Kent Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 So exactly what fact did you mention besides the fact that you saw an expert on 60 minutes. I didn't see anything the expert said that was a fact, but I did see a post that was very confident. However, speak of weapons all you want. Justification on the legal level is not what I care about. I care to see Saddam out of power because of the things I know that he is responsible for. And frankly, if you know what those deeds are, you would be supporting the removal of this dictator also. Although it is possible you know about these things and just flat out dont care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 The first attack last night at what 9:45 EST or something was totally a right away sort of thing. Intellegence had JUST got to America that high Iraqi leaders, possibly including Saddam, were in this building, so they took the opportunity to take it out while they could. So started the attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Change Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I know what the deeds are-I am not foolish and nieve. It is horrendous to point at one atrocity, and ignore the rest of the world arround you. I am just saying that it is not the right place or time, we missed out chance 10 years ago. That is when we should have acted. But that is a pointless argument, we are at war. Lets just get it over with quick and as cleanly as possible. Gokents: -100 utiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest postbagboy Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 well, actually, Saddam Huisein has done some really evil things. like, involved in Presidential Iraqi assanination Attempt. throwing gas bombs at the peaceful kurds, etc etc. it is'nt the weapons Bush cares about, he just does'nt want Saddam "who-is-insane" still in power. i mean, you have'nt been doing your homework much, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by {SITH} Change [/i] [B] It is horrendous to point at one atrocity, and ignore the rest of the world arround you.[/b][/quote] Actually quite a number countries are behind the war, the only people that are really against it are France, Germany and Russia. Sounds like the new Axis powers to me. [quote][b]I am just saying that it is not the right place or time, we missed out chance 10 years ago. [/B][/QUOTE] WE didn't miss our chance, we were denied it by the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Frankly, I have no clue what the -100 utiles means but its ok with me what ever it means. However, I want to point out that I do not ignore any of the problems in the world that are presented to me. I dont really know what to say about the problems of world. If you want my opinions about any specific problems, go ahead and ask me in a pm. Otherwise, this back and forth stuff with no real point is sorta useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Postbagboy, you haven't been doing your homework either as far as I can see. Bush is the stupid front; he goes up in front of the "nation" and says things. Behind him he has hundreds of people working to run the country, they make most of his decisions and tell him how to act in situations. And for all of you who are going on about "bushes plans" and all that he stands for and his reasons behind this... Read the Wolferwitz paper. It will explain allot. Gokents, I've been looking through the UN papers, and I can't find anywhere that says that SCUD missiles are illegal. Or even specifically mentioned? Also those missiles (last time I check) may not have been scuds; they could have been any number of other classes. As for your other argument, not even going to bother with it. So I'd ask again, prove what you are so out right claiming. I will gladly stand corrected. Also if you are in Australia have a watch of Lateline on ABC, it?s having very in-depth reports on what is happening. It also doesn?t seem to be having the extremely strong bias of the streams from America that the other stations are. [Edited - Added] Quote | Harry- Actually quite a number countries are behind the war, the only people that are really against it are France, Germany and Russia. Sounds like the new Axis powers to me. - Not true, off memory the list was very long. It includes - Australia (People don't support) Canada (People don't support) England (People don't support) France Germany Russia I will add more once I get the document I was looking at the other day. [/edited] Eps - Waits for the game, Golf War 2... In stores near you, soon, we hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Postbagboy, you haven't been doing your homework either as far as I can see. Bush is the stupid front; he goes up in front of the "nation" and says things. Behind him he has hundreds of people working to run the country, they make most of his decisions and tell him how to act in situations.[/quote][/b] [color=#808080]That's not really accurate. President Bush might not be the best public speaker, but he's certainly not a puppet. After seeing interviews of those who have met with him (even briefly), they've all mentioned that Bush has a very commanding presence amongst his peers. Obviously, in any Administration, you have a large team of people working together. There's nothing subversive about that and it certainly doesn't demean Bush's legitimacy or capabilities.[/color][quote][b] Gokents, I've been looking through the UN papers, and I can't find anywhere that says that SCUD missiles are illegal. Or even specifically mentioned? Also those missiles (last time I check) may not have been scuds; they could have been any number of other classes. As for your other argument, not even going to bother with it.[/quote][/b] [color=#808080]Two things here. Firstly, the SCUD missiles are actually prohibited in relation to Iraq. The primary reason for this is their sheer distance; the UN has place specific restrictions on missile range. And, as with the missiles launched only yesterday, we already know that Iraq's missiles violate UN guidelines. The Al-Samoud II missiles also violated these said guidelines. That matter is a black and white issue of UN guidelines; it's really not up for debate as such.[/color][quote][b] Also if you are in Australia have a watch of Lateline on ABC, it?s having very in-depth reports on what is happening. It also doesn?t seem to be having the extremely strong bias of the streams from America that the other stations are. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#808080]I find that CNN International and BBC World are generally pretty non-biased. Lateline can be somewhat liberal at times (which can be annoying, because it's not objective), but generally I don't have much of a problem with them.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liamc2 Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 *wanders in waving a little flag* Well we're at war, yay...I guess. You see the funny thing is we won't know all the facts about this war until 50 years have passed and the 'secret' documents have been brout out from the code of secrecy vault. I was intending to come here to sprinkle a little magic on this topic but I'm really too tired to bother. I haven't even read further than the 11th page and I [i]already[/i] know some idiot is going to turn this into some patriotic mumbo jumbo or claim that all the soldiers are butchers or some rot like that. People, face the facts, while you're all sitting on your lazy butts, some unfortunate soul is off in Iraq (or 'A rock' as its so frequently pronounced by our esteemed American General associates..) and fighting for you and your livelyhood. Grow up already. There's no point in holding peace rallies or vigils or whatever, war has started and that is that. I just find it amusing that 'peace protesters' are rioting in the streets, burning flags, blocking traffic and sitting in front of bulldozers [size=1](*snort* *resists urge to burst out laughing* that was hilarious...)[/size] John Howard himself said not to show anger or malice towards the soldiers themselves. He told the public to take their views and anger up with him, after all, the soldiers and sailors and pilots are only doing their job. -EDIT: out of 36 Allied missiles fired only 1 civillian was killed. If you ask me that's pretty damn good odds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [color=#808080]I pretty much agree with Liam on that one. I don't mind peace protesting, but why make everyone else suffer? lol Besides, a [i]lot[/i] of the peace protestors are highly ignorant of the specifics on the war...in addition to what led up to it. Just look at the "they'll just bomb all the civilians" comments that I referred to earlier. That's basically a comment coming from ignorance. The first couple of days of this war have already contradicted that sentiment. Of course, people are allowed to disagree with the war. But I guess that sometimes people are twisting the facts. It's fine to accept the reality of the situation but still be "anti-war", if that makes sense. I'm anti-war myself, but I understand that sometimes war is necessary to [i]protect[/i] the peace that we all desire.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by liamc2 [/i] [BYou see the funny thing is we won't know all the facts about this war until 50 years have passed and the 'secret' documents have been brout out from the code of secrecy vault.[/B][/QUOTE] Oh absolutely! I really don't take what the press says seriously till it's been proven by higher sources. But I mean, in WWI, Americans thought we were the ones who had won the war for our allies, but it was not so as we learned we probably were the ones responsible for prolonging the war that ended up killing as many people as it did. In WWII, we never knew about the Atlantic Charter till the late 1970's. In Vietnam, we all thought we were winning the thing, and we ended up "losing" and leaving with a bunch of dead people and nothing to show for it. Who knows though. You can't take anything as serious and truthful till you see it yourself or till it's over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Macaiodh Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [color=darkblue]Must... control... fist... of... death... Please, Americans... give me a reason to believe. Because so far, from what I've seen, the most advanced classes from the best rated schools in the universe, or whatever, have made the most ignorant remarks in this thread. Just so you know, we are very impressed with your 4.0s.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Webb Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 While I support all of our soldiers who are out there, and I really just don't like Saddam Hussein, I'm still anti-war. I am, however, pro-Super-Coup!! I still stand by my idea that, if anything, we should have helped rebels organize a coup so grand, the French Revolution (the event that invented the word "terrorist") would look like two 5 years olds throwing snide remarks at one another. But that's just me being silly. In fact, I've noticed that most of my posts in this thread seem to be centered around very bad humor. I wonder if I'm just covering my fear with a not-so humorous front. ANYWAY, I have one critical question to ask. Since Saddam Hussein is such a horrible man toward his own people, why would the U.S. (knowing this) give the man chemical weapons during the 1980s? Or did he only start harming Iraqi citizens [i]after[/i] he attacked Kuwait? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Thank you James, though do you have a link to the UN resolution that specifies what Iraq can and cannot have. I'd really like to read it. I know what you mean about Lateline but I've been very impressed with them lately. Extremely accurate reporting from what I can see. Which is a nice thing to see on free to air TV. I'd just like to say a few things about this quote. Quote | James- The Al-Samoud II missiles also violated these said guidelines. That matter is a black and white issue of UN guidelines; it's really not up for debate as such. - The Al-Samound II missiles are in fact just sort of the 150km range that the UN specified. The UN also did approve those missiles a few years ago. May I also say that although they come very close to the 150km range this is [i][b]without[/i][/b] the war head. With the war head installed they drop right off on range, by about 50km's in some cases. Which makes them legal. Also in this case Paul Wolfowitz and a small group are the ones behind this whole war. If you can find it read the early 1990?s report and read what he?s been up to lately. I just hope they don?t get their way, or we?ll be seeing Iran then Syria after? As for disliking the peace protestors, I?d rather 70% of Australian?s disagreeing than 60% of Americans haven?t no idea what this war is about, some of them think that the lead of Iraq is Bin Laden. Also the protestors are asking for the return of troops. [Edited - Added] LOL Endymion Why don't you ask why America gave Bin Laden the power he has? [/Edited] Eps - 4, no 12, no 16 dead... Oh can't some TV get the right numbers. They can tell you how many Iraqis have died but not how many coalition of the killing... I mean willing have been killed!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unholy Newt Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 I know it was a few pages back, but I'd like to address Gokents on his comment that the supporters of the war are mostly ones from soldier families. My family has a very militaristic background, yet I do not support the war. My father is a Major in the ADF. My grandfather was a Brigadier who served in the Vietnam War. My great grandfather served in the second world war. My best friend's father is a Warrant Officer in the army and his mother is a corporal. And I also intend to join the military. And yet I do not support this war. And also from the talk about Vietnam, I don't care what you think, that war was a mistake. Thousands of both civilian and military lives were lost, and still the Viet Cong won, but yet the Americans still act as if it was their great victory. Forgive me if I've totally missed a heap, I'm only on page seven, but I felt a need to express my opinion. But anyway, I do not feel that this war was neccesary (sp?) and that it could have been possible to solve on more peaceful measures. Usually I am not a passifist (sp?) and I would agree with this war if there was no alternative. However since it seems I have no choice, an adolescent can't make much of a difference. So I shall support my country's decision and simply keep the Australian soldiers in the Gulf in my thoughts. Also speaking of the Gulf. It is amazing, my dad has 194 books on warfare, and not one of them is on the first Gulf War. ~TUN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Wars brings death, if you don't like death don't support war, easy. :) Eps - Putting the world in black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Asuka Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [color=hotpink][size=1]I think all you people who are anti-government are so STUPID. Anarchy gets you NO where. When we are left to fend for ourselves without any sort of leadership, that's where your downfall is. Look at all the third-world countries, for example. If they built up slowly, with a decent government, they might get somewhere. You might as well support Bush. He's the president and he's leading us. You have no idea what he's going through right now. I would hate to have to be him. He's having to consider so much and take so much in and you guys, you IMMATURE children, have no clue what's going on. Guess you've all been having too much fun partying and getting drunk and having sex to really think about your future.[/color][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 LOL Queen Asuka, I think it's you who is drunk, or just the weirdest post I've ever read from you. Did anyone say they were anti-government? I know I sure didn't, I just said I'm against what the government is doing, which last time I looked at my rights was allowed. I am all for the democratic system, which in my view will most likely be the only good thing to come of this war, giving Iraq a government. Queen Asuka people are allowed to believe what ever they want without people putting them down for it, which is the idea of a free country. (Though that freedom has limitations.) Eps - Still black and white... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Asuka Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [color=hotpink][size=1]My posts was referring to some comments that were made a few pages back. I'm a little behind, but I still wanted to get my point across. Yes, you do have the option of having your own opinion and believing what you want. That's why I stated mine because that's what I believe.[/color][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cloricus Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Sorry to do this to you but I'm going to pull your reasoning apart. :) Quote | - People who are anti-government are so STUPID. Anarchy gets you NO where. - So the people who have been fighting to remove the Iraq, Afghanistan, Zimbabwean and many other country?s corrupt governments are stupid? So if some ones government is bad you should just live with it because Anarchy is worse? Generalisations are normally flawed. I?d like to go further and explain more but there is a massive storm coming and we are already losing power? Eps ? Postage? :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Asuka Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [color=hotpink][size=1]Excuse me then, I meant Anti-American government. I didn't mean anti-government in other countries. Why do you think I went on in my post to talk about Bush? :rolleyes:[/color][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sui Generis Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DuoMax [/i] [B]Can i just note that iwas at a rally today, and that we(the protesters) were exercising our right to free speech, while people drive by flipping us off. Whos being rude here? [/B][/QUOTE] Them flipping you off is considered them expressing their opinion, and is the same as you protesting. Sure the context is a bit different but its pretty much the same. And this isn't to you I'm just wondering. Why do protestors always try to play role of a victim? I'm truly curiouse about that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan L Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by {SITH} Change [/i] [B]What did you expect? The Iraqi army to roll over and not kill anyone. It sucks that they died, and my heart goes out to their families and loved ones. [/B][/QUOTE] heh.. you do realise that it's believed to have been an accident right?.. as in, the Iraqis didn't kill them, the helicopter just crashed.. Seems kind of odd to me but heh.. you'd expect the Iraqis to get the blame anyway, so when they don't I assume that to be probably true. With regards to the war, Kuwait are in support of military action to remove Saddam.. and they're actually in that area. We're not. I think they know a damn lot more about the situation than we do. That, and there have been several Iraqi troops/civilians (I think some of them were civilian but I may be wrong) surrender, and they've been completely unharmed. So where is this big massacre everyone's ranting on about? Personally I'm pro-removal of Saddam from power, but anti-war ("war" involving large numbers of lives being killed to acheive the objective).. and I'd love it if we could see Saddam removed with no loss of life, even without taking Saddam's life (revenge is pointless).. but I dunno if this will keep up for long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sui Generis Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 My dad just gave me an article he found and I thought I'd share it. Its a pro-war article. This has some disturbing content so if you have an easy stomach don't read this... Anything that has "Strong Content" above it is a paragraph that contains some sick things. Again if you can't stand it or are too young PLEASE do not read. [b]"See Men Shredded, Then Say You Don't Back War" By: Ann Clwyd[/b] [b]Strong Content![/b] [i] "There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometiems they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food...on one occasion, I saw Qusay [Suddam's youngest song] personally supervise these murders." This is one of the many witness statements that were taken by researches from Indict- the organisation I chair-- to provice ecidence for legal cases against specific Iraqi individuals for war crimes, crimes again humanity, and genocide. This account was taken in the past two week.[/i] [b]STRONG CONTENT!![/b] [i] Another witness told us about practices in the security services towards women: "Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched; men were forced to watch as their wivers were raped...women were suspended by their legs while they were menstrauting until their periiods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliaion.." The accounts Indict has heard over the past six years are disgusting and horrifying. Our task is not merely passively to record what we are told but to challenge it as well, so that the evidence we produce is of the highest quality. All witnesses swear that their statements are true and sign them. For these humanitarian reasons alone, it is essential to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam. The 17 UN resolutions passed 1991 on Iraq include REsolution 688, which calls for an end to repression of Iraqi civilians. It has been ignored. Torture, executiong, and ehtnic-clensing are everyday life in Saddam's Iraq.[/i] [b]Mild Content[/b] [i] For more than 20 years, senior Iraqi officials have committed genocide, war crimes, and crimes agains humantiy. This list includes far more than gassing 5,000 in Halabja and other villages in 1988. It includes serial war crimes during the Iran-Iraq wa; the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds in 1987-88; the invasion of Kuwait and the killing of more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians; the violent suppression, which I witnessed, of the 1991 Kurdish uprising that led to 30,000 or more civilian deaths; the draining of the Southern Marshes during the 1990's, which ethnically cleansed thousands of Shias; and the summary execustions of thousands of political opponents. Many Iraqis wonder why the world applauded the military intervention that eventually rescued the Cambodians from Pol Pot and the Ugandans from Idi Amin when these took place without the UN help. They ask why the world has ignored the crimes against them. All these crimes have been recorded in detail by the UN, the US, Kuwaiti, British, Iranian and other Governements and groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Indict. Yet the Security Council has failed to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq because of opposition from France, china and Russia. As a result, no Iraqi official has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes in the 20th century. I have said incessantly that I would have prefferred such a tribunal to war. But the time of offering Saddam incentives and more time is over. I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the SecuritY Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight.[/i] You can take what you want from this article, I just found the evidence over whelming. I was personally barely supporting the war, but now after reading this article I feel differently. If a man with so much hate is allowed to lead a country, and an army, there are endless possibilities to what he will do. We need to stop this evil phsycotic dictator, and his entire regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GinnyLyn Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 That just enforces my belief all the more to get rid of Saddam ASAP. That man is sick. Naturally, I still want as little lifeloss as possible on either side. But Saddam needs to go [i]down.[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts