Kent Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 I think cloricus has a legtimate point. However, I believe that torture and rape, along with fascism makes for a country that restricts freedoms to choose your life style more than any outside country ever could. America does not ask that the Iraqi's adopt a lifestyle different from thier own desires... we just want to give the majority of Iraqis the option to live as they wish with out Saddam's constant threat. The threat that Saddam posses is to more of the worlds population than anyone can estimate. Not because of some sort of ideals saddam carries, but because of his style of ruling. Saddam is the sort who will use a friend to any advantage he can, and then turn on that very same person as soon as it is expediant for him to do so. The war effort in Iraq is such a complicated scenerio that most of us will never agree. With complexities that can span an entire life time of debate, it would never be expected that any two people come to a common point of view. So with all that said, I guess it is time to sum up my point... I believe in the possibility that Americans are fighting for the betterment of Iraq, and I believe in the possibility that Iraqis will appreciate that effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 Change that is your view, I would guess that saddam and the people loyal to him have an opposite view. Read 1984 by Orwell, it is really good for this type of debate. (Also, I agree with you that Saddam is not a nice person. I have never said that was wrong.) -Added- I have to agree with you there Gokents. Though I would like to point out that America has done bad things like you have listed before... (But not pointing it out very strongly because that's off topic. :P) Eps - Hmm stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 People who think Saddam is an evil man: all above People who are willing to go to war over it: 1/2 What about Brave New World? That's a good one also for that sorrta thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 I think your post (change) is just stupid. Saddam is not a nice person by any stretch of the imagination, and you will not find many that support his ways. (As far as I know.) But you must remember that Saddam was brought up in a culture that shaped him this way. This culture at the time was not dissimilar to the western ideologies. He was then helped by America (at some point, not clear on that.) and they screwed him over. As they did with the Taliban, and now the Northern Alliance. Thus the people in charge of these organisations learn to distrust and hate America. In this case it was Saddam. Now when in charge he became corrupted, like most in that position. So really you cannot say that he is the way he is because he wanted to be, it was just the way he was "shaped". Saying that half the people on the boards want to go to war is a fair statement, but if you were given the chance to give every one on the planet a chance to vote yes or no I think you would only find one or two billion supported it is total. This is no where near half the population of the world which would mean that the world would not want to go to war. I believe that 1984 is a better book in my opinion, but this is not a book club thread. :) Eps - Debates are fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Webb Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 I still wonder why the U.S. once gave Hussein chemical weapons back in the 80's, if he's such a horrible person. I mean, did he suddenly become a cruel dictator roughly 12 years ago, or has he always been that way and we just didn't care? Anyway, a previous quote reminded me of a certain cartoon I read. Here's an attached image... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShinje Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Endymion [/i] [B]I still wonder why the U.S. once gave Hussein chemical weapons back in the 80's, if he's such a horrible person. I mean, did he suddenly become a cruel dictator roughly 12 years ago, or has he always been that way and we just didn't care? [/B][/QUOTE] [size=1] [color=darkblue] He was goven chemical weapons by the U.S in the 1980's to fight the Iranians who were seen as a large threat to the U.S. he has always been a horrible dictatorm heck, in his first ever conference he shot dead anyone who opposed him. Why? to instill fear, to tell the Iraqi's "I'm the man" so to speak... [/size] [/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orien_Xel Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 [color=blue]Maybe we should surrender, and let them keep their oil! That'll learn 'em!!! But seriously, I think Saddam pulled out before the bombing started. Do you really think he is [b]THAT[/b] stupid?[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subversive Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]But threatening independent journalists is just plain unacceptable. [/B][/QUOTE] Well ofcourse, to civil (or half-way) human beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 I wish the U.S. would actually take responcibility for what they've done. I mean, Afganistan and Osama was our fault, and now Iraq... our fault as well.... We gave both of these countries weapons. We gave both of these countries money. We trained Osama bin Laden and his men. Why don't we just say "Hey, we F-ed up, now we're going to 'fix' it"... but no... we're too arrogant for that... more like pathetic. I personally don't see this going the way America thinks it's going. It will end up backfiring. Somehow, somewhere.... It always does. At least every "war" since WWII has Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegitto4 Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 I'd have to concurr with you there TN. We did screw up. But, albeit it's no excuse, our president is from texas. Therefore, his pride, and ego are a TAD** opens hand up to the size of the atlantic.** bit big........ ** only said that because he lives in TX** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 We put the weapons in their hands with good intentions. We did not train them to attack us. It wasn't the smartest things we've ever done, but we did it with our best interests in mind. I have to refer to this analogy onnce again: If you lost a loved one in the attack on 9/11, or if you lost a loved one in a terrorist attack funded by Saddam, would you still not feel the need to act? -Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i] [B]We put the weapons in their hands with good intentions. We did not train them to attack us. It wasn't the smartest things we've ever done, but we did it with our best interests in mind. I have to refer to this analogy onnce again: If you lost a loved one in the attack on 9/11, or if you lost a loved one in a terrorist attack funded by Saddam, would you still not feel the need to act? -Justin [/B][/QUOTE] I didn't say we didn't need to act... I've said that a few times that I think Saddam needs to go, I just feel the reasons and logic and the way we are approaching this conflict is all wrong. We didn't train them to attack us, yeah. I mean, duh. We trained them to attack other people, which could easily be used against us. It's like training Osama bin Laden how to make an Atomic bomb and expecting him not to make one when the time comes around he's "hating" us... you have to expect that your relations with a country may not be good in the future, and thus you cannot help them or they might use that against you... the US can't seem to understand this. Ofcourse, thats what you get when you meddel in world affairs and don't want to send you're own people to do your meddling, you train peopel from potentially dangerous countries to do the meddling for you. The a few years later they meddel back and you're all surprised? Give me a break. PS: what terrorist attack was funded by Saddam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 None was, that I'm aware of. I'm just saying that's it's not a possiblity there won't be one, lol. I understand what you're saying. The part where my opinion goes away from yours is when you enter the part about we shouldn't want to strike back for them striking us(at least, that's the impression I have). We provided weapons for them, yes. However, just because we provided those weapons doesn't mean we shouldn't be angry when they turned them against us. In my opinion, we should strike back, take their weapons, and never sell or train them again. Or anyone else, without a very good cause, for that matter. -Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i] [B]I understand what you're saying. The part where my opinion goes away from yours is when you enter the part about we shouldn't want to strike back for them striking us(at least, that's the impression I have). We provided weapons for them, yes. However, just because we provided those weapons doesn't mean we shouldn't be angry when they turned them against us. [/B][/QUOTE] Oh I never said that. I'm all for goign after those who strike us. Well not all for... but I feel they should be brought to justice in one way or another. Saddam has not struck us.... he never did. We alwasy struck first. He is just "thought" to be an "eventual threat" to American people. Which is why I don't see an exact reason to go in military force. And I don't think the reasons our president is giving are the true reasons we are in this conflict. I think there's more than meets the eye. (we should send in the transformers!) I don't think we should be providing services or weapons or money to anyone who is embedded in a conflict. History has shown time after time that it will come back and bite you in the arse, not in all cases, but in some you can plainly see it. I don't think the US needs to be the only super power and I don't think we have any right to try to spread our govenment beliefs on the rest of the world just because we think it's "right"... And I think thats what this campaign is all about. Spreading democracy by getting rid of the tolitarians and the fascist governments. What better excuse to spread your "religion" by making the world think you're doing something good. Although in this case, the world doesn't think that, and I think that that was a complete surprise to Bush and his administration. And they had no choice bt to go forward because they already made the commitment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 And the best award for governmnt adaption of a scrrenplay goes to Geroge W. for his addaptaition of Minority Report... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yu Yu Hakusho! Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]Oh I never said that. I'm all for goign after those who strike us. Well not all for... but I feel they should be brought to justice in one way or another. Saddam has not struck us.... he never did. We alwasy struck first. He is just "thought" to be an "eventual threat" to American people. Which is why I don't see an exact reason to go in military force. And I don't think the reasons our president is giving are the true reasons we are in this conflict. I think there's more than meets the eye. (we should send in the transformers!) I don't think we should be providing services or weapons or money to anyone who is embedded in a conflict. History has shown time after time that it will come back and bite you in the arse, not in all cases, but in some you can plainly see it. I don't think the US needs to be the only super power and I don't think we have any right to try to spread our govenment beliefs on the rest of the world just because we think it's "right"... And I think thats what this campaign is all about. Spreading democracy by getting rid of the tolitarians and the fascist governments. What better excuse to spread your "religion" by making the world think you're doing something good. Although in this case, the world doesn't think that, and I think that that was a complete surprise to Bush and his administration. And they had no choice bt to go forward because they already made the commitment. [/B][/QUOTE] I agree with you, somewhat. But I guess I am from Texas and kind of did grow up in a more conservative way...(thanks dad...>< )-not! The only think I have to say.... Well, even though Saddam may not be hurting us now and Bush thinks he's posing a threat to us, Saddam is still hurting his people. I just want to take him out of office, not kill everyone in the Middle East. You should read some of the stuff I've read from major news sites...not just Republican sites...even very left wing liberal sites. IT's horrible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 You know that both Reagan and Bush senior contued to support Saddam even though he gassed his own people. Let's find a better reason that humanitarian causes. Let's find something better than Geneva convention Infactions (never mind those "armed combatants" at Guantannamo Bay Cuba). What is really over there for us to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegitto4 Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i] [B] We provided weapons for them, yes. However, just because we provided those weapons doesn't mean we shouldn't be angry when they turned them against us. -Justin [/B][/QUOTE] I see it more of this. e trusted them with tactics that we taught them. Then, they turn and backstab us with our own crap. As you said, it wasn't smart on our part not to see it comming. But if someone did this to you, wouldn't you want to slam your fist into them? Multiple times of course......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Is nothing sacred! We gave them that gas to use on the Iranians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 NO! sith you are wrong. America supplied botcholism and anatrax to the University of bahgdad for research. The gases used were a mixture of seron, vx and anthrax. Get your stuff straight. Btw, the string of antrax given to bahgdad univ. was the aimes iowa strain, which coniencedentally was the same strain used in the antrax letters that followed 9/11, but Im sure you already knew that.:whoops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Sorry Gokents but I (not knowing all the facts?) would have to say that if America did give Iraq any type of chemical weapon it would be taken as permission to use any chemical weapons that Iraq had against Iran. It?s like giving a kid in a fight a plastic cricket bat and they have a real on, you?ve said that it?s okay to use the plastic one why not the real one. So unless there is something I don?t know I don?t believe that argument one bit. Vegitto4, they just didn't "turn around and stab you in the back", America screwed them over. Like they are doing to the northern alliance now. You cannot support a movement and then when it suits you pull out, this has been proven over and over, yet American Governments don't seem to learn from their mistakes. Eps - War, what a world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juu Posted March 26, 2003 Author Share Posted March 26, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i] [B]I have to refer to this analogy onnce again: If you lost a loved one in the attack on 9/11, or if you lost a loved one in a terrorist attack funded by Saddam, would you still not feel the need to act?[/B][/QUOTE] [color=ff00cc] [size=1]Well, many of the families of the victims of 9/11 also joined the protest against the war. By the way... I was just looking in my social studies book today, and I never really noticed how close Umm Dabagiah and Çatal Huyük were to Baghdad... = \ <- Ish a Mesopotamia nerd. >>;[/color] [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Justin. 11/9 had nothing to do with Iraq. What are you on about? I'd like to say that I'd let that argument go if you are referring to Bin Laden and the war on Afghanistan but it has no place in a debate about Iraq. Saddam and Bin Laden are further apart than Bush and Saddam. You have no idea how much those two factions of that religion hate each other. No idea my friend? Eps - War is War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Is Saddam a sheite and Osama a Suuni? I dunno exactly what factions of muslims exist. I never undeerstoof factions of religions anyway, I find it really stupid to tell you the truth. Anyway, we were talking about the curds in my class the other day and how far that battle between the curds and every other middle eastern country goes. It goes all the way back to the 1700s. They are a stateless group of people who threaten to take over middle eastern land because of their numbers (apparently they multiply very quickly) which is why Saddam, and Saddam's uncle (leader of Iraq before Saddam) and the Iranians and the Turks and the Jordanians (ofcourse these weren't all border states at the time)have all at one time or another attacked the curds and attempted to kill them off. I'm just saying that the rivalry between the curds and those middle eastern states leads back to before the US was created. I dunno if anyone is considering the curds in northern Iraq as Iraqi people, but I can guarantee you that Saddam doesn't see them as Iraqi people. Gokents, I dunno about you, but I've heard fro numerous sources that Saddam was given the chemical weapons to fight the Iranians, who, like was said here earlier, were considered a threat the US. I heard this on several of the news stations as well as here on the net and I even read it in my history book. Whether or not they were given to study at Baghdad university is irrelvant.... did they or did they not use those same chemical weapons against Iran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Justin. 11/9 had nothing to do with Iraq. What are you on about? [/B][/QUOTE] It had nothing to do with it. That's why I called it an analogy. And not one directed towards you. Anyway, I know Saddam is a Shiite(The more violent and radical of the three Muslim divisions that I'm aware of), but I don't know about Bin Laden. Common sense would say he's a Shiite also, but who knows? I really don't think Saddam is that dedicated of a Muslim anyway. He only seems to go back to religion when he's trying to rally support and call for a jihad. But there agian, who knows? [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vegitto4 [/i] [B]I see it more of this. e trusted them with tactics that we taught them. Then, they turn and backstab us with our own crap. As you said, it wasn't smart on our part not to see it comming. But if someone did this to you, wouldn't you want to slam your fist into them? Multiple times of course......... [/B][/QUOTE] I believe that was my point, lol. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]I don't think we should be providing services or weapons or money to anyone who is embedded in a conflict. History has shown time after time that it will come back and bite you in the arse, not in all cases, but in some you can plainly see it. I don't think the US needs to be the only super power and I don't think we have any right to try to spread our govenment beliefs on the rest of the world just because we think it's "right"... And I think thats what this campaign is all about. Spreading democracy by getting rid of the tolitarians and the fascist governments. What better excuse to spread your "religion" by making the world think you're doing something good. Although in this case, the world doesn't think that, and I think that that was a complete surprise to Bush and his administration. And they had no choice bt to go forward because they already made the commitment. [/B][/QUOTE] Ah, I understand now, lol. Well, I can't argue your fact-based opinion. It's just a matter of what you think is right. On another note, I think everyone needs to calm back down. I'm seeing petty insults and attacks rise again. -Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts