Mudge Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 There is nothing wrong with voicing opinion, it can change things - BUT - saying "I dont know" constantly doesn't help your cause one damn bit, nor does it instill the feeling that they know what the heck is going on or what they are talking about. If they honestly feel so upright and above war and that we supposedly want in this case, oil as property, why dont they pack up and leave since we murdered for this land that they now sit on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest livewire23 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 there we go with love it or leave it again. We can't have half the population leaving everytime the vote doesn't go their way. Otherwise, a whole lot of people would've left when clinton was in power, and now the people who were left would've left with this most recent administration. This country would kinda suck if people kept up n' leavin. 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLKMGK Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 <sigh> Mike's right and he's stated things well. What many people don't seem to understand about Saddam is that he wishes to be some sort of world power in the Arab world. He fancies himself as the saviour of the Arab people and as a leader. So, how does a 2bit dictator get the attention and respect of the world? What one thing forces ALL nations to take notice? Nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons scare the living crap out of EVERY nation. Pakistan and India both built the bomb for this very same reason. Iraq had a working reactor compliments of the FRENCH until Isreal decided it was a threat and leveled it. To say that pissed him off would be an understatement. So, nuclear weapons are VERY hard to build and expensive - BIO is MUCH easier. These weapons also scare the living crap out of other nations but don't garner the same respect. However they will do a DANDY job of repelling invaders and it could very well have been what stopped us during the last war. You guys do know that Iraq had chem weapons forward deployed during the Gulf War right? The Govt. here at the time denied it - we LIED to the public about it. Only recently, after what 12 years, has this become something the Govt has admitted to. Odd that this hasn't been highlighted more. Ask any trooper who was in the field at the time if they could've withstood a real chem attack, they couldn't. They were using suits issued weeks and weeks before, worn out during the fighting, and were designed for a MUCH more limited usage period. Had chem been used, and Iraq has experimented in it's use, we would've been up the creek. IMO we would have been forced to nuke the bastard and that is something we did NOT want to be forced into. Make no mistake - huge losses of our troops by something as horrific as chem weapons would've pretty much required a nuclear response. If you have seen pics of what those chems did to the Kurds you would understand why this response would've been warrented. To this day there are birth defects still being seen and a large percentage of that population has damaged lung capacity. Make no mistake, Saddam has been working his weapons programs these years despite what he's claimed. Look at the history from the previous inspections. Iraq would deny that they had worked in a weapons area, then evidence would be found and they would hedge a little, then we would catch them red handed and they would back down further. It was a constant game of hide and seek with the Iraqis only admitting to somehting when pinned in a corner about it. Fast forward to today and let's look at the latest round of inspections. Hrm, this looks like a missle with an extendedbanned range. Hrm, this missle looks like it's bomblets could carry chem weapons. Iraq first claimed those missles didn't have the range. They claimed that the bomblets were "standard" bomblet munitions. They claimed that the bomblets had never held chem weapons. Then they claimed that it had never been tested with chem weapons. ALL of these claims were proven false by THIS round of inspectors. NOTHING has changed - it's still hide and seek in a country the size of California. Precision aluminum tubes for missles? We sampled those shipments over time and watched as Iraq refined the requirements from their supplier - this was admitted to during testimony. We have been watching them very carefully and if that loon thought he could hurt us by shipping his poison here make no mistake he would. During the previous round of inspections we found 40+ sites that were dedicated to JUST the nuke program. This was spread throughout the country in an intentional effort to hide it via dispersal. The inspectors at the time, during public interviews, stated point blank that they had no real assurance they got them all. That doesn't even begin to cover the chem and bio weapons programs. MANY of Saddam's plants are designed to be dual use. The baby food factory we hit? Dual use. Russia - selling weapons to Iraq through Syria and Jordon. France - selling them equipment to support their weapons programs. They're already manuevering to garner contracts to help with the rebuild - I laugh. Germany - who do you think engineers and builds all those bunkers? My biggest fear is that Saddam has moved the evidence out of the country on these various programs. He knew we were coming, he knew the inspectors were coming, he's a master at hide and seek. If we remove him hopefully people will speak up and we'll have our evidence. Why no one has listened to the MANY defectors who have detailed his weapons plans is a puzzle to me. Tonight they're reporting that Saddam has authorized his commanders to use chem if we approach Baghdad, is it possible the world might finally listen when he does? We don't want this guy's oil - we want his poison removed. This guy is not only loony enough to make enough bio weapons to kill every livng person on this planet - a FACT - but he's just crazy enough to try and use it. He claims he's destroyed it all and yet has no evidence to back it up and in violation of the UN he didn't have inspectors on site to watch the destruction. But hey, I'm sure we can trust him right? One thing I'll point out - there are people in this world who HATE the United States and will scream for our destruction while wearing Nike tennis shoes logged onto the Internet WE created. These people are angry about their position in this world and brainwashed by the clerics who want nothing more than to gain power themselves. This is what we're fighting against in some parts of the world and Iraq is NOT the only hotspot right now. It's a total goat rope and a real mess. I hope this war ends quickly and that the Iraqi people swallow their pride and allow us to rebuild them. They have huge oil reserves and could support their people better than the Saudis if they could just get a leadership who cared about them. Okay /me tired now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest livewire23 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Actually Iraq is about twice the size of idaho. people always say that I argue just for the sake of arguing. I wonder why. The rest I more or less agree with though. Either agree with or can't prove or disprove with any evidence that I'm privvy to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest silverbullet Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 It works the same on the other side of the fence; to sit back and settle for the quick fix of warfare without exhausting all resources available to you that would result in fewer innocent casualties than battle is akin to short-sighted self-righteousness. Quick fix??? Hello... Saddam has been given enough time to disarm as he agreed to to stay in power/in Iraq/alive, I for one agree with the president, I do not want to find out it is to late when a nuclear device is set off in a major metropolitan area! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudge Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 We sold the iron and steel that Japan used to shoot us with, during war "its business." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ProfessorRog Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 When I said "quick fix" I meant choosing the last resort without exhausting all possibilities to prevent innocent casualties. In other words, "jump the gun", going to display our "rancheros" rather than display our ability to think rationally and logically. The point where rationality is futile is when the number of innocent deaths due to inaction exceeds the number of innocent deaths due to action. However, before you mention the Kurds, to speak of the two million Kurds killed seems somewhat irrelevant at this point since their extermination was carried out in 1987-88 and any lesson that should have been taught regarding that horror should have occurred immediately. It is much like teaching a child, the world should have taken immediate action when he murdered the Kurds and punished him when the action was fresh on his memory, much like parents have to teach an unruly child, otherwise the punishment and the reason for the punishment never make a connection in the transgressors mind. This raises another interesting question, why doesn't the Bush administration continuously display the cruelty Saddam has doled out on his people to the American public and the world? It is a well-known fact that the first step in warring with another country is to alienate your subjects with the enemy, you must vilify the enemy so the masses have a reason to support attack otherwise your actions will be questioned and your strength of leadership will weaken. Any schmuck knows this so why doesnt the Bush administration flood the American/world media with the truth about Saddam? Repetition is the key to learning; if the masses are to "learn" how to take opinion of the war then you must inundate them with what you want them to think. I have thought of a few possibilities as to why but i can't seem to make heads or tails of them without involving some kind of silly broad conspiracy. Perhaps some members could give some opinions as to why the first step in warfare wasn't taken, at least in my eyes it wasn't. I'm open to any and all rational criticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest livewire23 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 I'll jump on the other side of the fence here. I think the US doesnt have footage of these heinous acts that it can share. If it does, they are classified beyond being able to show them on TV. remember, a represive regime isnt just gonna display its crimes for everyone to see. Bush has tried his best to make sure that these acts are spoken of, and i bet he also feels that saddam is high enough on the world's infamous people list that he can get away without going balls out propaganda wise. On a bit of a lighter note, we seem to be vilifying the french right now, but its no big deal because I hear they've got plans to surrender next week before things get bad. excuse the spelling errors, im tired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ProfessorRog Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Perhaps Bush is trying to use the september 11th issue and ride the terrorism trend since it boosted his approval rating through the roof, but he must know that entertainment has dulled our ability to catch such a subtle reasoning, we demand obvious and direct reasons that require little thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Before I continue. Let me point out something else as obvious as the nose's on all our faces... The discussion we are having here would NOT go on in other countries in the world. Back on track now: Livewire, some answers to your questions... 1: Most of the missiles being fired upon US and Brittish troops are on the Banned weapons list. Also, there have been tons of trace evidence found that show conclusively that Chem/ Bio weapons are still in development. Saddam has since yesterday threatened to unleash Chem/ Bio on the city of Bahgdad if the coalition advances upon the city. Thought he didn't have any? 2: Point is They lied and lied REPEATEDLY when evidence was thrown in their faces. These are not people of honor. 3: Power is ALL he is concerned with... 4: Anthrax has a tracable gene that allows us to figure out the exact strain, type, culture used, and cultivation used. There were three different strains found during the anthrax attacks inside the United States AFTER 9/11. What the American public seemed to miss, although it was reported, was that most MAJOR government facilities recieved packages laced with anthrax. The early packages found had very dirty strains of the virus, indicating that they were developed in less than ideal circumstances. However, some of the envilopes carried a very mature, very strong strain of the Virus. This stuff was likely created in Iraq, as their signature "Gene" was evident in several locations. Finally the strongest strain, of which only a handfull of labretories in the world have been able to grow, which is MUCH more leathel, was found as well. That last strain likely came from within our own borders. However, it is strongly suspected that this stuff was cooked up by muslim terrorists using an industrial facility with a VERY well engineered HVAC climate control system and an extremely sanetized area to cultivate the strain. This particular strain would have required someone skilled in engineering such a gene, and that is where I'll leave that unsolved mystery. 5: We requested siesure of Iraqie assets after financial ties were connected to Bin Laddin. Further, there is evidence of conversations between members of the 9/11 attacks and key Iraqie officials in the weeks and months leading up to 9/11. Further, Key members of Bin Laddin's organization step up conversations via land line and e-mail, well as other signals intelligence that were traced back to these key Iraqie officials. Everything I'm stating here can be found in the archives for MOST of these media agencies... As a matter of fact Bill O'reilley Just hit the high points on his show last week, or the week before quoting much of the same reporting. Problem is that the real conclusive evidence (True nails in the Coffin!) is currently not available to the public. Why not back Russia? Well Pete can attest to my frustrations over this. I don't get how we could be so wrong in that area... And lets not call them Chechens... They are terrorists. The village of Chechenyia was a small town filled with mostly elderly retiries. That uprising has everything to do with control of the military assets located at a base within that town, and nothing to do with creating a free Chechen state. We should have allowed the soviets the latitude to quickly finish it, but the arguements within the UN were that the fighting had been going on for many years (Since 1994) and they couldn't seem to gain control. Once the free press started reporting the horrors of war in the region, the bleeding hearts started pouring out over the violence unleashed by Russian troops and the UN began to scream about the atrocities. Lets forget about how the Rebels have used the citizens of that community as human shields, starved, raped and tortured the people of the community and destroyed a civilized people. As for the French, they have never supported anything we do with regards to conflict in the world. They have banned us in the past from using their air space, and they continue to throw up road blocks within the UN with regards to US interests world wide. Germany isn't letting us use their airbases. NO, those bases are ours. That is why they are called US airbases within Germany. Other areas where we aren't seen favorably: Turkey, Spain, Moracco, Pakestan, India, Serbia, Croatie, Bosnia, Most of Africa, all of the middle east. Why? By and large the muslim faith have been given misinformation that the United States continually contribute to by our actions, or their perception of our intentions by our actions. My fear is that we are breeding 3 more generations of "American hating" Muslims who will never see what we are trying to achieve. Further, we severely limit our effectivity outside our borders when we continue to operate in the vacuum of assumptions that the rest of the world views us as we view ourselves. This short-sited view of the world will continue to hurt us if we do not seek a better understanding of the people we wish to help before we go in and try to "Help" them without asking if we are truly needed... ...And don't get me started on the UN... My safety has been personally jeapordized by those idiots TWICE! This has been a VERY GOOD and healthy discussion and I appreciate it! Thanks Guys! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ProfessorRog Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 I think you are right mike about leaving our short-sighted views in looking for the reasons for terrorism. We are a very fattened people here in America and, as can obviously be seen by the indignancy of our very own rich celebrities, wealth tends to breed an air of self-righteousness, a feeling of "we know whats right for you." Coupled with the fact that a majority of the people in third world countries don't even have clean drinking water and it takes very little to see why they hate us. Simply put yourselves in their shoes, if you didn't know where your next meal was coming from and half your family had died from malnutrition and easily preventable diseases and then you heard that people in America not only eat themselves to death but have the fat sucked out of themselves so they can still keep their precious image. If that was me I'd be pissed and more than willing to support a jihad. Unfortunately, they don't see the large amount of aid that we do provide to the world, all they see are the travesties of conspicuous consumption that we commit. We should clean up our image so that we cannot be accused of hypocrisy. I am very proud to live in America and have access to such lush resources as well as the ability to let my mind think freely. We must not confuse those as the same thing, they occur independantly of each other as is plainly obvious in Mexico, so to say that democracy will bring you wealth is not quite the truth, it will bring you freedom of thought which is only useful if you are alive to enjoy it, wealth comes from discepline and education, at least in my opinion. Take everything I say with a grain of salt though, I am quite young and therefore somewhat idealistic in thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest livewire23 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 well mike, once again you're miles ahead of me in terms of what you know about the situation. I'm still not entirely convinced, but i'll have to do some more research and see what I turn up. By and large I've found americans to be grossly underinformed about what's going on in the world, so talking to you is a refreshing change. I've lived outside the US so long that I have a bit of a different view of americans than most other americans do. I think I'll leave it at that though, before people start making assumptions about me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pparaska Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Professorrog, you might think you are young, but what you just wrote shows more mature and intelligent thought than many "older" people I know. Dave240Z, that video was fodder for my "clueless protestor" cannon. But I KNOW there must be protestors that DO have a clue. I'd LOVE to hear from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest livewire23 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 But I KNOW there must be protestors that DO have a clue. I'd LOVE to hear from them. me too. I bet they might have some interesting insight that you wouldnt find elsewhere. Thing is, I think a lot of people just think its cool to be a protestor now. I know most of the people in my classes went off protesting, and after years of debating with them, I've realized they're all idiots with huge vocabularies and great repetative abilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 And the award for best sphincter....ooops, actor goes to..... Saddam's propaganda works on 'people who live in America' also. (I hesitate to call them Americans). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike kZ Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 enough said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pparaska Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 BTW, Jim Powers, that audio clip of the "little girl" in a radio interview that you posted the link to was great - heard that the other day. Another excellent example of someone whose emotions run their political views on things. Not a CLUE. Just the same old "war is bad" irrational passivism. I'm no warmonger, but Hitler, and Saddam are two examples of genocidal dictators that are only stopped by one thing - firepower. Or very extensive covert action - which would be my preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ProfessorRog Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Thanks Pete, I just think that when dealing with any type of controversial issue you should communicate clearly, concisely, and as rationally as possible leavin no room for contradiction. Emotions cloud your judgement making you focus on only a part of the issue rather than seeing it from as many different aspects as possible. Obviously I make mistakes in my communication as does everyone but rational observation is what I strive for. My personal view with the limited knowledge I have is that this war is justified due to the fact that there would be more innocent deaths if there was no action than there would be if there was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strotter Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 This is an interesting thread, but I'm starting to have a problem with it. 1. In a democracy like ours, it's not only your *right* to express your opinion, no matter how unpopular or off-the-wall, it's your *responsibility*. It's part of the price of living in a democracy. If you don't express your opinion - in the streets, on the tube, at a town meeting, or most importantly in the voting booth, you don't count. 2. Not agreeing with someone who wants to persue war is not un-American. It's free speech, the very *first* amendment to the constitution, certainly the most important, and generally the least exercised freedom and responsibility. 3. It's not un-American to speak up during times of crisis. People support the war, good. People don't support the war, that's good, too. Freedom of speech wasn't guaranteed for times when it's easy to agree, it was guaranteed for times when it's *hard* to agree. Like now. 4. "American" means you were born here, or you have become naturalized. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with your political opinions, your moral views, your religion or your principal language or the color of your skin. 5. Not trusting your government is a *virtue*, not a sin, in a democracy. The idea is that we, as the citizens, are in charge; those who hold office do so only at our whim, and temporarily at that. We must always be vigilant, and if that means getting in some politician's face now and then, so be it. 6. Demanding wrong be corrected is also a virtue in a democracy. That's how it works. The founding fathers believed that government is intrinsically flawed and prone to misguided action, and they figured it's the citizens who are best equipped to figure it out and fix it. That's exactly what Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and John Adams and John Hanckock did, and they aren't considered bad Americans. 7. American soldiers are some of our very best people, and people are the most valuable thing in a democracy; they should only be asked to put their lives on the line if it's *absolutely necessary*. Not if it's convenient, not if it's prudent, not even if it "should be done". Asking someone to die, or to kill, should be taken dreadfully and without joy. There's no fun in war, there's no glory, there's no exultation. There's only people hurt and bent up and burned, and grown men and women crying, and fear. Horrible fear, and horrible memories. That's all. Nothing good, and the only comfort you can give a family who has lost it's son or father or brother, is that it *really was* absolutely necessary, there was no other way it could have been done. *Absolutely* no other way. Dead is forever, lost is everything, and it damn well better be for a good reason. And if there were political or personal aspects to the decision, there *will* be hell to pay. 8. Iraqis are people, too. They are valuable to us *just because* they're people. They may not agree with us, they may not like us, they may even want to kill us. But they're valuable to us nevertheless. That's why America is a better country than Iraq. If any part of you take joy in their killing, you've got a major psychiatric problem. 9. The French. Well, they're different, that's for sure. OK, end of rant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.