Printable View
> It PROVES that America has some other intentions in doing so
Think of all the oil in Iraq. If USA will put "their people" in Iraq goverment they'll have a huge economy boost.
And about Korea... do you realy think that they'll start a war? Thay can't build stable economy over there! I mean, Korea is not very segnificant for other countries even to notice, so what they hope for???
>> Do you believe that Adolf Hitler and his regime, should have been left to get on with his religious genocidal attrocities? If so, why? If not, also, why?
Ofcourse not. But, there is quite some difference b/w the two cases. Infact, I don't know who's methodology is closer to that of Hitler's, Saddam Hussain's or America's.
Hitler wanted to take over the "world". He and his followers believed themselves to be superior human beings. So, they deduced that they must be the rulers of the "world". Saddam has not done any such thing. Infact, it was America who gave rise to Saddam. Saddam is just another dictator, like many others in the world. They want to remain in power, by hook or by crook. Many dictators have been even accepted by America (those who agree with every american policy blindly) e.g. Musharraf of Pakistan
America thinks that the Americans are some superior humans, that their lives are more important than those of anyone else's. The number of innocent lives taken by American bombings in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Libya etc. is many times greater than the WTC case. I was reading an article in a magazine where there was a list of 50+ countries that America has attacked from time to time, in the last 50 years. In most cases, these attacks have been unjustifiable. for eg. America attacked a Siryan Pharmaceuticals Factory accussing it to be a Chemical arms plant. However, it was later proven that it was a pharmaceuticals factory (one of the very very few that an under-developed country like Sirya has) and even accepted by America, who didn't even appologise.
It is America who wants to rule over the world today, the idea that Hitler followed.
Why do you keep forgetting Vietnam and Japan (Heroshima and Nagasaki) ? Who is today's Hitler? Is it America or is it Saddam? Who needs to be stopped first ?
Sure man, whatever you say. Even though Iraq has ignored U.N. sanctions and resolutions for ELEVEN YEARS, it's our fault that this is all happening. Get a clue, you don't belong in this discussion anymore. You just proved how clueless you really are.Quote:
Originally posted by Zeeshan
I really don't get all this tension stuff at all. Only the US is responsible for all that's happening.
ROFL. You make me laugh bud. America is not stopping other countries from having weapons of mass destruction, the U.N. is. America is the only country thats trying to get this implemented.Quote:
Originally posted by Zeeshan
1. America has no right what-so-ever to stop other countries of the world for making nukes or missiles. It can't even blame anyone for doing such a thing. The GREATEST threat to the world is america's nuclear program, not anyone elses'. Remember that uptill now only America has ruthlessly used two atom bombs (on Japan) and killed millions of people. The credit for starting a multi-national Nuclear and ballistic missiles race also goes to the US, coz they started it all.
They didn't agree to let the entire CIA into the country. You have listening comprehension problems. They agreed to let one CIA agent with intelligence to enter Iraq.Quote:
Originally posted by Zeeshan
2. Iraq is complying with the UN and letting the inspectors visit every place of their interest. It even agreed to let CIA into the country and do all the investigation they want to do. Yet, America has not stopped spreading it's war syndrome. It PROVES that America has some other intentions in doing so, cause now there's no sense in attacking IRAQ, when it has nothing to hide.
Oh yeah, America has intentions. People like you think violating 11 years of U.N. resolutions is nothing. 'Ohhh, just give them some more time, it can be resolved peacefully.' Bullsh1t.
Again. BARE AGGRESSION? Iraq is not innocent here. Please read the newspaper or do some research. ELEVEN YEARS of U.N. violation. You just don't understand, you violate the U.N., you violate the countries that have signed this treaty.Quote:
Originally posted by Zeeshan
3. America threatens IRAQ, saying, "WE WILL NUKE YOU". Isn't this bare aggression and terrorism? Does it make any sense in attacking IRAQ with the logic that they "might" attack America, when there is no such indication?
You're 4th statement is just stupid. Running out of ideas, are we?
Wow, comparing the American president to Hitler.Quote:
Originally posted by Zeeshan
Ofcourse not. But, there is quite some difference b/w the two cases. Infact, I don't know who's methodology is closer to that of Hitler's, Saddam Hussain's or America's.
Man, you've probably ticked off a lot of people with your statements, however mindless they may be. But I'm going to be the first to come out and say you need to recheck what is happening right now and why. If you are an American citizen, you should be ashamed.
spoon_
Zeesham:
The reason I likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler is based on his actions within his own country. I don't believe there can be any doubt that he and his regime were behind the use of chemical weapons to massacre the ethnic Kurds, and the persecution of the marsh arabs.
I am not asking you about how he came to be in power, there are some red faces about in that regard, but it is the past. I am also not asking you about any other countries.
I ask you directly, do you believe he should be allowed to continue with his current genocidal policies unopposed? If so, why?
I am trying to get to your own beliefs about him, his regime and their actions in their own country, and whether they have the right to do this unopposed.
As an aside, I do not doubt that Saddam feels he and his party are superior, (it is in the nature of dictators to be so), and would very much like to expand their boarders, he did, after all, invade Kuwait.
spoon:
I don't think you'll find he is a US citizen.
Just a thought. If we (the UN) bombed and invaded Iraq, turned the entire country upside down and didn't find a smidgen of anything that could even be remotely considered a weapon of mass destruction. Do you think we would apologise profusely, pay a stack of compensation for the trouble we caused and then leave them alone?
This isn't aimed at anyone in particular regardless of who's post it comes after.
If we find something, great! But do you really think, in all honesty, that Iraq is not hiding anything?
Given Iraq's notorious record, you can just guess what my answer would be.
spoon_
>> But do you really think, in all honesty, that Iraq is not hiding anything?<<
That isn't my point.
What I mean is that we, in the west have a bad reputation in the east when it comes to throwing our weight around and never being willing to clear up our own mess or be held accountable when we make mistakes. I was just wondering if the above situation were to occur whether we would do a proper job in making ammends for our mistake or whether we would take the attitude of
"Oh well, it's only Iraq, who cares about them anyway"
and leave another war-torn country to fend for itself.
Ok, heres what I really think.
Iraq has violated the U.N. for many years. They should have never sent the inspectors back in after they were kicked out the first time. The U.N. should have talked to its many members and planned an attack at that moment. We have waited too long to deal with Iraq.
But in regards to your question:
We don't have to apologize. We wouldn't. Iraq should be apologizing right now. Iraq is a threat to all European & Middle Eastern countries right now.
spoon_
Has America occupied any countries and put certain races into concentration camps and murder millions for no reason? That's what Hitler did.Quote:
Originally posted by Zeeshan
>> Do you believe that Adolf Hitler and his regime, should have been left to get on with his religious genocidal attrocities? If so, why? If not, also, why?
Ofcourse not. But, there is quite some difference b/w the two cases. Infact, I don't know who's methodology is closer to that of Hitler's, Saddam Hussain's or America's.
Hitler wanted to take over the "world". He and his followers believed themselves to be superior human beings. So, they deduced that they must be the rulers of the "world". Saddam has not done any such thing. Infact, it was America who gave rise to Saddam. Saddam is just another dictator, like many others in the world. They want to remain in power, by hook or by crook. Many dictators have been even accepted by America (those who agree with every american policy blindly) e.g. Musharraf of Pakistan
America thinks that the Americans are some superior humans, that their lives are more important than those of anyone else's. The number of innocent lives taken by American bombings in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Libya etc. is many times greater than the WTC case. I was reading an article in a magazine where there was a list of 50+ countries that America has attacked from time to time, in the last 50 years. In most cases, these attacks have been unjustifiable. for eg. America attacked a Siryan Pharmaceuticals Factory accussing it to be a Chemical arms plant. However, it was later proven that it was a pharmaceuticals factory (one of the very very few that an under-developed country like Sirya has) and even accepted by America, who didn't even appologise.
It is America who wants to rule over the world today, the idea that Hitler followed.
Why do you keep forgetting Vietnam and Japan (Heroshima and Nagasaki) ? Who is today's Hitler? Is it America or is it Saddam? Who needs to be stopped first ?
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and that pulled America into a World War that it tried to stay out of and we unfortunately had to put an end to the war with Japan through atomic weapons.
The simple fact is that Sadam does nothing but oppress his own people and it is because of his actions that they have restrictions on trade in his country. Iraq has had 11 years to do what they want in that country without the UN's supervision. There's no telling what types of weapons they have and where they have them hidden.
>>> Has America occupied any countries
You need to be very careful when making brash statements like that, one could very easily say Grenada, 1983, and your whole position falls down.
I point this out simply to illustrate the problem with the argument, not as a comment on operation "Urgent Fury" as the US dubbed the action.
I was only 6 years old then and know almost nothing about what happened in Grenada. Time to do a little research......Quote:
Originally posted by adrianxw
>>> Has America occupied any countries
You need to be very careful when making brash statements like that, one could very easily say Grenada, 1983, and your whole position falls down.
My point is that the US isn't trying to occupy any countries and take over the world like Hitler did.
We invaded Grenada b/c CUBA under CASTRO tried to start a revolution there and HIS army took over the AIRPORT and we went in and kicked his ass out. PPL wonder why we HATE CASTRO is b/c EVERY SINGLE "REVOLUTION" started in the south americas was his doing - he was bent on regional domination through conflict and the US SQUASHED HIS ASS.
I love when IDIOTS make comments like this... Why should we provide North Korea with millions of gallons of fuel for their ARMY when their ppl are starving and WE get nothing for it- that FUEL agreement was signed on the NK's agreement to STOP ALL nuclear proliferation and submit to inspections. THEY admitted that they never even lived up to the agreement and have been developing their nuclear program all along so WHY should we let them extort us???Quote:
Originally posted by vasanth
Well all this would not have happened if the US had not stoped the oil supply to north korea.....
I feel that the IRAQ war has been the victim of bad press, it's really a fight over SADDAM and not IRAQ as a whole. SADDAM is done, one way or the other, the US said it will remove him by force for non-compliance or even if the UN won't allow the US to act against IRAQ the US has pledged to FUND, SUPPLY, and CREATE a RESISTANCE inside IRAQ to DEFEAT SADDAM. Choose your poison - either a swift 1-month action or a LONG 5 year struggle to remove saddam. We are "meddling" whether you ***** or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------
North Korea has been building up and planning to attack for 50yrs - this is their mandate and also stems from the belief that they are under IMMENENT threat of attack by the US. THEY EVEN beleive that it was the US who started the Korean War by attacking them first when it's KNOWN fact that they attacked first.
No wonder COMMUNISM was able to spread so far when u have idiots who beleive words and not the truth in front of their eyes - ppl on this board are taking the side of NORTH KOREA based on their propoganda and not looking at how EVIL this country really is and how the US after 9/11 will dedicate itself to removing these OLD and TIRED threats from the FACE OF THE EARTH.
And LASTLY, without the US the UN would have no backbone and would be a worthless organization.
I'd be more worried about Russia's nuclear program. Their system is old and failing and the level of maintenance is questionable. While the treaty between Russia and the US says that they are not to aim nuclear devices at each other, it appears as though all of the cold war devices are still pointing at the US - because they can't re-aim them.Quote:
The GREATEST threat to the world is america's nuclear program, not anyone elses'.
I welcome your view but I totally disargree with you with few some irrational judgements as follow:Quote:
Originally posted by Zeeshan
>> Do you believe that Adolf Hitler and his regime, should have been left to get on with his religious genocidal attrocities? If so, why? If not, also, why?
Ofcourse not. But, there is quite some difference b/w the two cases. Infact, I don't know who's methodology is closer to that of Hitler's, Saddam Hussain's or America's.
Hitler wanted to take over the "world". He and his followers believed themselves to be superior human beings. So, they deduced that they must be the rulers of the "world". Saddam has not done any such thing. Infact, it was America who gave rise to Saddam. Saddam is just another dictator, like many others in the world. They want to remain in power, by hook or by crook. Many dictators have been even accepted by America (those who agree with every american policy blindly) e.g. Musharraf of Pakistan
America thinks that the Americans are some superior humans, that their lives are more important than those of anyone else's. The number of innocent lives taken by American bombings in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Libya etc. is many times greater than the WTC case. I was reading an article in a magazine where there was a list of 50+ countries that America has attacked from time to time, in the last 50 years. In most cases, these attacks have been unjustifiable. for eg. America attacked a Siryan Pharmaceuticals Factory accussing it to be a Chemical arms plant. However, it was later proven that it was a pharmaceuticals factory (one of the very very few that an under-developed country like Sirya has) and even accepted by America, who didn't even appologise.
It is America who wants to rule over the world today, the idea that Hitler followed.
Why do you keep forgetting Vietnam and Japan (Heroshima and Nagasaki) ? Who is today's Hitler? Is it America or is it Saddam? Who needs to be stopped first ?
America thinks that the Americans are some superior humans, that their lives are more important than those of anyone else's.
That's not true. I think most American are nice and peace loving.
What country on the earth do you think giving most aids to poor or undeveloped countries. Several American churches and nonprofit organizations devote their energy, time, money to help or adopt infortunated people around the world or try to bring them to the U.S, a new land for better life and great democracy with freedom to talk and discuss like us here, unlike countries rulled by dictators where your mouth always keep shut begin the gun point. You never have a chance to raise your voice to express your opposition ideas in those dictatorship countries.
If Saddam is a peace lover and don't let the hatred and religion
control his mind, then he should take advantage over the announcement from president Bush "give peace a chance" to show the world his willingness and honesty regarding to massive
destruction issue. If Saddam prove that his country dont have any massive destruction weapons by willing to welcome any countries with evidences or invite them to his countries and let them go freely anywhere in his country to clarify the doubt on the massive destruction weapons. If one is true innocent, he or she will never scare any slander from the truth.
I believe that if the topic of massive destruction weapons does not origionate over Iraq, then the No WAR on Iraq could happen. Like other countries without massive destruction weapons, they love to make the World peaceful, then of course with no one bring War to those peace lover-countries because under the sun, each individual has his/her own quality and right to live peaceful and trying to bring the people around world to a small united house regarless any race, religion.....
KingoftheWorld
No, they are not trying to do it like Hitler did. But IMHO, they are still trying to do it through more "peaceful" means. They still want to make sure they know everything that is going on in the world. They dont want anyone to look like they could have more power than themselves.Quote:
My point is that the US isn't trying to occupy any countries and take over the world like Hitler did.
Yes, they do provide a lot of aid to other countries, and often this can be in good will. But i am sure that somewhere, hidden away, they have a motive that they can now have power over this country "after all they have done for it".
It doesnt involve any killing, as such. But Americas every action is still strategically made to get others on their side, while they maintain control the "side".