"iraq war- the unspoken truth"

This is a discussion on "iraq war- the unspoken truth" within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Where's those darn hydrogren cell generators when you need them. Ya know how we could settle this, the US should ...

  1. #16
    ¡Amo fútbol!
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,136
    Where's those darn hydrogren cell generators when you need them.


    Ya know how we could settle this, the US should annex any country that gives us problems. When you start launching the nukes that we have, they'll listen.















    And if anyone took that seriously, loosen up cause it was obviously a joke.

  2. #17
    Registered /usr
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Newport, South Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,266
    Originally posted by golfinguy4
    Where's those darn hydrogren cell generators when you need them.
    Try the bins behind NASA space stations. They've always got some prototype or other lying around.

  3. #18
    ....
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Groningen (NL)
    Posts
    2,386
    I agree it should be a war against terrorists and therefore it should not be a war against nations. People these days talk about a war against Iraq, however, it should be a war against Saddam. I agree that Saddam should be removed and the people of Iraq should be given a chance to build a country without Saddam and his regime.

    But the western world has no right to decide for the people of Iraq what is good for them. They have to find out themselves. Just like everyone in this world, also the people in Iraq want to live in peace and have a good live. We should support them with that and not throwing bombs on their heads.

  4. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    552
    Posted by DP Munky: so i guess saying " all you people get the hell out is bad" but gasing people is ok...alright, makes sense
    You are completely missing the point.... The point is, the only reason US acted in Kosovo is because of the threat to US economy. This is proven by the many times something like this or worse has occured in Africa and other places and US chooses to turn a blind eye. If this were about altruism, US would have acted then.

    There are many equally bad dictators in power, yet Bush chooses to go after Saddam? Why is that? If WMD and malevolence were the sole criteria for going to war... we would be fighting wars until the next century.

    how are they not, they have been crossing every single line drawn in the sand by the UN, NOT just the US. how can you say, ok mr. you cant do this, or have these weapons, again, and again, and again, 17 times??? so i guess we should just pass another resolution that will get broken AGAIN.
    Again, where the hell does the US get power to say "comply, or regime change"? As I have said before, the UN itself has no authority to enforce anything on non-member nations by itself. So Iraq ignoring resolutions isnt in itself war-worthy.

    Look, I am all for curbing the proliferation of WMD. But the question is if this was all about WMD, again, why Iraq? There are many other nations that are a much further along in getting or already have WMD. The fact that Bush chooses to go after Iraq implies that there are other motives for doing so. I want to know those motives before I give any support for any wars!

    I think an anchorperson touched on it (probably by accident) as to why we go after Iraq, he said that area has high strategic interests... What interests was he referring to? Im not sure, but I would like to know.

    another thing, how can people say this is about oil, while in the state of the union address to the nation bush brings up a hybrid car?
    Oh dear...

    Posted by Shire: In my opinion it is very strange how Bush treats Iraq, he says they have mass destruction weapons, but can not proof it.
    I thought this way too for a long time, until I saw a National Geographic documentary about Iraq pre/post Gulf War. Iraq was furiously pursuing WMD then, and there is ample proof of that. US bombing during the Gulf War attempted to put a wrench in his plans, but I was by no means complete.

    There was also evidence that many of his programs were literally underground, (ie, labs build under unassuming builings, perhaps an explanation for Iraq's recent temple building binge). The fact is, Iraq was highly motivated and working towards developing WMD then, why are we supposed to assume he has just suddenly abandoned his programs now? It is not up to us to prove he has them -- he has an enormous advantage in hiding his programs -- it is up to them to prove they dont have them... which they havent done.

    Pakistan, India and North-Korea have mass destruction weapons, we know that, but why not treat them like Iraq?
    Good question. I think its mostly because of Saddams instability and unpredictability and India's stability and to a lesser extent Pakistans.

    Posted by KingOfTheWorld: international intellegence and CIA has disclosed that Iraq had some source with in connection with terrorism
    Actually, the CIA stated they have no direct evidence linking and terrorist orgs to Saddam, it has been Bush and his aids that have said so without providing any proof

    U.S can use Alaska alone to get oil for its overall national consumption and dont necessary rely on other countries
    No. It has been estimated that the oil in Alaska would support US consumption for only months... hardly a permanent fix.
    C Code. C Code Run. Run Code Run... Please!

    "Love is like a blackhole, you fall into it... then you get ripped apart"

  5. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    Protect Israel.

  6. #21
    Funniest man in this seat minesweeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    801
    They don't need protecting.

  7. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    Tell that to Bush.

  8. #23
    ....
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Groningen (NL)
    Posts
    2,386
    >There was also evidence that many of his programs were
    >literally underground (..) why are we supposed to assume he
    >has just suddenly abandoned his programs now?

    Ofcourse he hasn't. I also think Saddam has mass destruction weapons. But where is that evidence now? I have always wondered that people are talking about evidence, but no one shows us evidence. I have also wondered how Saddam could be able to prove that he has not something. How can someone proof to have something not? More easier is to proof that someone has something, that is why the UN inspectors are in Iraq.

    >Protect Israel.

    Israel is one of the strongest forces in the middle-east, they don't need protection.

    Bush knows that, he just wants a strong partner in the middle-east.

  9. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    You're right, Israel is one of the strongest forces in the middle east, therefore it's wise to protect Israel. They have the bomb, they'll use it if attacked my Iraq.

    EDIT: I honestly don't care what the reason is, war is hell, it's not something to be taken lightly, human beings are going to die over this. I thought war was supposed to be a last resort. I don't want americans to die over this, I don't want anyone in Iraq to die over this. I don't want to be hated because I'm an american for something my president does. I could get killed in a terrorist attack because of what our military does, even though I may not agree with it.
    Last edited by Silvercord; 02-23-2003 at 01:34 PM.

  10. #25
    KingoftheWorld
    Guest
    Originally posted by Shiro
    [B]>There was also evidence that many of his programs were
    >literally underground (..) why are we supposed to assume he
    >has just suddenly abandoned his programs now?

    Ofcourse he hasn't. I also think Saddam has mass destruction weapons. But where is that evidence now? I have always wondered that people are talking about evidence, but no one shows us evidence. I have also wondered how Saddam could be able to prove that he has not something. How can someone proof to have something not? More easier is to proof that someone has something, that is why the UN inspectors are in Iraq.
    There is no doubt on Saddam's MDW program. The fact is Saddam willing to destroy it or not? The U.S has offered him for a long time is to disarm volunteerly to avoid war. But why Saddam keep dragging on? I think just because French and Russian strong support him and this lead him to undermine and did not care the U.S demands. If Saddam is going to change his mindset of Anti-West, anti-American and caring about his people and the peace of the world, then he must destroy MDW volunteerly. To me, the TRUTH is the TRUTH, if he show the world that he has no MDW, then he could challenge any country/anyone to prove his country still has the MD Weapon. Also Saddam must not restrict his people on disclosing his MDW program and openly invite any country, even U.S, come to his country to clarify the doubt. Or
    challenge anyone come to his country and freely travel anywhere
    in Iraq which they think has MDW.
    Can Saddam do this???I still doubt it because the Truth is he still at least want keep it in some mean/ways.
    I wonder how the UN or other countries will say to Americans if someday they find that Saddam still has some of MDW or
    Saddam give it to some Anti-American groups include terrorists to attack Americans?
    Mr. Saddam, are you swear to the world that you are innocent to
    MD weapon??? Can you guarantee to the world that you have no MWD??? Do you dare to say Yes?????????
    Will see............................................... ..

    KingoftheWorld

  11. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    I don't see what in the hell is wrong with just letting the inspectors do their jobs, even if it takes a while. At least UN supports that. We keep constantly searching, we don't let up, we uncover everything he has, we destroy it, and we never cease the inspections. Can someone explain to me why that is faulty, maybe I'm just an idiot...

    edit:
    by shiro:
    Bush knows that, he just wants a strong partner in the middle-east.
    Would Israel be strong without the 3+billion dollars of funding we provide each year?

    edit1: I think the most important thing is to keep the UN happy. Can the United States ever fall if we are always backed by the UN? I seriously doubt it. I am starting to think I am too simple to get involved in any serious political discussion.
    Last edited by Silvercord; 02-23-2003 at 01:48 PM.

  12. #27
    cereal killer dP munky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    655
    ok, its obvious that none of us really agree on one set thing, so what the hell are we supposed to do.......?
    guns dont kill people, abortion clinics kill people.

  13. #28
    UNBANNED OneStiffRod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    669
    Most of u guys are brainwashed....

    The only reason for the compliance now is b/c an american brigade is holding a KNIFE to saddam's throat... if we continued with inspections and removed our forces what do you think will happen - I will tell u - we will play the same game as the past 12 years.

    Also, that article is Horse SH*****, did u know that America gets 25% of it's oil from that region and Europe gets 70+% from that region - europeans are the one's who should be worried about oil and not the US... U will all have lower gas prices when this issue is resolved, guaranteed.

    Without the US the UN is like a kid with a water pistol... it has no teeth and no will to enforce it's resolutions or do anything beyond DEBATE, it's a debating society without the US.

    CONTAINMENT was a game we played in the cold war, that game is done, the US will not play it and definately not pay for it as it has... the UN wants containment instead of war but who is gonna do it - is the UN really that dumb to say we americans must contain him and pay the bill for it - screw the UN. If europe doesn't want war why doesn't it say they will keep the forces there and pay to contain him, the US would accept this if the euroPEONS actually stuck their neck out for once - then maybe their protests would have more relevence and credence.

    We americans have dealt with saddam for the past 12years - freeing the peacenicks to pick flowers and debate socialism. It's the US who has it's forces over there to CONTAIN saddam which harbors the resentment and hatred of arabs which in turn cuases terrorism against the US... this is the connection saddam has with terror - he uses anti-american feelings to inspire others to act. It's the US who has forces over there that saddam threatens and the power of the US in that region is what saddam threatens... U obviously are ignorant about these things along with most of europe - eurotards don't give a sh** about americans or america or the terrorism against americans - saddam is on probation, he has been on probation for the past 12 years and probation does not last forever, in fact it's up - way up - saddam is on borrowed time lent to him by the UN - the rest of world wants the US to do NOTHING and that is far more dangerous than acting - inspections are NOTHING.

    BTW, did anyone ever think that maybe as soon as american tanks cross into iraq the iraqi military will do a COOP and remove saddam? That is a very real possibility b/c everyone knows that it's the end when we come...

  14. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    did u know that America gets 25% of it's oil from that region
    I've heard the same thing STIFFY, we get most of our oil from many other sources, that contrary to popular belief the middle east isn't our numero uno provider. It's important, however, but not the one and only uber source.

  15. #30
    UNBANNED OneStiffRod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    669
    I'm going with 25% but it may only be 10% - we get oil from south american countries like Venezuela and others - we get it off of our coasts - we get it from africa nations - a very small percentage from the MidEast goes to america - it goes to europe.

    Why do u think that everyone's been courting russia to build it's pipeline to eeze the strain of europe's dependence on mideast oil... this issue hurts u guys as much if not more than the US and it's need to be resolved affects everybody. Continued sanctions and inspections which is what u guys are asking for - don't kid yourselves when u protest b/c that is what you'll get - or the end to all that so IRAQ can finally live in peace.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    My Avatar says: "Stay in School"

    Rocco is the Boy!
    "SHUT YOUR LIPS..."

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Project Sangheili: The Real World War (Game)
    By -=RM=-Shadow in forum Projects and Job Recruitment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-31-2005, 02:40 AM
  2. Recent Death Syndrome
    By Aran in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-29-2004, 06:51 PM
  3. War with Iraq - Read this article if you're interested
    By Davros in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-26-2003, 12:10 AM
  4. What did I do wrong?
    By Unregistered in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-23-2002, 09:22 AM
  5. No More Technology After World War Three
    By Unregistered in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-20-2001, 08:02 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21