Page 8 of 22 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 329

Thread: so whats every1s view on the US/Iraq situaton?

  1. #106
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    3

    History does give an idea of what is to come.

    Quote from Elkin<<History book already hints what will be the outcome . >>>>

    Everytime US government go to war , did not bring the world better , didn't end the conflict between race , country , or anything . All the war bring to those country is poor , death , chaos.
    __________________________________________________ __

    You are incorrect sir. Please look at the countries that have actually been to war with the U.S. For instance: Japan, Germany, and Italy. Yes they had hardships afterwards. (As the winning side did)

    However, to say that those countries did not come out of the war much better off than the U.S. would have if it had lost is bordering on stupidity.

    __________________________________________________ __
    Also , if US not that dicator why 911 only happen in US ?
    __________________________________________________ __

    Again incorrect. Please check how many terrorist acts occur around the world. While you are at it check the atrocities commited by "dictators" on their own people. I would include that in the same catagory. (They rule pretty much by terror)

    __________________________________________________ __
    Why so many people around the world don't like US ?
    __________________________________________________ __

    Perhaps because everyone dislikes the people that have it better than them? Jealousy? inferiority feelings? Maybe becuase that is how they have been taught since they were children? Perhaps it has to do with insecurity? Or maybe becuase most of the people that "really" hate the U.S. have been "brainwashed" to that point?

    How about this: How many people (not governments, people)have a specific reason to hate the U.S.? and why?
    __________________________________________________ _
    " if you are not with us ,you are against us " <- what do u think ? the words come from dicator ?
    __________________________________________________ __

    Sounds like a dictation to me. Good thing we have the right and the freedom to disagree. If we were in some other countries we would not be able to do so.

    I know that this is a pretty hot topic and tempers flare. But to throw out stuf like that is foolish.

    Personally I do not support a war with Iraq. (or any war for that matter) I would support assassination but that would make me a terrorist in that country:P

    What I would support is a complete and utter cutting off of the country from the outside until such a time that they decided that they would be better off living peacably.

    No arms, no technology, no lesuire products, no food, no outside contact. They can see the world and what it has to offer but cannot touch it. Call it a time out for a bad kid

  2. #107
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    45

    Re: History does give an idea of what is to come.

    Personally I do not support a war with Iraq. (or any war for that matter) I would support assassination but that would make me a terrorist in that country:P

    What I would support is a complete and utter cutting off of the country from the outside until such a time that they decided that they would be better off living peacably.

    No arms, no technology, no lesuire products, no food, no outside contact. They can see the world and what it has to offer but cannot touch it. Call it a time out for a bad kid
    Hey that's a great idea ... maybe we could get the UN to put some sort of .. I don't know ... "sanctions" against the country.

    Yeah .. and we would phrohibit exports so that they couldn't build their military machine. Or even better, we could enact some kind of "oil for food" program that allows only basic life supporting supplies or medicines. Heck, we could even ask "peaceful" countries like France to help manage such a program. I mean you know THEY would never take advantage of it.

    Yeah, that would be a great solution, too bad we didn't think of this before we started all this "enforcement" BS.

    :P

  3. #108
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    51
    No arms, no technology, no lesuire products, no food, no outside contact. They can see the world and what it has to offer but cannot touch it. Call it a time out for a bad kid
    I think a long time ago they used to do this sort of thing, back then it was called a "siege". Was considered an act of war, still is actually.

    So technically what you're suggesting is instead of waging war, we simply wage war.

    Of course, Iraq isn't a single fortress that can be surrounded. And let's just ignore the fact that we've already had embargos and trade restrictions and sanctions for 12 years now.

    While brilliant luminaries such as yourself utter sophomoric drivel, the people of Iraq continue to be systematically raped, tortured, and oppressed by a madman.

    The people of Iraq already suffer the fate you would propose to impose on them. They suffer it at the hands of a tyant. And you suggest that we apply that very same punishment. Joining Saddam in forcing his subjects into a 14th century existence in a 21st century world.

    The comforting reality, however, is that we have grownups in charge again. The people of Iraq will be liberated, as the people of Afghanistan were. Eventually the entire Middle East will be able to satisfy mankind's most basic yearning....freedom.

    And there's not a damn thing you can do to prevent that. Thank God.

  4. #109
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    3
    Originally posted by Borscht


    I think a long time ago they used to do this sort of thing, back then it was called a "siege". Was considered an act of war, still is actually.

    So technically what you're suggesting is instead of waging war, we simply wage war.
    __________________________________________________ __
    In that context you would be right. It would be waging a war.
    -A war that has a heck of a lot less chance to escalate into a world war.
    -A war that has a much lower chance of getting many of our people killed.
    -A war that has alot less chance of having the world ostracize the U.S.
    __________________________________________________ __

    Of course, Iraq isn't a single fortress that can be surrounded. And let's just ignore the fact that we've already had embargos and trade restrictions and sanctions for 12 years now.
    __________________________________________________ __

    Embargos and trade restrictions from one corner of the "castle"
    have little to no impact when you leave the other three corners open. In case you don't understand my reference please read the latest issue of Time magazine where it shows pictures of tanker trucks lined up to go into Iraq from Turkey and explains how much oil is currently being exported from Iraq to friendly countries like France, Russia, et al.

    __________________________________________________ __
    While brilliant luminaries such as yourself utter sophomoric drivel, the people of Iraq continue to be systematically raped, tortured, and oppressed by a madman.
    __________________________________________________ __

    Wow, I haven't been called a briliant luminary since I was a sophmore:P
    __________________________________________________ __

    The people of Iraq already suffer the fate you would propose to impose on them. They suffer it at the hands of a tyant. And you suggest that we apply that very same punishment. Joining Saddam in forcing his subjects into a 14th century existence in a 21st century world.
    __________________________________________________ __

    You have never lived a lower class life style have you? Let me just say that when you don't have anything to eat and your children are starving you will do whatever it takes to get them and yourself fed. Even if that includes joining a military that is against everything you beleive in.... or rising up against your oppressors.

    Personally I would prefer that they live a 14th century existance than kill them. However, the faction that Saddam belongs to is in the minority. (roughly 22% of Iraq citizens BTW) so to assume that he will rule for any real length of time through the turmoil of today much less the closing of all outside ties would be a far stretch.
    A very real danger is that he gains popular support throughout that part of the world. That is a real threat when you are killing people of the same or similar cultures. It is not a threat when he is killing his own people.
    __________________________________________________ __


    The comforting reality, however, is that we have grownups in charge again. The people of Iraq will be liberated, as the people of Afghanistan were. Eventually the entire Middle East will be able to satisfy mankind's most basic yearning....freedom.
    __________________________________________________ __

    Yes very comforting. Hopefully they will live up to their responsibilities of both being grown up and leading the people down the right path. I, for one, do not pretend to know what that path is for everyone in the world. And I do not condone killing people to make sure that they follow my path.
    Warmongers and tyrants would disagree....

    And there's not a damn thing you can do to prevent that. Thank God.

  5. #110
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    22
    How many of you that are commenting on this topic have actually been over there? It's one thing to say "Oh we should do this and we should go over there and nuke the hell out of Saddam, blah blah blah" But are you willing to put your life on the line to back up those words? How many of you have actually put on a uniform and been over there when the shit hits the fan? I spent a year of my life over in that sand box. And for what? Just so Saddam can turn around and do the same thing 10 years later.

    Do you actually think the U.S. would give a damn about some 3rd world country if we were not so dependant on that country for oil. The U.S. buys over 40% of it's oil from these rag-head countries that do support terrorism. Did you know that most of the 911 hijackers were Saudis, and Saudi Arabia is suppose to be our ally.

    If the U.S. were not so dependant on foreign oil, we would not give a damn about Iraq or Iran. If our vehicles got 40 mpg, we would not need to depend on foreign oil at all. But everyone is so content on driving their 3 ton SUV that gets 5 mpg.

  6. #111
    Registered User Mr. Suspicious's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    667
    Just a small corection on the "Tyrant that opresses his own people". The Koerdish people since the end of the Gulf War (the population group he used gas and other bad things against during and before the Gulf War). As a matter of fact, the Koerds have had a great autonomie for the last decade. Their territory takes up the northern 30% of Iraq.

    The Koerds oppose a war against Sadam, even tho they have been (the Bush administration says "still are") oppressed and victims of this "animal". They are know Turkey will invade Iraq and surpress that entire region as soon as a war starts, taking away the freedom they've had for the last decade. Why would Turkey do this (they already stated they will do so)? To prevent a Koerdic republic emerging... Turks regard the Koerds as Terrorists and as a mayor thread.

    Rather funny situation if you think about it. To be regarded by the US as your main "inside" ally and by the Turks (another ally) an "enemy".

    Bush (US): "We need to liberate these poor opressed Koerds from Saddam"
    Aznir (Turkey): "We need to secure Koerdistan, so they won't establish their own independant Republic, if needed with force"
    Koerds: "We don't want to be "liberated" by you, leave us in peace!"
    Last edited by Mr. Suspicious; 03-05-2003 at 05:47 PM.
    Before asking anything read the pre-face section of http://www.smoothwall.org/download/p....9/doc.faq.pdf

    after you've read it, you know what to do next...




    "Stay alert! Trust noone! Keep your Lazers Handy! Have a nice day." -- Provided courtesy of the Computer. The Computer never lies.

  7. #112
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    44
    nuke them till they glow, then shoot them in the dark


    I dont think there should be a war...too disruptive to the world.....get the CIA sleepers to assasinate instead :P
    Wolfy
    ~~~~~~
    Master of moralistic messages (MoMM)

  8. #113
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    59
    I would have loved to have linked this from CNN.. but alas.. they do not provide this information anywhere on their site. They have a scanned copy of 'notes'.. I presume the ones he used to MAKE this report with. But the report itself I could only find here. Odd, when you consider how IMPORTANT this information would be to Americans (or anyone else) trying to decide if a war with Iraq is necessary. The basic facts should be made available by news sources, you would think.....

    But.. without FURTHER ado.. I give you the link that basically confirms WHY we should be going to war with Iraq .. and VERY soon.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76710,00.html

    Read the whole thing.. although I feel the last 4 or 5 paragraphs don't say anything of substance.

    Also remember.. that while Blix was providing this 'history' lesson on Iraq and WMD, that Blix does not mention the inspectors GREATEST embarassment. When in 1995, Saddam's own son in law defected with undeniable proof (which resulted in Iraq admitting the evidence was true) that Iraq had created, developed, employed and produced a VX gas program, and stockpiles of VX gas, WHILE the inspectors were in country following the 1991 Gulf War. Couple that knowledge with the evidence of Iraqs recent creation of rockets which were also developed and created in DIRECT violation of numerous sanctions written SPECIFICALLY to prevent what he appears to be working towards. What's that you say??

    Those rockets are the PERFECT weapons to drop VX on Israel and totally genocide Jerusalem. And.. they don't really have much other military value, before you say 'well.. how do you know that'. Unlike a nuke.. the land will be quite usable and able to be occupied after the air clears (pun intended).


    Ok.. who wants to wait a few more years?? Raise your hand!!

    If your hands in the air, I consider you a fool, and a danger to yourself, your neighbors and my children. Don't expect me to like that.
    Last edited by cryptorad; 03-06-2003 at 12:58 AM.

  9. #114
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    45

  10. #115
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    59
    LOL


    *PS*.. I'm not laughing at the picture. That things been around for YEARS.

  11. #116
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    93

    I love France

    I was trying to figure out exactly why France was being so aggressively against war. A friend pointed out that France holds billions of dollars in oil contracts with Iraq and does billions of dollars worth of business with them. Financially speaking, France is probably Iraq's single largest ally.

    It was also suggested, however, that if we DO go to war that France won't risk the Veto vote because they know we would punish them by exempting whatever new government we set up from honoring France's old contracts.

    I'm interested to see if it works out that way.

  12. #117
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    59
    Good point.

    Personally, my "political BS translator" says.. that that has already happened.

    If you read between the lines a little bit.. the Bush administrations statements of late, and Powell's remarks in particular, clearly say that we are going to "rebuild Iraq with the coalition of the willing". That coalition does NOT include France, Germany or Russia at this time. Nor a string of other countries that have no desire to help us.

    It was part of the veiled threat/pressure they were exerting to get countries to come onboard. It didn't have the desired effect.

    It makes sense though.. why should we just hand over billions of assets to someone who refuses to help. SOOO.. BP will prolly get the oil rights. Honestly.. the ones scared to death of this are the Arab's. US control of Iraq's oil reserves effectively breaks OPEC's power hold. It was always powerful because it was a monopoly. No monopoly. No Power!

    Iraq hasn't fulfilled the terms of the 1991 cease fire. The US has the right, under international law, to return to Iraq WITH FORCE. This grants them 'spoils of war' rights under international law. BUT.. (back to politics a second) the cost to rebuild Iraq will be considerable. Personally.. I think that's the BIGGEST reason most of the countries are saying no. They don't want to pay their portion of the pricetag of the rebuild. They want us to choke on it. Like we did for Japan, Germany, East Germany, Korea.. etc etc etc..

    We will pay the pricetag. Like we always do.. and because we really WANT to this time also. But.. I doubt we're going to hand the sweet spots over to folks who did NOTHING but obstruct.. when it comes time for the payday. So.. basically.. the US is saying to the business interests of France, Germany and Russia....

    PFFFFFT!!!!
    Last edited by cryptorad; 03-07-2003 at 11:15 PM.

  13. #118
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    63
    Originally posted by cryptorad

    It makes sense though.. why should we just hand over billions of assets to someone who refuses to help. SOOO.. BP will prolly get the oil rights. Honestly.. the ones scared to death of this are the Arab's. US control of Iraq's oil reserves effectively breaks OPEC's power hold. It was always powerful because it was a monopoly. No monopoly. No Power!

    So it is about the oil, isn't it?

    All along, this whole war, all the "reasons", the WMD's, the "opressed people of Iraq", the "violated UN sanctions", the "in league with terrorists".... it all boils down to one thing :

    If there was no oil, Bush would't give a flying fuck about Iraq, would he?


  14. #119
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    59
    /Sigh Futuro

    If I really need to.. I'll gladly explain it to you... But.. based on how much information you are missing (in order to make a statement like you did) I really doubt you'll have the persistence to read the whole thing.

    Sooo.. do you really care? Do you really want to read it.. or are you just a US hater? Cause if you are just a US hater... I can ignore you.. and save myself alot of typing.

    Let me know.

  15. #120
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    45

    Re: I love France

    Originally posted by codepig666
    I was trying to figure out exactly why France was being so aggressively against war. A friend pointed out that France holds billions of dollars in oil contracts with Iraq and does billions of dollars worth of business with them. Financially speaking, France is probably Iraq's single largest ally.

    It was also suggested, however, that if we DO go to war that France won't risk the Veto vote because they know we would punish them by exempting whatever new government we set up from honoring France's old contracts.

    I'm interested to see if it works out that way.

    Needing France to assist in a war is like saying you need a piano to go deer hunting.

    Since some are so fond of harping on the US jumping into bed with dictators when it politically suits us, lets not forget the French built Iraq's short lived nuclear reactor (thanks Isreal) and even named it after Chirac. Their hands are no cleaner than ours when it comes to backing Saddam.

    What will be interesting to see is what's going to happen to the Atantic aliance over the few years. If dubbya fucks this up, he'll be out in a year and Hillory or whoever will undoubtedly get the socialists back together in a big group hug. But if ole 41 pulls this off and Iraqis embrace our imperialist ways, things will be awfully bumpy for "old europe".

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts
HTML code is Off
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On