steal all the oil is pure conspiracy theory, with no basis in fact or history whatsoever.

Another weak one: The United States armed Saddam. This one grew over time, but when Iraq was on it's weapons spending spree from 1972 (when its oil revenue quadrupled) to 1990, the purchases were quite public and listed over $40 billion worth of arms sales. Russia was the largest supplier, with $25 billion. A similar myth, that the U.S. provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons is equally off base. Iraq requested Anthrax samples from the US government, as do nations the world over, for the purpose of developing animal and human vaccines for local versions of Anthrax. Nerve gas doesn't require technical help, it's a variant of common insecticides. European nations (including Germany and France) sold Iraq the equipment to make poison gas, and Russia sold them the anthrax.

And lastly: The U.S. created Saddam. Arab nationalism created Saddam. He neither asked, needed nor got any help from the United States as he rose to power in the Baath party. When he took over in 1979, he promptly went to war with Iran a year later. Even before that, public opinion, and public policy, regarding Saddam (the bloody minded head of the secret police) was negative. You can go read it in the contemporary papers. Despite most Americans feeling OK about Iran getting hammered by Iraq (because Iran had held our embassy staff hostage for over a year during Jimmy Carter's administration), there was no move to provide Iraq with weapons. When the Iraqis looked like they might fold, and Iran's then fearsome Islamic Jihad (against less observant Moslems, and mostly against America, the Great Satan) might spread, the U.S. provided Iraq with satellite photos of Iranian military positions. After that war ended in a draw in 1988, the U.S. believed Saddam's pronouncements that he had seen the light and would rein in his aggressive impulses.

For a clearer picture of 'whose war' this is, please read:
Whose War? - A Roll-Call of Architects
People tend to forget that we didn't 'finish off' Saddam the first time at the urging of the UN. Clinton fumbled around with it for the next 8 years with big words, some 450 cruise missiles in '98 (impeachment anyone?), and ~15-16 UN resolutions Saddam promptly ignored, then came 9/11, and the rest is history.

Did I miss anything?


- Allen wavey
- What Drives You?
SurfMinister #304899 03/27/2003 12:12 AM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
Code Monkey
Code Monkey
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
no Allen, I think you covered it quite well.

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
Junior Member
Junior Member
Offline
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
My how times do change...

I figured I'd post a link to a CNN article this time, although they don't go in to all the details.

I've never said this war is about oil, BTW. It's about taking out Saddam because:
  • We owe it to the planet to get rid of Saddam because we created him.
  • We knew about Bin Laden but didn't act and 911 was the result.
  • The military industrial complex needs an occasional boost now that the cold war is over.
The truly sad thing is that since the Berlin wall fell the US has been declaring war on everything. War on drugs, war on poverty, war on terrorism, etc. Why don't we stop messing around and just declare war on peace and get it over with

Oh, and declaring war on terrorism is really scary. Americans are being asked to give up some of their basic rights for the duration of the war "to better protect them". The problem is this: when does the war on terrorism end? It's not like a war on another country, after all it's pretty obvious when the war is over if you are fighting a named enemy. Attack the French and the war is over when they surrender (2 days tops ).

But how do you know when you've won the war on terrorism? How do you know when you've killed or captured all the terrorists? What politician is going to commit political suicide by declaring an end to the war? When do you get your rights as a US citizen back? How much freedom are you going to lose in the name of protection before it's all said and done? Scary times my friends, just too scary...

So, instead of getting involved in the affairs of other countries only when there is something in it for America to gain, how about we just leave them alone? You'd have to publish a new map of the world, Russia would own Afganistan, but you wouldn't have to be concerned about the Stinger missles that weren't turned back in to the CIA after the war in Afganistan was over...

Sorry Allen, I'm a realist: When I see a glass with some liquid in it I don't see the glass as half full or half empty. I know that if I hang around long enough I'll get stuck washing the glass...

jacksonm99 #304901 03/27/2003 3:56 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
Code Monkey
Code Monkey
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
UNLIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF EVERY SINGLE WAR EVER, the United States does not take over the land that it conquers. If we did so, we would own over half of the planet. Heck, after we complete a "war" in another country not only do we not only NOT take them over, but we spend BILLIONS of dollars rebuilding their countries and making them better places to live.

Heck, take the Panama Canal for instance.

(I love this debate btw, it's highly intellectually stimulating)

If it was about what you say, the planet you live on would be named AMERICA. It is not, and when we are finished in Iraq, we will leave, and they will be an independently operating nation, where the people are free of fear, and governmental moderation and restriction.

Why can't you see that this is for good? Is it impossible that this is the case?

you're not watching Iraqi or Arab state run television by any chance are you?


wilstephens #304902 03/28/2003 12:14 AM
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
Junior Member
Junior Member
Offline
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
[]shortbus said:
UNLIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF EVERY SINGLE WAR EVER, the United States does not take over the land that it conquers. If we did so, we would own over half of the planet. Heck, after we complete a "war" in another country not only do we not only NOT take them over, but we spend BILLIONS of dollars rebuilding their countries and making them better places to live.
[/]

Not entirely true. I live in Italy, a country that looks like it's stuck in the 1950s. The US spent a lot of money rebuilding Japan after WWII, and we sent a lot of aid to Europe. BTW: America exists due to a war with England, if I remember my history lessons As for not occupying other countries: That just makes sense, cause it's too expensive to stay. Can you imagine what your tax burden would be if you had to support the military it would require to hold all the countries the US has fought in!

[]shortbus said:
Heck, take the Panama Canal for instance.
[/]

Uh, we lost it cause the leese ran out...

[]shortbus said:

If it was about what you say, the planet you live on would be named AMERICA. It is not, and when we are finished in Iraq, we will leave, and they will be an independently operating nation, where the people are free of fear, and governmental moderation and restriction.

[/]

No, they are only free from the regime that was in place before we got there, but they are not free from us... The US gets involved with a lot of foreign countries. We even got a few dictators in place around the globe (so the whole "spreading democracy" argument is a total pipe dream). And after dumping millions, and sometimes billions, of dollars in economic aid into those countries they just turn on us later and then we have to go in and knock them down. The US put the Shaw or Iran in power, and when he was assasinated by his own people we backed Iraq in their border dispute / war with Iran. At what point did we liberate anyone in that mess?!

[]shortbus said:

Why can't you see that this is for good? Is it impossible that this is the case?

you're not watching Iraqi or Arab state run television by any chance are you?

[/]

Nope, no Al Jazir on the TV at my house

"Why can't you see that this is for good?" Simple: What are we going to do when the next dictator in Iraq turns on us?...

Why not stop creating the very same monsters that we have to fight later on?...

jacksonm99 #304903 03/28/2003 12:43 AM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,079
Likes: 3
I type Like navaho
I type Like navaho
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,079
Likes: 3
That's something that will have to be dealt with if it happens. We've sat on our thumbs and hoped for the best for 12 years now.

Again, we did not create Saddam, he did very well becoming the insamely cruel madman that he is on his on.

Currently the objective is democratic elections. It's entirely possible that everything will go well, I'm not one to view pessimism as pragmatism. People said the same things about Germany during/after WWII, Japan, and Russia. Most people would have never believed it could happen, but it did.

Something you guys might like that fits the occasion:

I Won't Back Down


- Allen wavey
- What Drives You?
jacksonm99 #304904 03/28/2003 2:20 AM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
Code Monkey
Code Monkey
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
okay, you aren't making any sense here...

Panama Canal, THE LEASE RAN OUT!!!!!!!!!

That's my point man! We were leasing it! WHY? Why were we leasing it from them?

I'll get to the rest later...


Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
Code Monkey
Code Monkey
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
very cool Allen...!

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
Junior Member
Junior Member
Offline
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
[]shortbus said:
That's my point man! We were leasing it! WHY? Why were we leasing it from them?
[/]

Because it's cheaper than paying for an occupational military force to keep it in US control...

jacksonm99 #304907 04/01/2003 3:47 AM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,079
Likes: 3
I type Like navaho
I type Like navaho
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,079
Likes: 3
QUOTE FOR THE DAY: [] "It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out where the strong man stumbled, or where a doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, and who comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause. The man who at best knows the triumph of high achievement and who at worst, if he fails, fails while daring greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold timid souls who never knew victory or defeat." - Teddy Roosevelt on the back-seat drivers in this war, "The Strenuous Life: Essays and Addresses."
[/]


- Allen wavey
- What Drives You?
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
Junior Member
Junior Member
Offline
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,268
Quote for the day:

[] If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
George Orwell, author or 1984 [/]

Hmmm...

jacksonm99 #304909 04/01/2003 7:24 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
Code Monkey
Code Monkey
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 610
that's fine as long as it resembles fact in some way.

Ohton #304910 04/01/2003 10:21 PM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
User
User
Offline
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 26
The four-year old Iraqi girl, blood streaming from an eye wound, screaming for her dead mother!...........thanx Mr. Bush!

[]http://www.a1port.de/irak/kind.jpg[/]

Ohton #304911 04/02/2003 12:05 AM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,759
Addict
Addict
Offline
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,759
[]patt said:
The four-year old Iraqi girl, blood streaming from an eye wound, screaming for her dead mother!...........thanx Mr. Bush!

[]http://www.a1port.de/irak/kind.jpg[/] [/]

Ok.. so you can show one bad picture.. then here is one to show the positive side of things, how the Iraqi children welcome the troops and are thankful for their help...

[]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030325/capt.1048626709.iraq_war_britain_nywd138.jpg[/]

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Donate Today!
Donate via PayPal

Donate to UBBDev today to help aid in Operational, Server and Script Maintenance, and Development costs.

Please also see our parent organization VNC Web Services if you're in the need of a new UBB.threads Install or Upgrade, Site/Server Migrations, or Security and Coding Services.
Recommended Hosts
We have personally worked with and recommend the following Web Hosts:
Stable Host
bluehost
InterServer
Visit us on Facebook
Member Spotlight
JAISP
JAISP
PA
Posts: 449
Joined: February 2008
Forum Statistics
Forums63
Topics37,573
Posts293,925
Members13,849
Most Online5,166
Sep 15th, 2019
Today's Statistics
Currently Online
Topics Created
Posts Made
Users Online
Birthdays
Top Posters
AllenAyres 21,079
JoshPet 10,369
LK 7,394
Lord Dexter 6,708
Gizmo 5,833
Greg Hard 4,625
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Likes Received
isaac 82
Gizmo 20
Brett 7
WebGuy 2
Morgan 2
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
None yet
The UBB.Developers Network (UBB.Dev/Threads.Dev) is ©2000-2024 VNC Web Services

 
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0
(Preview build 20221218)