anyone notice that Gary.Lowe's avatar looks like that guy from "Will and Grace"?
baby carrots and ranch dressing...mmmm
jamie presley and ranch dressing...mmmmmm
Jamie presley without any dressing....ooohhhooooohhooh....I need a cigarette.
Printable View
anyone notice that Gary.Lowe's avatar looks like that guy from "Will and Grace"?
baby carrots and ranch dressing...mmmm
jamie presley and ranch dressing...mmmmmm
Jamie presley without any dressing....ooohhhooooohhooh....I need a cigarette.
Whatever you say now does not matter anymore.
We are at war now
What does matter now is that Saddam is gotten rid with few civillian deaths as possible.
Also now it is more what happens after the war and how the country is rebuilt by the Iraqi's.
But that sounds likes such a cop-out for future transgressions by the US.Quote:
Originally posted by Gary.Lowe
Whatever you say now does not matter anymore.
We are at war now
What does matter now is that Saddam is gotten rid with few civillian deaths as possible.
Also now it is more what happens after the war and how the country is rebuilt by the Iraqi's.
Just ignore the public, goto war with a country, then let people say "well we're at war now so no point in complaining about now".
It's not a cop out Jamie. This would have happend last October but Saddam was given more time again and and did nothing to or very little to prove to the rest of the world that he was a diplomatic leader and had his countries interest at heart.
If you think there was any way that the Saddam regime would fall into line with world policy I feel you are being a little naive.
People are always banging on about human rights and aid support to iraq. The Iraqi people have no rights and lot of Saddams palaces are built on western aid.
There were are a lot of countires that support the war but none of them had the balls to stand up and do it.
I do admit the US tend to get a bit gung ho but the fact that our goverment are also involved should make sure the US don't do anything too rash.
The main point that needs to be addressed is that just becasue the US have gone in does not give them any right as to how the country is run.
The whole point of this war is to give Iraq back to the people.
I do hope the UN step in and take the diplomatic role in rebuilding the country once Saddam is gone.
I don't think Saddam was going to step into line with world policy, but, there are other ways of getting rid of him.
For example a coup, incited and supported by the coalition.
Let the people take back the country themselves.
That way everyone comes out smelling of roses.
But this way the US is going to be hated for years.
And about the US running the country - they'll install a puppet government - that is of course after the military government they install has left - after of course US companies have made millions in the rebuilding of the Iraq the US army bombed.
Oh yeah and did you read that it has been written into some bill just passed in the states that the French, Germans and Russians cannot benefit from any rebuilding work done in Iraq.
That smacks of complete childishness.
Blair cannot stand up to Bush. Not now, and probably not ever.
To quote : http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...279751,00.html
Reports have suggested that the US wants to put a military administration in place, with its own officers in key roles and American firms carrying out lucrative work restoring Iraq's battered infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
To quote : http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...279751,00.html
Reports have suggested that the US wants to put a military administration in place, with its own officers in key roles and American firms carrying out lucrative work restoring Iraq's battered infrastructure.
If that was to happen then I think there would be world uproar.
I think that is most probably press mongering.
Well the US military will definitely occupy the country and control things until they feel it necessary to setup a government.
There's going to be uproar no matter what happens.
ValidQuote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Well the US military will definitely occupy the country and control things until they feel it necessary to setup a government.
There's going to be uproar no matter what happens.
The same thing happened in Afganistan and they ahve had no problems so far.
They will have to tred very carfully though and they know this. Other wise a lot more faith in them will be lost which lets face will be the rest of the world that doesn't hate them already.
Afghanistan's a warzone still. Warlords vying for power.Quote:
Originally posted by Gary.Lowe
Valid
The same thing happened in Afganistan and they ahve had no problems so far.
They will have to tred very carfully though and they know this. Other wise a lot more faith in them will be lost which lets face will be the rest of the world that doesn't hate them already.
And opium production has tripled which'll end up with a country full of druggies.
Its a mess!
The americans though still have a presense there which is lot more than they have done in similar instances previously.
I don't agree with war but I also don't agree with sitting back and letting people suffer.
The UN is the right way to approach things but when you dealing with someone who has no regard for human life and world polotics what do you do.
It would be far easier to sit round a table an discuss things which everyone knows the Saddam Regime will not agree too.
The regime is all to quick to show 100's of innocent people dying for injured rom warfare. What you won't see is the 1000's upon 1000's of people he has killed because they did not agree with him.
The UN should have occupied Iraq - not a unilateral force making up reasons for doing it as they go along.
agrred but I think the warfare would have still been inevitable at some point.
As we have seen in past UN inspectors were just kicked out when what they were doing wasn't to Saddam liking.
This time they weren't given a chance. Iraq was co-operating with the inspectors.
But the US wouldn't give them enough time.
I think that was more a last minute attempt by Saddam to look like he was co-operating as he knew this time the crying wolf trick wasn't going to wash
Okay even if it was just to save his own skin, the inspectors weren't being interfered with and they were getting the job done.
That's what counts at the end of the day.
The US pushed for a military solution, when a peaceful one was working.
You managed to destroy two Muslim countries.
GOOD
But it wasn't at the end of the day he started to cooperate...It was at the end of 12 years, when he was finally being threatened with war.Quote:
Okay even if it was just to save his own skin, the inspectors weren't being interfered with and they were getting the job done.
That's what counts at the end of the day.
The US pushed for a military solution, when a peaceful one was working.
This would have never happened...The UN can't unanimously agree on anything when it comes to Iraq, and when it did (the UN Resolutions) it didn't back them up (the consequences for violating them). How is it unilateral (UNI means 1) there are 3 countries that have troops over there (US, UK and Austrailia), plus there are 49 other countries supporting the effort in other ways...So explain to me how this is UNILATERAL.Quote:
The UN should have occupied Iraq - not a unilateral force making up reasons for doing it as they go along.
And everyone wants to point the finger at the US. What about the UK or Austrailia? Nobody put a gun to their heads had made them go there...They're doing it, because it is the right thing to do.
And let me explain why a coup wouldn't work.
1) Take a look at the general population of Iraq. They're farmers, not soldiers. They're not trained in anyway for combat. And even if coalition forces went in to train them, a war would have broken out anyway. Saddam would have tried to stop any rebellion with force, killing civilians as well as coalition forces. Which would have led to an all out war against him.
2) He would just gas them like he did the Kurds. He will have to think twice about using WMD's against the current coalition for a couple of reasons a) We are trained in the detection, protection and decontamination of them b) Hate to say it but, there would be a good chance we would nuke baghdad if he did use them.
That's why a coup wouldn't work.
we wouldn't need to... if saddam did use a WMD (other than a nuke) and whipped out our forces there...he would also whipe out ALL the civilians.. and since the only reason we haven't bombed the crap out of baghdad is because we are preserving the city for the civilians... we would just bomb it to hell... we wouldn't have to use nukes.. a few moabs would do the job anyway... but other than nukes... i dont know if it would matter if he does use chem weapons.. other that to kill all the civilians.. because we have protection from checmical and biological agents he might useQuote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Hate to say it but, there would be a good chance we would nuke baghdad if he did use them.
Iraq was only partially cooperating because there were 250,000 troops parked outside his border. If they were not there Saddam would have just thrown the inspectors out again just like in 1997.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
This time they weren't given a chance. Iraq was co-operating with the inspectors.
But the US wouldn't give them enough time.
Not enough time???? 12 years is not enough time??? He wasn’t disarming he was REarming thanks to countries like France, Russia, and Germany.
Come back to reality. I can't believe you can't see this and you actually believe Saddam was cooperating with inspectors. No one is that naive.
X
From that site:Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Want to know why bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? READ THIS
This is the relevant part of the speech:Quote:
In a radio speech to the nation on August 9, 1945, President Truman called Hiroshima "a military base." It seems likely, considering his July 25 diary entry, that he was not aware that Hiroshima was a city. Otherwise, he was being untruthful about the nature of the target
Either Truman was misinformed or he was lying, as Bush lies.Quote:
The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians
I agree Truman was probably misinformed. And what exactly in your opinion has bush lied about?????Quote:
Either Truman was misinformed or he was lying, as Bush lies.
This war is against terrorism
The oil has nothing to do with it
Bin Laden is responsible for the attack to the twin towers
We will make a clean, surgical operation in Irak
We are not after the oil in Afghanistan, either
I am a nice boy
See this for further info on the oil topic:
http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...hreadid=238073
those aren't just opinions
This war isn't against terrorism, this war is against Saddams regime....The war against terrorism is in afganistan.Quote:
This war is against terrorism
The oil has nothing to do with it
Bin Laden is responsible for the attack to the twin towers
We will make a clean, surgical operation in Irak
We are not after the oil in Afghanistan, either
I am a nice boy
Tell me this...When the US had the oil shortage in the late '70's why didn't we just attack them then??? gas prices aren't that high right now ($1.39/gal) where i'm at. Saudi Arabia has increased its production to make up for any losses. Even if oil was part of it who cares...You show me someone who wants to spend $2.00+/gal for gas. Besides the UN is taking over the oil to accomadate the food for oil program to provide the iraqi people with food and medical supplies...meanwhile saddam was selling it to fatten his pockets.
Bin Laden was responsible for the terrorist attacks...show me some proof that says otherwise.
I would say that 99% accuracy is pretty damn good!
There was never any mention (in the press or otherwise) that what is going on in afganistan is about oil...quit basing your arguments on emotion and look at the facts!
He never said the either :)
You can't be so ingenuous!Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
There was never any mention (in the press or otherwise) that what is going on in afganistan is about oil...quit basing your arguments on emotion and look at the facts!
He never said the either :)
Please look at
http://members.localnet.com/~jeflan/jfafghanpipe.htm
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/...es/05132524.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/oil-j03.shtml
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/art...jared/oil-1.htm
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/14/silverstein-k.html
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/front.htm
http://www.zmag.org/tanteroil.htm
http://www.blueprint-magazine.de/oil/oil.html
http://www.brojon.com/frontpage/bj091701.html
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK24Ag01.html
http://www.altavista.com/r?ck_sm=636...clifford2.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/no...afgh-n20.shtml
And the very best of all, "It is the oil, stupid!" by Joseph Clifford, an American boy: (he said "stupid", not me)
http://www.mediamonitors.net/josephclifford2.html
Need some more? Look at altavista! Are they all biased against USA? No, those are facts, my friend.
And take a look to an American publication: National Geographic, May 1999 (long before 9/11), the article on the Caspian Sea. America's eyes were on the oil long ago!
Pardon my ignorance, but I've never heard of Joseph Clifford before. Isn't that strange!
:p
LOL! :) ROFMAL! :D )Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
Pardon my ignorance, but I've never heard of Joseph Clifford before. Isn't that strange!
:p
I never heard of NotLKH before! What does it prove?
Did you ever heard of Altavista.com? Or National Geographic Society?
your also talking about liberal media. There are also articles stating that it isn't about oil...It really just depends on the political beliefs of the people who own these companies publishing this stuff. For every article you point out that says it is about the oil...I can point out another that says it isn't.
But these are facts, my friend, the pipeline is under construction, and is UNOCAL who is doing it.Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
your also talking about liberal media. There are also articles stating that it isn't about oil...It really just depends on the political beliefs of the people who own these companies publishing this stuff. For every article you point out that says it is about the oil...I can point out another that says it isn't.
But I was told that:
and I showed the very first 14 that appeared on Altavista. There are hundreds of them.Quote:
There was never any mention (in the press or otherwise) that what is going on in afganistan is about oil
Sorry I can't. But I'll give you the 22 that you bombed since WW IIQuote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
6) Name the 74 countries!
1-China 1945-46
2-Corea 1950-53
3-China 1950-53
4-Guatemala 1954
5-Indonesia 1958
6-Cuba 1959-60
7-Guatemala 1960
8-Congo 1964
9-Peru 1965
10-Laos 1964-73
11-Vietnam 1961-73
12-Camboya 1969-70
13-Guatemala 1967-69
14-Grenade 1983
15-Libia 1986
16-El Salvador 1980
17-Nicaragua 1980
18-Panama 1989
19-Irak 1991-99
20-Sudan 1998
21-Afghanistan 1998
22-Yugoslavia 1999
After the invasion, none of these countries got a democratic government. Isn't that strange?
Yes, you are ignorant.Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
Pardon my ignorance, but I've never heard of Joseph Clifford before. Isn't that strange!
:p
Have you ever heard of William Blum??? Take a look:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...liam_Blum.html
From that site, I recommend:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fo...isy_WBlum.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...pons_Iraq.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...sHateAmer.html
Quote:
Originally posted by please
Sorry I can't. But I'll give you the 22 that you bombed since WW II
1-China 1945-46
2-Corea 1950-53
3-China 1950-53
4-Guatemala 1954
5-Indonesia 1958
6-Cuba 1959-60
7-Guatemala 1960
8-Congo 1964
9-Peru 1965
10-Laos 1964-73
11-Vietnam 1961-73
12-Camboya 1969-70
13-Guatemala 1967-69
14-Grenade 1983
15-Libia 1986
16-El Salvador 1980
17-Nicaragua 1980
18-Panama 1989
19-Irak 1991-99
20-Sudan 1998
21-Afghanistan 1998
22-Yugoslavia 1999
After the invasion, none of these countries got a democratic government. Isn't that strange?
Err... China was never invaded by US troops, when was Indonesia invaded?
And they never tried to install democratic governements in those countries.
They did in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan in 2001? How did they go?
What a bunch of left wing clap trap. Ive never read such distortions and such obvious misrepresentations in my entire life. I sure hope you are not buying all of this obviously slanted and politcally motivated garbage. If you are I really feel sorry for you.Quote:
Originally posted by please
Yes, you are ignorant.
Have you ever heard of William Blum??? Take a look:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...liam_Blum.html
From that site, I recommend:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fo...isy_WBlum.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...pons_Iraq.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...sHateAmer.html
X
More classic misdirection. Keep going please!Quote:
Originally posted by please
Sorry I can't. But I'll give you the 22 that you bombed since WW II
1-China 1945-46
2-Corea 1950-53
3-China 1950-53
4-Guatemala 1954
5-Indonesia 1958
6-Cuba 1959-60
7-Guatemala 1960
8-Congo 1964
9-Peru 1965
10-Laos 1964-73
11-Vietnam 1961-73
12-Camboya 1969-70
13-Guatemala 1967-69
14-Grenade 1983
15-Libia 1986
16-El Salvador 1980
17-Nicaragua 1980
18-Panama 1989
19-Irak 1991-99
20-Sudan 1998
21-Afghanistan 1998
22-Yugoslavia 1999
After the invasion, none of these countries got a democratic government. Isn't that strange?
Probably a movie that they made look like they did all the work, saved the world and made the wolrd a better place. :DQuote:
Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Err... China was never invaded by US troops, when was Indonesia invaded?
And they never tried to install democratic governements in those countries.
They did in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan in 2001? How did they go?
Only joking the yanks wouldn't do such a thing ;) :p
Scrap? Clap trap? Chit Chat? Do you know who is Mr .William Blum?Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
What a bunch of left wing clap trap. Ive never read such distortions and such obvious misrepresentations in my entire life. I sure hope you are not buying all of this obviously slanted and politcally motivated garbage. If you are I really feel sorry for you.
X
Take a look:
http://www.speakersandartists.org/Pe...lliamBlum.html
from that site:
Quote:
William Blum left the U.S. State Department in 1967, abandoning his aspiration of becoming a Foreign Service Officer because of his opposition to what the United States was doing in Viet Nam. ......... Blum was honored with a 1998 Project Censored award for his "exemplary journalism"
Dolphins do a really good job at finding them.... They can swim a little better then we can =PQuote:
Originally posted by please
USA is using dolphins to find water mines.
USA is using chickens and pigeons to find poisonous gases and chemical weapons.
USA is uning monkeys to find ground mines.
What kind of animal is commanding this war?
I consider Truman to be one of the greatest presidents of all time and was very honest.Quote:
Originally posted by please
From that site:
This is the relevant part of the speech:
Either Truman was misinformed or he was lying, as Bush lies.
He was very correct to use the nuke on Japan. A lot less people died in the result of the nuke then what there would have been without it.
LOL this guy left government service over 35 years ago. Talk about being out of the loop. So we are supposed to be impressed that he’s won some award from some unknown group? I'm sorry still not impressed here. Its obvious the slant all of his material has just by reading them. I would rather get my information from more balanced sources rather than the "lunatic fringe" that exists on both sides (left and right).Quote:
Originally posted by please
Scrap? Clap trap? Chit Chat? Do you know who is Mr .William Blum?
Take a look:
http://www.speakersandartists.org/Pe...lliamBlum.html
from that site:
X