http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3317429.stm
Printable View
Great news!
Wonder what will happen to him now.
The americans are soupoused to hand him to the Iraquis so that he can be taken to that court they set up to be judged for crimes against humanity, but they've not decided when that'll be yet.Quote:
Originally posted by SourceCode
Wonder what will happen to him now.
They'll transfer him after they have setup the "accidental" killing of him for the in transit time during the transfer.
Between this and the economy's upturn, I will not be looking forward to the next four years.
he looks like my 3rd grade teacher, Mr. Washburn. Interestingly enough, my 3rd grade teacher threw chalk at the children when they were talking and would not shut up. Maybe they're the same person.
We got the bastard!
I wonder when we'll capture Osama Bin Hiden and Ricky Martin.
Bush.ApprovalRating++;
:(
:rolleyes: Now where are the WMD oh wait bush will find those in 2004 right before the election...
Quote:
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons Of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if They had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to Invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government Passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being
communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a Legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf
This doesn't change the fact that the U.S. and coalition occupation of Iraq is not going particularly well. Now the leader of a government that committed crimes against humanity has been captured; that's still the past.
What is President Bush's plan for dealing with the continued difficulties in Iraq? Maybe it's more isolation from traditional allies and the continued reliance on U.S. brute force. Yes, we can all be very happy that George W. Bush has a distraction from the real issues.
Code:void main()
{
CPresident *Bush= new CPresident; // As of 2000
CDictator Saddam;
if( Capture(Saddam) ) Bush->ApprovalRating++;
delete Bush; // When assassinated
}
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
China is a little different. They dont gas their own country. They don't murder people for opposing the goverment along with the families. Zero. For someone a lot older than me you should know that.
I wonder if we'd be able to invade china. I mean, they actually have a military and technology, plus they're so big and far away that occupying might not be feasible. So Zakk you're right we should nuke everybody, I'm convinced.
Then you must be too young to remeber tiananmen square or the ongoing mongolian genocide.Quote:
Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
China is a little different. They dont gas their own country. They don't murder people for opposing the goverment along with the families. Zero. For someone a lot older than me you should know that.
hmmmm....
I
hate
when
little
kids
talk
politics.
Interesting birthday present - thanks US Army :D !
Howdy,
Ditto FillYourBrain.
At the present he is a POW and should be treated like one. Then he should be tryed be the Iraqi people, not the coalition governing council then he should be turned over to the US to be tryed and disposed of in Boron or maybe Santa Fe where he will be treated very well by some of Americas finest.
M.R.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally posted by FillYourBrain
hmmmm....
I
hate
when
little
kids
talk
politics.
Zakk, just quit trying on these sort of things. You're almost always wrong.
Um...WHAT?!Quote:
Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
China is a little different. They dont gas their own country. They don't murder people for opposing the goverment along with the families. Zero. For someone a lot older than me you should know that.
One word for Zakk: Mao
I don't think the people of China would be cheering in the streets like the Iraqies did if we were to take control. Please stop being liberal. I don't care if you are 20 years older than me, that doesn't make me stupid. I watch as much politics and news as you do.
CNN makes you dumb. Try reading some history books for a change. The people of Tibet and Taiwan would certainly cheer if the Chinese government crumbled; and dare I say, quite a few of the several billion people in China would also celebrate. This has nothing to do with being "liberal" - don't argue, look at the facts.Quote:
Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
I don't think the people of China would be cheering in the streets like the Iraqies did if we were to take control. Please stop being liberal. I don't care if you are 20 years older than me, that doesn't make me stupid. I watch as much politics and news as you do.
Heh. CNN is the LAST show I would watch. Thats the most biast show I have had the unfortune to watch. I tend to read news sites and watch news channels. I get a good overall picture that way than watching one liberal channel.
Liberalism has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that's what you say is usually 100% wrong. China is guilty of TONS of human rights violations just as bag as anything Hussein can dream up.Quote:
Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
Heh. CNN is the LAST show I would watch. Thats the most biast show I have had the unfortune to watch. I tend to read news sites and watch news channels. I get a good overall picture that way than watching one liberal channel.
>>Please stop being liberal.
lol.
Guys, you're not being fair. He watches the news, so obviously he knows everything ever. Let him speak.
This is unfortunate. I am a conservative and I know that is the minority around here but I can't stand the way Zakk presents himself. When I mentioned children talking politics, I did mean more than just Zakk though. The fact is, people are very idealistic when they are young. As they get older they realize that there is a more reasonable (and quieter) middle ground. Just be aware that these conversations are a waste of your lives. That is all.
Peace.
I am far from liberal. But I do understand the grey area that is involved in every aspect of world politics. I don't think we are doing anything now that the other countries have not done in the past. We are using our military to further our country's political agenda. Granted we do it on a bigger scale.Quote:
Please stop being liberal.
> Just be aware that these conversations are a waste of your lives. That is all.
Likewise, feel free to ignore liberals who dance to the beat of "no blud 4 oil".
I was trying to decide whether you were trying to take a potshot at me but then I realized that I didn't care and I was all like ":cool:".Quote:
Originally posted by FillYourBrain
This is unfortunate. I am a conservative and I know that is the minority around here but I can't stand the way Zakk presents himself. When I mentioned children talking politics, I did mean more than just Zakk though. The fact is, people are very idealistic when they are young. As they get older they realize that there is a more reasonable (and quieter) middle ground. Just be aware that these conversations are a waste of your lives. That is all.
Peace.
>>"no blud 4 oil".
Well I was going to trade you this O- for some of that crude petrol you have over there, but now I think I'll just take my business elsewhere! HARUMPH!
People have you ever thought why you rarely hear any good news about the occupation in Iraq?
Simple answer - the press is liberal. We all know that. The press is very very liberal. It always has been. It always will be.
And what is Bush? Conservative. Therefore, what do you think the press will report? I think we all know.
Therefore, just in case you want to hear some good stuff about the occupation in Iraq, check this out:
Quote:
Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1st: the
first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active
duty.
Over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security for their fellow citizens.
Nearly all ofIraq's 400 courts are functioning. and the Iraqi
judiciary is fully independent.
On Monday, October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts-exceeding
the prewar average.
All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open,
as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.
Coalition forces had rehab-ed over 1,500 schools - 500 more than
scheduled.
Teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.
All 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.
Doctors salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.
Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700
tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.
Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccination doses
toIraq's children.
A Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers ofIraq's 27,000
weed-choked canals and now irrigates tens of thousands of farms.
This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and
women.
We have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services
and over two-thirds of the potable water production.
There are 4,900 full-service telephone connections. We expect 50,000
by the year's end.
The wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes
to cars and truck, businesses are coming to life in all major cities
and towns.
Over 95 percent of all prewar bank customers have service and
first-time and customers are opening accounts daily.
Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses. and the central
bank is fully independent.
Iraqhas one of the worlds most growth-oriented investment and banking
laws.
Iraqhas a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.
Satellite TV dishes are legal.
Foreign journalists aren't on 10-day visas paying mandatory and
extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for minders and
other government spies.
There is no longer a Ministry of Information.
There are more than 170 newspapers.
You can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.
Foreign journalists (and everyone else) are free to come and go.
A nation that had not one single element of a representative
government, now has all three: legislative, judicial and executive.
InBaghdadalone residents have selected 88 advisory councils.Baghdad's
first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city
council elected its new chairman.
Today inIraq, chambers of commerce, business, school and professional
organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.
25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body
inIraq's history, run the day-to-day business of government.
The Iraqi government regularly participates in international events.
Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen
international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly.
The Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and the Islamic
ConferenceSummit.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening
over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.
Shia religious festivals are no longer banned.
For the first time in 35 years, inKarbalathousands of Shiites
celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.
The Coalition has completed over 13,000 large and small reconstruction
projects, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction ofIraq.
Uday and Qusay are dead - they are no longer feeding innocent Iraqis
to the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force
cooperation, torturingIraq's soccer players for losing games, or
murdering critics.
Children aren't imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree
with the government.
Political opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed or
forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.
Millions of long suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.
Saudis will hold municipal elections.
Qataris reforming education to give more choices to parents.
Jordanis accelerating market economic reforms.
The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian - a
Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for
democracy and for peace.
Saddam is gone.
Iraqis free.
The United states has not faltered or failed.
Yet, little or none of this information has been published by the
Press corps that prides itself on bringing you ALL the important news.
Almost every Democrat leader in the House and Senate has openly fought
President Bush on every aspect of his handling of this war, including
the post-war reconstruction; and on a daily basis, they continue to
claim on national television that this conflict has been a dismal
failure.
Taking everything into consideration, even the great and unfortunate
loss of our sons and daughters in this conflict, do you think anyone
else in the world could have accomplished as much as our country has
in so short a period of time?
It's a Zionist conspiracy.Quote:
Originally posted by DavidP
People have you ever thought why you rarely hear any good news about the occupation in Iraq?
Simple answer - the press is liberal. We all know that. The press is very very liberal. It always has been. It always will be.
And what is Bush? Conservative. Therefore, what do you think the press will report? I think we all know.
Therefore, just in case you want to hear some good stuff about the occupation in Iraq, check this out:
edit: lol, did you get that in a chain email?
DavidP. Thanks for taking the time to post that. Many people on this board don't really respect my opinion because they are ignorant and don't want to listen to someone consitered a teen. I dinf many of you people on this board to be very closed minded which is sort of a shame consitering you are all really smart and you don't want to realise the good in the Iraq conflict. I think I'll end what I have to say right now so I don't get in a bunch of trouble with the admins.
one thing hit me real hard:did you froget why this was started? maybe weapons of mass destruction? did we find them? i think the united states failed to find those...Quote:
The United states has not faltered or failed.
seeing as the president's approval rating is hovering just above 50%, he must be doing something wrong...
No one was questioning that. Iraq's better off without Saddam; no one disagrees.Quote:
Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
DavidP. Thanks for taking the time to post that. Many people on this board don't really respect my opinion because they are ignorant and don't want to listen to someone consitered a teen. I dinf many of you people on this board to be very closed minded which is sort of a shame consitering you are all really smart and you don't want to realise the good in the Iraq conflict. I think I'll end what I have to say right now so I don't get in a bunch of trouble with the admins.
We're just saying that if you think China is some super humanitarian paradise, you're dead wrong, and you do that kind of thing all the time in threads like this (remember when Clinton started the Gulf War?)
Have you ever lost something that you never found? Well thats sort of like the WoMD situation. Saddam had a lot of time to hide them from all the crap we did like send in investigators. He had many chances to hide them. His reason for NOT using them. Easy. He has many supporters. To show the world that the US was right would make him loose many of them. It would not be hard for him to bury them in the LARGE country.
And Govtcheez. I never said that country is innocent. They have proven themselves to be cruel many times (IE POW situation and other wars.. Ghost Soldiers by Hampton Sides is a good read). Them and the Japaneese are sort of cruel from what I've read to POWS and overall criminals. I screwed up when I made that Clinton statement and I admitted it. I don't believe I have said anything stupid in this thread at all.
As far as Saddam being worthy of an attack against him. Lets look at some points in his leadership.
1988 March 16. Saddam gases Halabja with nerve gases (Also declared as the WORST chemical attack ever on a civilian place)
1990 Aug 2. Iraq invades Kuwait.
1991 Jan 16. Saddam orders targeting of Israel with scud missles
1991 Saddam orders burning of Kuwaiti oil wells.
Some live quotes from witnesses of Saddams attacks from civilians.
Quote:
Most people were in shelters and underground bunkers. When they realised it was a chemical attack they tried to get out, but most of them died in their shelters.
Quote:
"A bomb fell here - in this small area, between 250 and 300 people died. In my own family my mother, brother and two of my sisters died. In all, I lost 35 relatives.
Ok. With those statements said, how could you say that Saddam did not have the will to create WoMD. He murdered 5000 people with mustard gas and other chemical weapons in ONE day. Most being civilians. He sounds like a person we would want to be a leader of a country. Then lets add up the accounts of rape/murder/threats/beatings/everything that has occured by Saddam and his generals to civilians whom wanted to speak their mind. Give me a break Govtcheez. You may think my comments are stupid and uneducated, but I think I might have a little more common sence in this matter than you are showing.Quote:
Dana Nazif's mother and four-year-old sister were among the 5,000 people who died in a single day in what was the worst ever chemical attack on a civilian population.
**Oh and you're "are not just saying" anything. More like calling me an idiot and a child.
Ok he is a crazy murdering bastard why did he not use his horde of WMD? :rolleyes:
Dont forget the USA vetoed a motion by the UN to punish Iraq back in the 90's when they where killing their own folks... Dont forget the "Prevention of Genocide Act" the senate was trying to pass against Iraq for the gassing the kurds, where did that act go? Can you guess?
I agree. Iraq has had biological and chemical weapons programs in the past, and the present is not the only time we have had trouble locating them.
First of all, I read that. I enjoyed it.Quote:
And Govtcheez. I never said that country is innocent. They have proven themselves to be cruel many times (IE POW situation and other wars.. Ghost Soldiers by Hampton Sides is a good read). Them and the Japaneese are sort of cruel from what I've read to POWS and overall criminals. I screwed up when I made that Clinton statement and I admitted it. I don't believe I have said anything stupid in this thread at all.
Second of all, THAT BOOK IS ABOUT JAPAN, YOU FLAMING MORON.
edit:
> You may think my comments are stupid and uneducated, but I think I might have a little more common sence in this matter than you are showing.
Really? Maybe if you'd pull your head out of your ass for about 2 seconds, you'd notice I'm only talking about your retarded China comments, and not the stuff on Iraq. Feel free to dance on your soapbox, though.
Yes, yes. Saddam was a very cruel dictator. No one denies that. Anyways, it is clear that our invasion of Iraq was motivated by more than human rights concerns, because there are a slew of other countries that we'd also be invading if that was the case. China is one. East Timor and Turkey are others.
My bad :oQuote:
Originally posted by -KEN-
>>Please stop being liberal.
lol.
Guys, you're not being fair. He watches the news, so obviously he knows everything ever. Let him speak.
>>With those statements said, how could you say that Saddam did not have the will to create WoMD. <<
Consider that the case for war was made solely on stockpiles of WMD that were likely to be used within minutes to attack London, Jerusalem, and Kuwait. That's pretty much what Blair said in one speech (not verbatim, but the gist of it) and Bush, Powell, and John Howard (the Australian P.M.) was pushing for war on the same grounds.
If humanitarian issues were the reason for the war, we should be invading China as I type this. But China is a very powerful ally to have - it's filthy rich and has a huge labour market. So of course we aren't going to invade them - who cares if, like, they kill people for speaking out against the government.
If WMD were the real issue, why aren't we invading North Korea?
I do not know the real reason for the war, but I do know is that the reasons given were shaking and seemed to change by the minute.
Don't believe all the $$$$ you watch on T.V., read in papers, and in Time magazine.
To clearify, I don't listen or respect your opinion because I think you are a pot-head, naive, unexposed, and generally a moron.Quote:
Many people on this board don't really respect my opinion because they are ignorant and don't want to listen to someone consitered a teen
The correct answer to that is that there aren't any UN resolutions telling NK to disarm.Quote:
Originally posted by mithrandir
If WMD were the real issue, why aren't we invading North Korea?
If only life were so simple we could draw the line in the sand and say "If you do this we'll attack." But its not so we must make comparmises for good and for ill. There is a certain amount of "looking out for our best interests" that each country's decisions are effected by. Iraq was a target that we could engage without major arms engagement. Trying to do the same to China, North Korea, and other countries would involve the type of war none of us are willing to risk.
Exactly. Its all good and well to say you should invade China and North Korea for the same reasons, but its not in the United States best interests to do this. The war in Iraq was very swift compared to most wars, and while lives were lost it was nothing like Vietnam or Korea.
Like others have said, China are a good ally and their labour market is very useful not only to the united states, but to the united states allies too. Not only that, but China also has a resonable defense force too (I believe they also have the largest land army in the world troop wise, although I may be wrong), and an invasion of China would be difficult and could potentially last for years, and could possibly drag america into suffering like the people of China are (possibly - I've never been to China so I wouldn't know).
In my opinion, the war on Iraq started because it was in the US's best interests. It was something that needed doing (removing saddam that is) but also risked a lot less lives than invading another country for the same reasons would have.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Americans are selfish and only care about themselves and are just trying to get rich. I'm saying they did what was best for their own people AS WELL as the world, and we should expect nothing more from any country, incluinging superpowers.
Edit:
BTW, I like the way you put "australian prime minister" in brackets hehe, in case people didn't know who John Howard was. I'm an Aussie and I just found that funny when I read it, reminded me of how little role we play on the world stage.
august 1990 - March 1991: U.S. and U.N. at war with Iraq. March, Iraq signs ceasefireQuote:
Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
1988 March 16. Saddam gases Halabja with nerve gases (Also declared as the WORST chemical attack ever on a civilian place)
1990 Aug 2. Iraq invades Kuwait.
1991 Jan 16. Saddam orders targeting of Israel with scud missles
1991 Saddam orders burning of Kuwaiti oil wells.
-- OVER WITH --
December 7, 1941: Pearl Harbor Bombed
May 7, 1945: General Hans Jodl signs the treaty in Eisenhower’s headquarters at Reims - WWII over
-- OVER WITH --
now your saying that we should go back to the Iraq thing, so why not bring the whole WWII/Cold war thing back? the examples you gave have been taken care of and should have little to nothing to do with what's currently happening... I don't think Saddam was a good leader, but it's his country. America has no right to say what he wants to do with his country.
>America has no right to say what he wants to do with his country.
but his people do.
but his people didn't bomb Iraq, now did they?
don't tell me they were too scared to, because if you pick up a textbook, you'll find rebellions always happen if things get too bad.
Hehe, I'm a liberal who dances to the beat of "Where's my goddamned 75 cents-per-gallon that we're supposed to get from taking over those oil fields!"Quote:
Originally posted by Govtcheez
>
Likewise, feel free to ignore liberals who dance to the beat of "no blud 4 oil".
Isn't it amazing. Some old wise man can get offended by a kid. It seems that I know I can push your buttons. I think you need a massage or something. You are really tense. First of all. I know that book is about Japan. It's about the Battan Death march and the Cabanatuan prison camp. I merely mentioned the book because it sort of had to do with what I had to say in a sense.Quote:
First of all, I read that. I enjoyed it.
Second of all, THAT BOOK IS ABOUT JAPAN, YOU FLAMING MORON.
Temper temper. You show real maturity in this thread. This thread is about Saddam and Iraq. You are pulling it off subject not me. You seemed to disagree with everything in Iraq as you $$$$$ 24/7 when a topic about it comes around.Quote:
Really? Maybe if you'd pull your head out of your ass for about 2 seconds, you'd notice I'm only talking about your retarded China comments, and not the stuff on Iraq. Feel free to dance on your soapbox, though.
I'm not saying punish the countries for it. I'm saying that past accounts should be held in the air. It would be a double standard to hold President Bush to things he has done in the past, and not to Saddam.Quote:
now your saying that we should go back to the Iraq thing, so why not bring the whole WWII/Cold war thing back? the examples you gave have been taken care of and should have little to nothing to do with what's currently happening... I don't think Saddam was a good leader, but it's his country. America has no right to say what he wants to do with his country.
I just thought I should mention that WMD was not the only reason for war with Iraq. It is simply what was focused on.Quote:
did you froget why this was started? maybe weapons of mass destruction? did we find them? i think the united states failed to find those...
Personally, the assasination attempt on Bush Sr is enough reason for me. The gassing of the kurds is more than enough for me. The firing on our planes in the No-Fly zone is enough for me. Any one of those reasons is plenty.
WMD was focussed on because of the painful waste of time that we had to endure when we went to the UN for a resolution to do something when we knew up front that they never would.
Yeah, I was wondering that. Since it was for oil of course. :rolleyes:Quote:
Hehe, I'm a liberal who dances to the beat of "Where's my goddamned 75 cents-per-gallon that we're supposed to get from taking over those oil fields!"
Since when does the US listen to the UN? Did I miss something here?Quote:
Originally posted by Govtcheez
The correct answer to that is that there aren't any UN resolutions telling NK to disarm.
True. Of course you've summed up my point - only if it is in the interest and benefit of the US and its allies to attack, will an attack be made. I guess the price of a US soldier's life is worth $$$$ all to the guys in the Pentagon, huh? What a $$$$ing disgrace is all I can say.Quote:
Originally posted by Thantos
Iraq was a target that we could engage without major arms engagement. Trying to do the same to China, North Korea, and other countries would involve the type of war none of us are willing to risk.
I second that..Quote:
Originally posted by ZerOrDie
Ok he is a crazy murdering bastard why did he not use his horde of WMD? :rolleyes:
Dont forget the USA vetoed a motion by the UN to punish Iraq back in the 90's when they where killing their own folks... Dont forget the "Prevention of Genocide Act" the senate was trying to pass against Iraq for the gassing the kurds, where did that act go? Can you guess?
I agree that saddam was a "EVIL"... And it is beter off hes not there... But the fact remains that the US is always directly or indirectly involved in creation of people and groups like him.. The Taliban to fight the Russians, Saddam to counter Iran...
So what happened to all the US ethics then when he was already killing a lot of people..
I am not arguing that saddam was right.. Ammerica was indeed right in removing him.. but why create people like him first...
And this is not just my opinion.. but the opinion of people all around the world...
"Now some one will pop up and say.. we dont care for world opinion..".. You are damm right.. Might is right..
>It would not be hard for him to bury them in the LARGE country.
A lot harder than hiding a single man... not! And we know what happened to the single man.
>The correct answer to that is that there aren't any UN resolutions telling NK to disarm.
Funny. Can't remember an UN resolution that allowed invading Iraq.
>I think you need a massage or something.
If Govt doesn't want it, I'll take it :)
As far as I can remember, when US POWs where shown on TV, there was a huge outcry in the US about human rights and the rights of POWs and all that. Now that They have an Iraqi PoW worth mentioning, there's hardly a TV channel not showing his pictures 24/7. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. But maybe that's only CNN Europe and the UK and german news channels and the US channels are not showing pictures...
Another question is who shall judge ? Which court can claim jurisdiction ? I'd say Den Hague's court of war crimes might not be so bad. But then, American's won't accept an international court. Too bad. Whatever you do, even if you are perfectly fair ( which is an impossible task in itself ) it will never look like a fair trial.
The US works with double standards very often. It's in their best interest, and after all, thats a governments job: lie, cheat and do everything they can to get the most for their people. The US does quite well in this aspect of world politics, like many others. Sometimes I think only US citizens can be so naive to expect others to like them for it.
In general, I'm happy the tyrant got caught. I'd be even happier if he'd not vanish in some unknown camp in Cuba where he has no rights at all, but be judged by a court recognized by the UN.
Not much of a point, when you consider that the only time someone would fight in a war is when it is in their best interests...Quote:
True. Of course you've summed up my point - only if it is in the interest and benefit of the US and its allies to attack, will an attack be made. I guess the price of a US soldier's life is worth $$$$ all to the guys in the Pentagon, huh? What a $$$$ing disgrace is all I can say.
...
WTF FYB, stupid commie arseface! I was trying to keep my foster parents a secret so the other bonobos at the zoo wouldn't pick on me. Thansk a friggin lot....
:)
You can have the massage, and I never said I agreed with the reason. It's pretty well known that I was against the war from the start.Quote:
Originally posted by nvoigt
>The correct answer to that is that there aren't any UN resolutions telling NK to disarm.
Funny. Can't remember an UN resolution that allowed invading Iraq.
>I think you need a massage or something.
If Govt doesn't want it, I'll take it :)
> Sometimes I think only US citizens can be so naive to expect others to like them for it.
And sometimes I think that the non-US members don't really have as firm a grasp on what most Americans actually think as they think they do. There were LARGE portions of the US opposed to the war and opposed to what Bush has been doing since 9/11. Don't lump us in with them.
> First of all. I know that book is about Japan. It's about the Battan Death march and the Cabanatuan prison camp. I merely mentioned the book because it sort of had to do with what I had to say in a sense.
To reiterate what was said earlier, I really don't care how old you are. There are plenty of teenagers on this board whose opinions I respect. The whole point of the Internet is to allow ideas to be transferred. Your ideas are generally moronic and not based in fact, and that's why no one respects you. We probably wouldn't even think about your age if you'd stop reminding us of it during your "the world hates me" tirades.
Actually addressing your point, what does the way American POWs were treated by the Japanese 60 years ago have to do with Chinese human rights violations in the present day?
> You are pulling it off subject not me.
You were the first one to take the China quote out of David's e-mail, not me. I just tried to correct you, but since you won't actually listen to anyone else, you're totally right. I'm wrong about everything.
feel like telling us what the other reasons were?Quote:
Originally posted by FillYourBrain
I just thought I should mention that WMD was not the only reason for war with Iraq. It is simply what was focused on.
Oh Oh i know! They where liberating Iraq from a tyrant they placed there in the first place! Unfortunatly the tyrant had decided to no longer be the lap dog of the USA so he had to go.Quote:
Originally posted by major_small
feel like telling us what the other reasons were?
According to every news report I have watched here in the states (and that's not many) he is expected to go on trial in Iraq by the people of Iraq and the new goverment that's in place. I'm sure he will certainly be put to death if this is the case.Quote:
Originally posted by nvoigt
Another question is who shall judge ? Which court can claim jurisdiction ? I'd say Den Hague's court of war crimes might not be so bad. But then, American's won't accept an international court. Too bad. Whatever you do, even if you are perfectly fair ( which is an impossible task in itself ) it will never look like a fair trial.
The US works with double standards very often. It's in their best interest, and after all, thats a governments job: lie, cheat and do everything they can to get the most for their people. The US does quite well in this aspect of world politics, like many others. Sometimes I think only US citizens can be so naive to expect others to like them for it.
In general, I'm happy the tyrant got caught. I'd be even happier if he'd not vanish in some unknown camp in Cuba where he has no rights at all, but be judged by a court recognized by the UN.
re-read my post for a couple answers;)Quote:
Originally posted by major_small
feel like telling us what the other reasons were?
Ah, to resign yourself to accepting the status quo, to abandon principles because change does not come easily, do you seriously believe everyone does this with age? I know quite a few liberal senior citizens and older adults. However, I don't see anything reasonable about accepting whatever the government does without question--automatically trusting a war is being done for the common good, for example.Quote:
Originally posted by FillYourBrain
When I mentioned children talking politics, I did mean more than just Zakk though. The fact is, people are very idealistic when they are young. As they get older they realize that there is a more reasonable (and quieter) middle ground. Just be aware that these conversations are a waste of your lives. That is all.
I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to make the world a better place. If we don't try, then what exactly should we do in life: steal material goods, exploit others, and seek status? If you're trying to develop a better, freer operating system, if you're trying to make a more useful computer program, if you're trying to cure cancer, you're trying to make the world a better place. I guess we'd still be in the Stone Age if it weren't for all those idealistic people.
it's the emotionally charged arguments that I refer to. Your feverish response is exactly what I'm talking about. You are so intent on arguing that you don't even realize that what I said opposes no particular view. I did not say sit back and do nothing. I did not say become a puppet. I said that over time, people lose the emotion and become rational. You most likely will too Unregd
example:
the number of violent political demonstrations on college campuses vs the number of violent political demonstrations in supermarkets.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you FYB, I wouldn't comletely chalk it up to people becoming more rational, although that is usually a part of it. A lot of it is also apathy and the realization that after years of caring so much nothing has changed so why bother anymore. Doesn't necessarily mean their views are any more rational then they were when they were young. Just means they have a family, job, etc to worry about instead.
yes PJY, you definitely do start to worry about other things. But in the process you start to realize just how silly you were way back when. Your view of those you see doing what you used to do become similar to a king watching the court jester.
While it is good for kids to go through a fired up political period, it is also good for them to grow out of it. To be aware but not to let it rule them. And to stop treating it as a damn sporting event where they have to root for their team.
...
I have a question for all of you liberals. Especially you Govt. Since you are so amazing and know everything. Why is that since you are so strongly opposed to this war you are GLAD that Saddam is caught? You shouldn't want him to be caught at all. In your opinion months ago before we caught him we shouldn't have been there at all, now it's a good thing we caught him? It seems like you are changing your story as this war goes along. I mentioned that book because it was on my desk at the time and the subject reminded me of it. Just a push for a good read.
My ideas are generally based on facts and your on opinion. Whos ideas are more moronic? The ones I base on fact, or your ones generated by the dislike of the president.Quote:
Your ideas are generally moronic and not based in fact,
zakk, you're not helping the cause.
Do you believe what you write? Or do you just place your ass over the keyboard and ........ everywhere?Quote:
Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
I have a question for all of you liberals. Especially you Govt. Since you are so amazing and know everything. Why is that since you are so strongly opposed to this war you are GLAD that Saddam is caught? You shouldn't want him to be caught at all. In your opinion months ago before we caught him we shouldn't have been there at all, now it's a good thing we caught him? It seems like you are changing your story as this war goes along. I mentioned that book because it was on my desk at the time and the subject reminded me of it. Just a push for a good read.
My ideas are generally based on facts and your on opinion. Whos ideas are more moronic? The ones I base on fact, or your ones generated by the dislike of the president.
I don't believe we should be at war but I am glad Saddam is caught. The more progress we make, the closer the war will be to being over...
> My ideas are generally based on facts and your on opinion. Whos ideas are more moronic? The ones I base on fact, or your ones generated by the dislike of the president.
Then please, show me all of China's nice humanitarian actions. I'll wait.
> Why is that since you are so strongly opposed to this war you are GLAD that Saddam is caught?
Well, me not wanting the war sure as hell didn't prevent it, so I may as well be happy something good came out of it.
I still believe my ideas are better than bush's, i.e instead of waging war on islam terrorists or whatever, just drop cookies everywhere. their attitude will change from "kill the infidels" to "yeah, well, I PLANNED on killing the infidels, but DAMN these are good cookies, maybe later"
Wouldn't pot brownies be more effective Silvercord?
pot brownies, what are those?
What you've said opposes anything idealistic as being too much to bother with and something pursued mainly by naive, young people, who will "come to their senses" later in life. A conservative outlook is no more based in reason than a liberal one--the difference being one of attitude, preference, and opinion but not logic. I don't "root for my team" because I don't have one: I'm not some Young Democrat who sees nothing wrong in the Democratic Party and nothing but horrors in the Republican Party.Quote:
Originally posted by FillYourBrain
it's the emotionally charged arguments that I refer to. Your feverish response is exactly what I'm talking about. You are so intent on arguing that you don't even realize that what I said opposes no particular view. I did not say sit back and do nothing. I did not say become a puppet. I said that over time, people lose the emotion and become rational. You most likely will too Unregd
It comes down to principles: When I see or hear about something that I believe is injust or poorly done, I will let everyone who will listen know because that's the seed of change. If people aren't even aware of what a certain policy might lead to or what's even happening at the moment, how can they analyze the political environment to see whether they should vote for a better choice?
To say you disagree or agree with a certain political outlook is one thing, but to say one is based on emotion while the other is based on reason has got to be a fallacy, a violation of reason itself.
So that's why I say...Quote:
I'm not some Young Democrat who sees nothing wrong in the Democratic Party and nothing but horrors in the Republican Party.
...
Er...
Is there like a Communist Party?
interesting. I bashed Zakk (a conservative) in this thread primarily.Quote:
Originally posted by UnregdRegd
...A conservative outlook is no more based in reason than a liberal one...
You're clearly taking an argumentative stance so I refuse to comment further on your post except to say that I wasn't talking about either party. Duh... genius
But wait. You didn't want us to catch Saddam before we caught him. You're changing your opinion.Quote:
Well, me not wanting the war sure as hell didn't prevent it, so I may as well be happy something good came out of it.