PDA

View Full Version : "iraq war- the unspoken truth"



Pages : [1] 2

Commander
02-22-2003, 09:41 PM
a friend emailed me this link a few minutes ago, take a look (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html). I know some of u will be surprised when u see it, get mad, swear a few times.......but this may BE the ultimate truth.
i wouldn;t be surprised

RoD
02-22-2003, 09:55 PM
umm...i've been saying this for a long time, in fact, so has like everyone i know man.

no-one
02-23-2003, 12:51 AM
Its bull$$$$, that is far from the reason, you people seem to skip anything remotely truthful.

thats my two cents. No flamewar please.

Xterria
02-23-2003, 01:25 AM
what the hell can we do about it
we're all gunna die and thats all that matters

dP munky
02-23-2003, 01:45 AM
>>you people seem to skip anything remotely truthful

i agree, where were all these peoples "secret conspiracy theories" when we were bombing kosovo? i mean people are all anti war for a guy who is a threat to us, yet were all for bombing an indiginous people in kosovo. i dont get it?

*ClownPimp*
02-23-2003, 03:31 AM
>i agree, where were all these peoples "secret conspiracy theories" when we were bombing kosovo?

There were no secret conspiracy theories because the reasons for war were well known. The president was forcing everyone from a certain ethnic group to leave kosovo. If allowed to occur, it would cause a destabilizing of europe, which would negatively hurt the US economically [I heard that explanation from a mainstream news media, probably CNN]

>i mean people are all anti war for a guy who is a threat to us,

Iraq isnt an immediate threat to us.

>Its bull$$$$, that is far from the reason

And what is the reason? And please spare me the stuff about how saddam is evil and he gases his own ppl and so on.... there are many equal or worse than him.

You seem to be writing off the explanation given without even considering it. The explanation given on that site is actually the best explanation I have heard so far as to why Bush is so eager for war. Do I believe it whole-heartedly? No. But all of the facts given are easily verifyable. Its only the conclusions that I have trouble totally believing -- although they are entirely possible.

The fact is, it has been threats to US economy that has mobilized our forces in the past, and it takes little imagination to see it as the driving force behind this war.

dP munky
02-23-2003, 04:04 AM
>>The president was forcing everyone from a certain ethnic group to leave kosovo.

so i guess saying " all you people get the hell out is bad" but gasing people is ok...alright, makes sense

>>Iraq isnt an immediate threat to us.

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.

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?

Shiro
02-23-2003, 05:55 AM
Iraq is almost surrounded by American and British troops, the American and British airforces control parts of Iraq, so in that way Iraq is not a real threat for the US. But just like the US and British troops are in Iraq, Saddam's people might be in the US and Brittain, so in that way he is a threat.

In my opinion it is very strange how Bush treats Iraq, he says they have mass destruction weapons, but can not proof it. Pakistan, India and North-Korea have mass destruction weapons, we know that, but why not treat them like Iraq? In my opinion it is just the oil that he wants and needs, the US is one of the largest oil consuming countries. With cars which drive 1:3 and that kind of things.

GanglyLamb
02-23-2003, 06:05 AM
In my opinion it is very strange how Bush treats Iraq, he says they have mass destruction weapons, but can not proof it. Pakistan, India and North-Korea have mass destruction weapons, we know that, but why not treat them like Iraq? In my opinion it is just the oil that he wants and needs, the US is one of the largest oil consuming countries. With cars which drive 1:3 and that kind of things.

America isnt just a big oil consumer.
Every American citizen uses twice as much energie as any other citizen in the world.
Just to state how big-big spenders they are.
<<thinking about airconditoning in the house, cars that spend twice as much gasoline, etc can go on 4 hours i guess>>

shaik786
02-23-2003, 07:47 AM
>Pakistan, India and North-Korea have mass destruction weapons...
The number of Nukes these countries possess is no where even close to what Israel possesses, but instead of hitting Israel, US supports it, and worst of all, all this is supplied by the US itself to Israel.
US is the biggest arsenal of nuclear/chemical/bio weapons in the world, why does it not think about itself? It by it's virtue is the biggest threat to this world, none other.
The only reason why US is behind Iraq is, the "OIL".
America is at the height of it's madness. What happened in Afghanistan was justifiable, but what ever is happening after that is not. Since they could do what they wanted in Afghanistan, the US thinks it can do the same elsewhere in the world, but history has been the proof, fate of such countries has been grave, and I see America nearing it's doom, soon.

>Every American citizen uses twice as much energie as any other citizen in the world.
True, Americans are big time spenders, to continue to satiate their spending needs, America needs a source of income, since it's current economy is incapable to meet the current needs, so the quickest solution found is "Iraq".

>how are they not, they have been crossing every single line drawn in...
It is a known fact that Iraq does not possess any nuclear weapon. The US claims Iraq possesses bio/chemical/nuclear weapons, then why has it not been able to prove their point? I dont deny the fact that they did once upon a time possess them, but now they are clean. And, who provided them with all these weapons/technology, the US/UK itself. Alright, lets accept they do possess all this, even then they do not have the capability to target anywhere even close to US, then how on Earth can Iraq be a threat to the US is something out of comprehension.

The US used 17million Gallons of Agent Orange against Vietnam, is this justified? NO.

UN has sanctioned 610 Sanctions on Iraq till date, and it has veto'ed 30+ sanctions for Israel. Israel is a much more threatening case to the region than the other way. Why does not the US think of applying it's "War against Terrorism" on this country? But it instead, supports it calling the evil-doer "Man of Peace"!

Iraq is the second largest reserve of Oil in the world only after Saudi Arabia, with this potential, I do see the stand by US.

"Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history" - December 1998, Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.

Unregistposter
02-23-2003, 07:54 AM
no wonder france and germany are opposed to the war-
they control the euro and every opec country chnging to euro will mean big profits for them and nothing for the americans

americans dont want to be told to change their currency to euro when buying oil, they want to be the top and for that reason they might attack other oil countries that are planning to switch as a lesson to others

now i see how iraq is such a huge threat to the US!

minesweeper
02-23-2003, 08:26 AM
I think there is a HUGE amount of hypocrisy in the world today. I am coming round to the idea that we should go to war to remove Hussain but I certainly recognise the hypocrisy of doing so.

He gases his own people - So do lot's of other leaders, do we attack them as well?

He may have WMD - So do lot's of other's (India and Pakistan have been on the verge of using them)

We condemn everything Iraq does - We (or at least Bush) support everything that Israel does

Something I think is appallng by Blair is the situation in Zimbabwe. For those who don't know, there are thousands of British Ex-pats living in Zimbabwe. President Mugabe has mounted a campaign of slaughter to butcher all these people in a bid to rid the country of white people. He has destroyed everything they have and killed and maimed entire families. Yet Blair has spoken before the Nation and said he will do nothing. These ex-pats wish to come back but have no money to do so. It seems we have the resources to bomb Iraq, the willingness to offer asylum to ex-Taliban fighters, but we can't airlift our own citizens to safety and give them a new start in England. I think much of the behaviour by our leaders is disgusting.

I think that we will go to war with Iraq, I think it was decided months ago. Given that, there are a couple of things I would like to see happen.

1. Get on with it, so the Iraqi citizens and allied servicemen don't go to bed every night wondering if they will live through the next day.

2. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people in Iraq who already live in poverty. Once war breaks out, it won't be long before these people are on death's door. The allies should do the decent thing and mount an enormous humanitarian operation as of day 1, to see that food, water and medical care reaches those people before starvation and disease can get a hold on them.

SMurf
02-23-2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by minesweeper
Something I think is appallng by Blair is the situation in Zimbabwe.
It's just not cricket, is it?

KingoftheWorld
02-23-2003, 09:50 AM
I really wonder why so many people in the world today still shortsighted and blindness about the reason for Irag War.
Let go back to the past to enlight someone who are still in the dark about why U.S is forced to WAR.

The root cause for the U.S go war over Afghan and Iraq orginated from terrorism. When the U.S was attacked by terrorists with the death of thousands U.S innocent citizens on September 11, the US did not make a War right away with Afghan where harbor terrorists. Before go to the war, U.S has given Afghan a peaceful chance to avoid war is hand over TERRORISTs. I still remember before going to War, the U.S has offered a long time for the Afghan's government to think it over, and I believe Afghan'government did rally a national convention to decide hand over Terrorists. But finally, they decide to fight war with U.S to protect Terrorists. That was why Afghan war started. If there is NO September 11 ever happened in the U.S, and Afghan did meet with U.S requests, which supported over the world, is to turn over terrorists then I dont think the US-Afghan war has ever happened. I remember that Afghan government has once wow "DOWN TO AMERICAN".. "DOWN To AMERICAN", but sadly, Who was DOWN. Look at the Taliban government today. Hmm, perhaps god did bless American to got survived instead of "DOWN TO AMERICA"???
To me, Americans are one of nicest people in the World. From churches to non-profit organizations has been making a huge contribution to the humanary help and relief around the world regardless race, nationality, color...........
Like other ordinary human in this world, they are also a human who desire to live peaceful with the world unless some one try to attack us or harbor the terrorists to attack us.

Let me go back the root reasons to cause consequences of a war over Iraq today. I remember that after September 11, international intellegence and CIA has disclosed that Iraq had some source with in connection with terrorism. And at that time I thought that the US-Iraq war could happen too, not just only with Afghan.
So the root cause has been started from terrorism that bring war with Afghan and today with Iraq. If North-Korea, Indian.., or any country around the world connected with terrorism to attack the U.S citizens regardless of whether it has nukes or not, must face the same consequence. That why We dont care much about North-Korea unless they has been connected with terrorism.
I dont care much about the people use OIL as topic to judge for the Iraq war. OIL is definitely necessary, but I think US have its own land of many resources with oil, U.S can use Alaska alone to get oil for its overall national consumption and dont necessary rely on other countries.
But the main reason for go war with Iraq is for the sake of security and peace of American people. If Saddam dont destroy
MDW and connecting with terror or let terrorism able access to the MD weapons, then who, even UN, going to guarantee to the American people that it will never get attacked again on the U.S home land???Who will guarantee Americans will live peaceful like other human of the world in the future??????????
Hope this will enlight to those crap people.

KingoftheWorld

SMurf
02-23-2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by KingoftheWorld
OIL is definitely necessary, but I think US have its own land of many resources with oil, U.S can use Alaska alone to get oil for its overall national consumption and dont necessary rely on other countries.
You must be joking, right? :eek:
Do you have any idea how much oil the US consumes per annum?
Do you think the US would still rely on the unstable Middle East to service this need if they had sufficient reserves in Alaska?
Have you wondered why the US declined to sign the Kyoto treaty on reduction of fossil fuel emissions?

golfinguy4
02-23-2003, 10:30 AM
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.

SMurf
02-23-2003, 10:43 AM
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. :p

Shiro
02-23-2003, 10:54 AM
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.

*ClownPimp*
02-23-2003, 10:59 AM
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.

Silvercord
02-23-2003, 11:00 AM
Protect Israel.

minesweeper
02-23-2003, 11:03 AM
They don't need protecting.

Silvercord
02-23-2003, 11:13 AM
Tell that to Bush.

Shiro
02-23-2003, 11:19 AM
>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.

Silvercord
02-23-2003, 01:27 PM
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.

KingoftheWorld
02-23-2003, 01:37 PM
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

Silvercord
02-23-2003, 01:45 PM
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.

dP munky
02-23-2003, 02:44 PM
ok, its obvious that none of us really agree on one set thing, so what the hell are we supposed to do.......?

OneStiffRod
02-23-2003, 02:46 PM
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...

Silvercord
02-23-2003, 02:58 PM
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.

OneStiffRod
02-23-2003, 03:43 PM
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.

*ClownPimp*
02-23-2003, 06:39 PM
>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.

You obviously didnt read much of the article. The article was about the economic ramifications of OPEC changing its currency to the euro. It had nothing to do with a drop in oil production.

As I said earlier, trying to prevent the proliferation of WMD is fine -- im all for it. But Bush's actions have shown that there is more to his lust for Saddam's blood than WMD. I want to know what that is before I support any war.

Commander
02-23-2003, 08:59 PM
i don;t like the war or saddam, in fact i hate both of em. but, as us said, go to war to remove saddam is totally stupid and pointless because the removing of ONE man from office does not justify the deaths of millions of innocent people from both sides.

and as for the article, i believe it's truly possible and could be true because the US hasen't given out any NEW reasons or connection to terrorists organization. (and the new OBL tape, imo is a fake and was produced to create a "link")

dP munky
02-23-2003, 10:08 PM
>>and the new OBL tape, imo is a fake and was produced to create a "link
oh it is? and what would a real tape sound like?

OneStiffRod
02-23-2003, 10:46 PM
Osama Bin Laden is DEAD, courtesy of a US 2000lb. JDAM in Afghanistan or a 15,000lb. tree cutter bomb.... his bones are buried in some collapsed cave in the tora bora mountains.

The tapes are most likely the work of someone who sounds like osama - dare to think that maybe it's one of osama's many son's who, **HOW UNLIKELY**, sound just like their father with the same speech inflections and mannerisms.

I think privately that US military commanders believe that osama is dead but won't say publicly, although they allude to it in saying that there is no evidence that he is alive or dead and this fight is not about one man. I also think that certain govt. sectors and especially congressman find it convenient to keep the osama threat alive - but he's ded.

------------------
The reason the vietnam conflict took millions of lives was b/c the war was not being fought to win - but instead dragged out into attrition over 10+years. This will not be the case in IRAQ as we will fight to win and win quickly and decisively... it's long drawn out conflicts that take millions of lives - maybe like the 12+years we've been at WAR with IRAQ. The US will save lives by finally ending this conflict and not dragging out another 5 years of saddam refusing UN/US aid to feed his ppl just so he can get the propoganda affect of blaming the US for the deaths.

Choose your poison - inspire rebelions within IRAQ with US support and have iraqi's kill iraqi's for the next 25 years and turn that region into what Afghanistan used to be, I think we know how that will end - the US will have to go back in in 25years or go in with full force and take down saddam's regime - It's also not about just saddam - it's also his cronies who govern his military and his son's.

*ClownPimp*
02-24-2003, 07:44 AM
How did you reach that conclusion without any evidence? What about all the evidence that he is still alive (sightings, tapes). Of course the tapes could be fake. Then again, Allah could have brought Bin Laden up to heaven to protect him from the bombs. The point is, we dont know. And it is ignorant to assume anything without any evidence.

jessie23
02-24-2003, 08:29 AM
1. yes there is oil in alaska but there is a strong enviromental factor up there.

2. yes india and pakistan have wmd, but they are not aiming them at the us, just each other so we are less worried about them. (note: this is not necesarily my view just an explanation im making)

3. for now i thing north korea is on the back burner with a kind of "we'll deal with them after we finish iraq kind of attitude"

4.what will we do when we run out of oil everwhere????

5. Saddam is a bad person. if this war gets finished with few deaths and saddam people have improved living conditions when it is all said and done, that would be wonderful. whether or not it will happen who knows.

Shiro
02-24-2003, 12:53 PM
if he show the world that he has no MDW


How can he show he has something not? I don't think it is possible for someone to proof that the person has something not. But the person can ask another independent person to check if the person has that something. If the other can't proof the person has that something, than it still is not a very good proof, but the chance that the person doesn't have that something is smaller than it was before. The same is with the UN inspectors. Saddam must give them the freedom to search anywhere in Iraq and the UN must give the inspectors the time and materials they need for their search. It doesn't guarantee that when they don't find something Saddam doesn't have mass destruction weapons, but the chance is decreased.



I still doubt it because the Truth is he still at least want keep it in some mean/ways.


Especially now Saddam wants to keep his weapons and in some way he has right to. If you are offended, then you have the right to defend. Just thinking, in some way Bush acts like a good muslim: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.



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?


As from what I regularly read in the newspapers and see on the news is that terrorists don't get their weapons from people like Saddam. They get them from the Russians. The Russian maffia sells Russian army weapons which they get because some Russian soldiers see it as a way to get money.



ok, its obvious that none of us really agree on one set thing, so what the hell are we supposed to do.......?


Can we do anything? Perhaps it is better to concentrate mainly on your own small world, that is the world you can change directly. Here in the Netherlands there is a saying called "A better world starts at yourself". You can't change the whole world directly, however you can help the world changing. Like giving money to the organisations who help the millions of people in Africa starving because of hunger, aids and war. Or by helping those organisations in some other way.



europeans are the one's who should be worried about oil and not the US


Why should we be worried about oil? Here in the Netherlands we have a small oilfield under the Waddensea, but we don't use the oilfield, it is a national park. We won't give up nature because of something stupid called money. Destroyed nature can probably never be made good by money.



It's the US who has it's forces over there to CONTAIN saddam


Yes and it is also the US and the western world which has supported Saddam to get where he currently is.

OneStiffRod
02-24-2003, 01:30 PM
I think you should remove -Karl Marx- from your sig, how would u like it if I put hitler quotes in my sig... I generally don't care but seeing as you are one of the ppl to take offense to things I don't know why u would have a quote from an EVIL CRIMINAL like Karl Marx.

>>Why should we be worried about oil?
Now that is an oblivious statement if I ever saw one, the whole world runs on oil, I don't like it, and most westerners don't like it but it's the truth - tell me what your country men would do if gas became 5euros/gallon.... They would be in the streets with anger - you are as much oil fiends as we my friend.

>>Yes and it is also the US and the western world which has supported Saddam to get where he currently is.

It's much more france and russia who are responsible for IRAQ's state - half of IRAQ's military arms are french, like fighters and anti-aircraft systems - the other half russian. The french also built saddam a nuclear power plant capable of creating fissile material - thankfully the israelis destroyed it, remember the world condemed israel for doing it, even your country - but what foresight they had. When the soviet union collapsed it removed all restraints on the dictatorships they inspired like saddam - even today just look around we are still cleaning up the mess of the soviet union - that mess includes North Korea which will be dealt with shortly.

>>Perhaps it is better to concentrate mainly on your own small world, that is the world you can change directly. Here in the Netherlands there is a saying called "A better world starts at yourself".

Oh, I wish we could have a world like that - but remember Sept. 11, other ppl's foreign wars are brought to bear on us - they don't keep it in their own backyard. Whether we like it or not events that take place in other regions have an affect on us directly or indirectly and ignoring it will not make it go away - in fact the US was quite happily content to focus on it's own problems until Osama struck... this has changed our awareness and thinking - Prez. George Bush didn't even know or I doubt he even cared about the names of leaders around the world - but today I bet there isn't a leader he doesn't know the name of - alot of americans didn't even know where afghanistan was on the map until after that tragic event... We cannot sit back and pretend to ignore a threat that is growing and dangerous - Saddam is a threat along the same lines as Osama Bin Laden - only a much LARGER caliber.

minesweeper
02-24-2003, 02:19 PM
>>tell me what your country men would do if gas became 5euros/gallon<<

Wow, we'd be rejoicing if it was that cheap. You have no idea how expensive petrol is over here. It's daylight robbery.

Fountain
02-24-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by minesweeper
I

Something I think is appallng by Blair is the situation in Zimbabwe. For those who don't know, there are thousands of British Ex-pats living in Zimbabwe. President Mugabe has mounted a campaign of slaughter to butcher all these people in a bid to rid the country of white people. He has destroyed everything they have and killed and maimed entire families. Yet Blair has spoken before the Nation and said he will do nothing. These ex-pats wish to come back but have no money to do so. It seems we have the resources to bomb Iraq, the willingness to offer asylum to ex-Taliban fighters, but we can't airlift our own citizens to safety and give them a new start in England. I think much of the behaviour by our leaders is disgusting.




Ummm I work with a lady from Zimbabwe, who is the nicest person I have ever met. Her family are ex-pats/farmers. Of course,after 2 generations her family has had to return to UK. She in NO way has anything bad/detremental to say against the UK or Government.....IT is NOT our fault.



Second-WE (UK) are a lot closer targets than our American Allies for WMD. Think about this before you pansys say war is a bad thing.

Have a nice day.

Dang! I forgot to slap the person who says 'let the inspectors get on with their work-they will find them'

Yeh, right. Places that are hidden well are never found-and I believe everyone knows it anyway.

dP munky
02-24-2003, 06:11 PM
>>Second-WE (UK) are a lot closer targets than our American Allies for WMD. Think about this before you pansys say war is a bad thing.

yeah, and youre a lot closer to the middle east for terror attacks, and um, i believe WE(USA) had 3000 people killed, and whats the difference, distance really (in my opinion) has no effect on who's getting attacked. besides, w/missles, minutes are really a small measurment of time.

>>Wow, we'd be rejoicing if it was that cheap. You have no idea how expensive petrol is over here. It's daylight robbery

i love how all you people from other countries are so quick to go against anything we americans say to point out how dumb we are and then not inform us of how things are.

minesweeper
02-24-2003, 06:15 PM
>>Ummm I work with a lady from Zimbabwe, who is the nicest person I have ever met. Her family are ex-pats/farmers. Of course,after 2 generations her family has had to return to UK. She in NO way has anything bad/detremental to say against the UK or Government.....IT is NOT our fault.<<

Like you say, she has had to come back here. That's great, but what about all those people who can't come back here through lack of funds? What will happen to them? They will be killed no doubt. How is the story of a woman fortunate enough to be able to get out relevant to the plights of the people who can't and are being hunted down?

And no it's not our fault that Mugabe is killing people. It wasn't our fault that Milosovic was killing people either, but we didn't hesitate to go the aid of his victims did we?

minesweeper
02-24-2003, 06:20 PM
>>i love how all you people from other countries are so quick to go against anything we americans say to point out how dumb we are and then not inform us of how things are.<<

No, you read it wrong, or maybe I wrote it wrong, I don't know. Anyway, it wasn't meant as a 'you ignorant yanks don't know anything'. It was more like me saying, 'damn, you have no idea how cold it was today'. Figure of speech.

Anyway, petrol prices right now:

80p per litre.

1 gallon = 4.5 litres
1 gallon = 3.60
3.60 = approx $5.04

dP munky
02-24-2003, 06:28 PM
lol ok misunderstanding

Commander
02-24-2003, 07:14 PM
80 p per liter?????????
holy $$$$!!
and my dad complains with 80c cdn!!!!!
unbeleiveable!!!!!

minesweeper
02-24-2003, 07:29 PM
>>80 p per liter?????????
holy $$$$!!
and my dad complains with 80c cdn!!!!!
unbeleiveable!!!!!<<

Yep!! And whats the exchange rate at the moment? It fluctuates about $2.20 - $2.40 to the pound doesn't it? When I went to Canada last year I couldn't believe how there was no such thing as a 'small car'. Over here it's essential for most people to run an economical car just to keep the cost of running it to a minimum.

Unregd
02-24-2003, 07:40 PM
I guess, then, London doesn't see too many tank-sized SUV's roll down its streets obstructing the view of other drivers and being a general nuissance. If it's one thing that peeves me about the roads and cars around here in the U.S., it's definitely the SUV's with blinding headlights and obstructing heights.

If more people drove economical cars, gas would be cheaper for me!

Silvercord
02-24-2003, 07:56 PM
The starter of this thread has weapons of mass destruction and must be shut down the righteous good-doing moderators! close this thread! close this thread!

KingoftheWorld
02-24-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Shiro
>How can he show he has something not? I don't think it is >possible for someone to proof that the person has something >not. But the person can ask another independent person to >check if the person has that something. If the other can't proof >the person has that something, than it still is not a very good >proof, but the chance that the person doesn't have that >something is smaller than it was before. The same is with the >UN inspectors. Saddam must give them the freedom to search >anywhere in Iraq and the UN must give the inspectors the time >and materials they need for their search. It doesn't guarantee >that when they don't find something Saddam doesn't have >mass destruction weapons, but the chance is decreased.

-------->
Did you read my message or you have an airhead. I have explained to you about this already that The Truth is true, if Saddam truely has no MDW, then he could challenge anyone from any country come to his country to point it out if his country has MDW, and he must let his people freedom to disclose about this issue. Can he do that? If he is innocent, why he dont do this?
Lie or not, Saddam know himself clearly. I challenge him swear to the World that he definitely has NO MDW. Can he swear? I bet he can't because the truth he has MDW. He can hide this to people around the world, but he definitely never hide from the truth.

As I talked before, I really hate war, I want peace comes to every human being in this world and make the world become a small house of this universe regardless of color, race, religion because all human being has the same RED blood regarless outer.
But how we can live peaceful if terrorists day by day keep finding a mean to attack us.


>Especially now Saddam wants to keep his weapons and in some >way he has right to. If you are offended, then you have the >right to defend. Just thinking, in some way Bush acts like a good >muslim: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

---------->
if you say so then I dont think you deserve to talk about peace.
A peace-lover never has the statements above in his/her mind.


>As from what I regularly read in the newspapers and see on the >news is that terrorists don't get their weapons from people like >Saddam. They get them from the Russians. The Russian maffia >sells Russian army weapons which they get because some >Russian soldiers see it as a way to get money.

----------->
If you are easy to believe the news or newspapers(or propaganda news) without personal judgement and evaluate, then I dont think you are a SOFWARE ENGINEER as you advertized yourself. If you are really a true software engineer, then you think you should know Software Life Cycle development.
To make a unambigous requirement, it must gone thru a software process of REFINEment or FILTERing. I am not a software engineer, but at least I know those basically concepts.

You just read the newspapers without consideration, evaluation filtering and just present it here to justify your point. This is very
shallow.

KingoftheWorld
=====================
Think globally, Act locally.
=====================

dP munky
02-24-2003, 08:15 PM
>>The starter of this thread has weapons of mass destruction

actually it says iraq war the unspoken truth