Temperature at which the brain begins to die

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
Wow....You guys are great at making points about where you stand...lol....I need to get better at it :eek: . Um...I do agree with Ex-FB and Mendhak on sever issues because if I were in Iran, I would be scared as f***. I really don't know about what I would do about the situation though.

You see. Here is what I thinking. If we go over and enforce our way of government on them then it is much like communism. BUT we are not staying and they are making their own laws and constitutions. So it isn't entirely like communism. We do want to help them. But I do not think it is our role to help them. Maybe......(who else would help them?)

---

Aha - but that's exactly the communist way as well. As far as communism is concerned, they were helping the people to a better way of life. They honestly believed that a communist system was fairer to everyone and therefore the ideal.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
On the flip side of that argument. Iran and N. Korea would be developing nukes anyways. If the technology is there, someone is bound to get it eventually. You say "can you blame Iran for wanting nukes" ( Which I agree with your reasoning ) but USA wouldn't want them to because then it makes our job harder and more US soldiers die. (Peace be with the ones that have -_-. ) I can almost 100% guarentee you we will be butting heads with Iran just as we did Iraq, unless they listen to our demands and do what we tell them. :lol: .

---

Nukes are extremely expensive to develop and build. I suspect that both Iran and N. Korea would be happy not to have that expense (remember they have their own social problems which they need money for). But as the world stands (and has done for some time - it's not just recent policy) they both feel that they have to defend themselves. Look at N. Korea as an example. They could never use nukes offensively for 2 big reasons.
1) The massive nuclear counterstrike would wipe them out.
2) Their stated goal and the sticking point of the whole situation is they want to re-integrate with S. Korea (i.e. take them over). Why would you nuke the other half of your island so that you could take possession of a nuclear wasteland... so, what is their huge driving force. You stated that they would develop nukes anyway. Yet they have stated that if they had a non-aggression pact they would happily stop their weapons program. Again, they have their own social issues that they wish to sort out. Every countries actions have a reason, the key is putting yourself in their shoes and understanding that reason. In North Korea's case it's quite simply that they need nukes for defense. If they didn't need them, then they'd be unlikely to waste money getting them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
ALSO! Why the f*** would we go to Iran and make them the new Iraq of our news stations? Because they want to protect themselves from us?

---

I was saying the same thing about Iraq.... why did we want to go in there?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
... I don't think its the USA not wanting anyone to have nukes as much as it is USA not wanting the wrong people with nukes. I would NOT want a dictator to hold a nuke. (Think of Hitler had a nuke....omg the devastation :eek: even Saddam. That would be scary too.....though he wouldn't be stupid enough to use it....he would just like the ability to say "Hey I can blow you up" :lol:)

---

Again, the driving force for people like Saddam is staying in power. He wanted to stay in power more than anything. Using nuclear weapons on another country is not a good way to stay in power because of the counter-strike. Invading Iraq only proved to many nations on this planet that they must have nukes if they are to avoid being the next Iraq. That's one of the reasons I was so against the war in the first place. It's a very dangerous precident for one country to start kicking over smaller countries without world approval. What gives your country the right to decide who lives and dies in another country? At what stage does a country decide that no matter what it does to appease the world community, if another warmonger gets into power in the US, then they'll probably be up for the next invasion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
On a seperate note: I agree with the liberation of Iraq. The people were abused. It is a sick way of life to be living over there. More than half of Iraq loves USA for freeing them. I wont go through all the things that were done over in Iraq. You probably already know anyways.

---

Nobody's saying it was a good regime, but to be honest if the people weren't prepared to overthrow the government themselves, why should we force it upon them. Many would argue that the Western world is a sick place to live. Look at the low crime rate in Iran. I'm not saying I prefer that lifestyle, but you may be suprised to find out how many really don't want a Western government installed. If we were serious about "liberating" (to use the spin doctor term for conquering) Iraq (when they didn't particularly seem to want to be liberated), then we would have supported a Kurdish/Shiite uprising where they siezed popular support. But no, Bush couldn't wait to get a real war under his belt (I'm sure he was disappointed how quickly Afghanistan went out of the news). Why do you think the majority of the world was against the attack, yet fully supported the original Gulf War? This was pure warmongering with very little good intent. It's a horrible thing to say, but the world would be a much safer place today if Saddam was still in power.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Aha - but that's exactly the communist way as well. As far as communism is concerned, they were helping the people to a better way of life. They honestly believed that a communist system was fairer to everyone and therefore the ideal.


Nukes are extremely expensive to develop and build. I suspect that both Iran and N. Korea would be happy not to have that expense (remember they have their own social problems which they need money for). But as the world stands (and has done for some time - it's not just recent policy) they both feel that they have to defend themselves. Look at N. Korea as an example. They could never use nukes offensively for 2 big reasons.
1) The massive nuclear counterstrike would wipe them out.
2) Their stated goal and the sticking point of the whole situation is they want to re-integrate with S. Korea (i.e. take them over). Why would you nuke the other half of your island so that you could take possession of a nuclear wasteland... so, what is their huge driving force. You stated that they would develop nukes anyway. Yet they have stated that if they had a non-aggression pact they would happily stop their weapons program. Again, they have their own social issues that they wish to sort out. Every countries actions have a reason, the key is putting yourself in their shoes and understanding that reason. In North Korea's case it's quite simply that they need nukes for defense. If they didn't need them, then they'd be unlikely to waste money getting them.


I was saying the same thing about Iraq.... why did we want to go in there?


Again, the driving force for people like Saddam is staying in power. He wanted to stay in power more than anything. Using nuclear weapons on another country is not a good way to stay in power because of the counter-strike. Invading Iraq only proved to many nations on this planet that they must have nukes if they are to avoid being the next Iraq. That's one of the reasons I was so against the war in the first place. It's a very dangerous precident for one country to start kicking over smaller countries without world approval. What gives your country the right to decide who lives and dies in another country? At what stage does a country decide that no matter what it does to appease the world community, if another warmonger gets into power in the US, then they'll probably be up for the next invasion.


Nobody's saying it was a good regime, but to be honest if the people weren't prepared to overthrow the government themselves, why should we force it upon them. Many would argue that the Western world is a sick place to live. Look at the low crime rate in Iran. I'm not saying I prefer that lifestyle, but you may be suprised to find out how many really don't want a Western government installed. If we were serious about "liberating" (to use the spin doctor term for conquering) Iraq (when they didn't particularly seem to want to be liberated), then we would have supported a Kurdish/Shiite uprising where they siezed popular support. But no, Bush couldn't wait to get a real war under his belt (I'm sure he was disappointed how quickly Afghanistan went out of the news). Why do you think the majority of the world was against the attack, yet fully supported the original Gulf War? This was pure warmongering with very little good intent. It's a horrible thing to say, but the world would be a much safer place today if Saddam was still in power.

---

You are right, Saddam Hussein never took any of my freedoms away, And the world would be no safer or no less safer if he was still in power, I dont personally dont care about what Saddam has done to Iraqis, if he wants to cut their hands off than so be it, but when he tries to cut my hand off then we got a problem. I also think 9/11 was a conspiracy. Zionist neo-con Jews have hijacked our foreign policy and are using it as a tool to aid Israel, or invade the entire region using Iraq as the main staging area. Nick Berg was also conspiracy. And the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missle. The government are responsible for 9/11, Not terrorists with boxcutters. Donald Rumsfeld and the whole defense cabnet needs to be fired, they are some corrupt ass mother ****ers.

Please note that I disagree with all forms of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
You are right, Saddam Hussein never took any of my freedoms away, And the world would be no safer or no less safer if he was still in power, I dont personally dont care about what Saddam has done to Iraqis, if he wants to cut their hands off than so be it, but when he tries to cut my hand off then we got a problem. I also think 9/11 was a conspiracy. Jews have infiltrated out government and are using it as a tool to manipulate the world. Nick Berg was also conspiracy. And the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missle. The government are responsible for 9/11, Not terrorists with boxcutters. Donald Rumsfeld and the whole defense cabnet needs to be fired, they are some corrupt ass mother ****ers.

---

I would like this quote struck from the record your honour as it clearly doesn't blame Bush for anything, as per the rules of this forum...

also whats this talk about a draft, anybody heard of that? I'll be in Mexico if that **** goes down.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
You are right, Saddam Hussein never took any of my freedoms away, And the world would be no safer or no less safer if he was still in power, I dont personally dont care about what Saddam has done to Iraqis, if he wants to cut their hands off than so be it, but when he tries to cut my hand off then we got a problem. I also think 9/11 was a conspiracy. Jews have infiltrated out government and are using it as a tool to manipulate the world. Nick Berg was also conspiracy. And the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missle. The government are responsible for 9/11, Not terrorists with boxcutters. Donald Rumsfeld and the whole defense cabnet needs to be fired, they are some corrupt ass mother ****ers.

---

To say that the gov't was responsible for killing 3k+ people is absurd. Care to explain your reasoning? So far I think you are more paranoid than me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
also whats this talk about a draft, anybody heard of that? I'll be in Mexico if that **** goes down.

---

There won't be a draft.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
Would it be so bad to fight for your country anyways?

---

Not really, if our country was being threatened. But it's not. The only damage to america is being done by our corrupt government. which is nothing new to me. Since the Iraq war was planned before 9/11, there's really nothing to fight for. except for making corprate *******s
more richer than they already are.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
There won't be a draft. Would it be so bad to fight for your country anyways?

---

In truth, to expand on what Corona said.

Fighting for your country is a very noble cause.

Fighting for a politicians own agenda (one who was too sh*t scared to go to war), now that is another thing entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
In truth, to expand on what Corona said.

Fighting for your country is a very noble cause.

Fighting for a politicians own agenda (one who was too sh*t scared to go to war), now that is another thing entirely.

---

I agree, but the boundaries of this are blurry. We no longer live in an era where we trust our leaders without questioning like in the past, we like to think that we have control of our own decisions and acts.

When thousands are thrown into a far and away country to fight for the interests of a few, motivated by unclear reasons, open to massive debate and against the international will, then we have a problem as a country, and it must be fixed for the sake of our children.

*did I just write that?*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xcoder
we like to think that we have control of our own decisions and acts.

---

Which is exactly that the globalists that are in power are opposed to.

check this out

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...sa_rumsfeld_dc

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
You are right, Saddam Hussein never took any of my freedoms away, And the world would be no safer or no less safer if he was still in power, I dont personally dont care about what Saddam has done to Iraqis, if he wants to cut their hands off than so be it, but when he tries to cut my hand off then we got a problem. I also think 9/11 was a conspiracy. Jews have infiltrated out government and are using it as a tool to manipulate the world. Nick Berg was also conspiracy. And the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missle. The government are responsible for 9/11, Not terrorists with boxcutters. Donald Rumsfeld and the whole defense cabnet needs to be fired, they are some corrupt ass mother ****ers.

---

Please, elaborate. I want to hear why you think this.

Quote:

---

I dont personally dont care about what Saddam has done to Iraqis, if he wants to cut their hands off than so be it, but when he tries to cut my hand off then we got a problem

---

This is quite alarming. What would you do about "this problem." You would do nothing. You would be held down and have your hand cut off anyways.

So when something affects you, then you have a problem with it and someone must do something about it, right? You are the center of the universe and everyone should cater their rules to satisfy your needs?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xcoder
we like to think that we have control of our own decisions and acts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Which is exactly that the globalists that are in power are opposed to.

---

I'm not sure if this was directed to soldiers or civilians, but if it is soldiers then:

A soldier on the battlefield isn't supposed to think about his orders. Nor is he supposed to care about how his orders affect the area around him. When he/she is "ordered" to do something. He/she does it. Whether it is shooting people inside a building, or infilitrating a civilian home. If he/she thinks twice about his or her orders (hesitate), then the lose ( I can't think of the word but goes along with trust between the commander and the soldier). If he/she dis-obeys (sp) the orders then they are (usually) punished, discharged, de-ranked) All of which look horrible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer




I'm not sure if this was directed to soldiers or civilians, but if it is soldiers then:

A soldier on the battlefield isn't supposed to think about his orders. Nor is he supposed to care about how his orders affect the area around him. When he/she is "ordered" to do something. He/she does it. Whether it is shooting people inside a building, or infilitrating a civilian home. If he/she thinks twice about his or her orders (hesitate), then the lose ( I can't think of the word but goes along with trust between the commander and the soldier). If he/she dis-obeys (sp) the orders then they are (usually) punished, discharged, de-ranked) All of which look horrible.

---

Im not talking about an actual fighting situation, of course it would be dumb to have a change of heart in the middle of an operation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
This is quite alarming. What would you do about "this problem." You would do nothing. You would be held down and have your hand cut off anyways.

---

If that was a form of punishment in my country, then I would have no choice, Just as being locked up for no reason here. Do the crime do the time/get your hand cut off.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer

So when something affects you, then you have a problem with it and someone must do something about it, right? You are the center of the universe and everyone should cater their rules to satisfy your needs?

---

I am the center of my universe, and as much as you want to believe, we do not rule the earth. That mentality will ultimately lead to our destruction. Which is already taking place as we speak.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
That is the stupidest thing I've heard. Why don't you think before you speak :eek: To say that the gov't was responsible for killing 3k+ people is absurd. Care to explain your reasoning? So far I think you are more paranoid than me. :eek2:

It wasn't a cruise missle. Why don't you break out of your paranoid hole and look at the pictures for yourself before they are sent to you by your buddies.

---

Dude, always be open to possibilities. Remember, the media is controlled, so information is always filtered out.

Read this:
http://www.mendhak.com/paranormal/co...show.php?id=45

just for an idea.

It's nothing about being paranoid. There are 39,000 ways to look at a single event that occurs. The information that you and I receive are through sources which we should not trust completely, yet not distrust. Just because it doesn't fit well with you doesn't make it 'paranoia', does it? ;)

It's something like us assuming things about Saddam's regime in Iraq. We have a belief that he was a brutal murderer, who killed everyone. How do we know this? Newspapers and Television. Now if we were to read Middle Eastern newspapers and watch Mid-East TV, we'd have a completely different perspective. Can we assume either one of these to be wrong? Yes and no. It's about making a sound judgment. You should remember that during any times of conflict, we have something called jingoism at play. Having lived in several different places, I've seen it at work. Nothing like a war to get the sentiments of the general public riled up. Eg., I was in Syria during the Gulf War (I), and was reading things from the Syrian newspapers and watching CNN as well. Two contradicting views right there, plain to see. In India during the India-Pakistan conflict a couple years ago. The effect is almost disturbing if you (attempt to) take an outsider's perspective.

Of course, I'm not implying anyone being brainwashed or anything. Trying to give you another perspective on things.

PS: I hope you meet Honeybee soon. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
Dude, always be open to possibilities. Remember, the media is controlled, so information is always filtered out.

Read this:
http://www.mendhak.com/paranormal/co...show.php?id=45

just for an idea.

It's nothing about being paranoid. There are 39,000 ways to look at a single event that occurs. The information that you and I receive are through sources which we should not trust completely, yet not distrust. Just because it doesn't fit well with you doesn't make it 'paranoia', does it? ;)

It's something like us assuming things about Saddam's regime in Iraq. We have a belief that he was a brutal murderer, who killed everyone. How do we know this? Newspapers and Television. Now if we were to read Middle Eastern newspapers and watch Mid-East TV, we'd have a completely different perspective. Can we assume either one of these to be wrong? Yes and no. It's about making a sound judgment. You should remember that during any times of conflict, we have something called jingoism at play. Having lived in several different places, I've seen it at work. Nothing like a war to get the sentiments of the general public riled up. Eg., I was in Syria during the Gulf War (I), and was reading things from the Syrian newspapers and watching CNN as well. Two contradicting views right there, plain to see. In India during the India-Pakistan conflict a couple years ago. The effect is almost disturbing if you (attempt to) take an outsider's perspective.

Of course, I'm not implying anyone being brainwashed or anything. Trying to give you another perspective on things.

---

I don't think I was close minded...Honestly..you really think that the gov't killed 3k people as a political stunt? I mean come on....you have to draw the line somewhere. I looked at your site thing and I am curious as to where you got that information :eek:.

There is a line between paranoia and being open-minded. I can be open minded and not agree with something. That is something I can't agree with. At first, I couldn't tell if he was even being serious....as did others. This is a crazy accusation. lol. I mean...it wouldn't be as outrageous if he actually supported it with a source or something, but to just come out and say things like that. What do you expect someone to say to it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer


And on the Saddam issue. Their are videos of him supporting murders...I mean....it's him....beating the living s*** outa someone.....same with his sons.....

---

I don't think for a second that Mendak is trying to say that Saddam was a good guy, but we are fed our news by a biased source.

For instance, I could you show you footage of a country where police officers beat a man senseless, I could show you footage of a country where they hold a child and won't release him back to his father who lives in another country, I could show you footage of a country where riots are quelled by overwhelming police force, a country where people get arrested without charge, where people are killed in prisons, a country where people get arrested for not carrying ID, a country where governing officials line the pockets of their friends at the expense of the tax payer, a country which aggressively attacks other countries, you think chopping peoples hands off as a punishment is bad? This self same country executes criminals routinely. A country that has supported terrorism extensivley in the past, a country that actively persues WMD programs and has a chemical weapons stockpile, a country that threatens other country's openly...... of course, many of these points of view would be skewed to paint the same picture, but you see what I'm getting at. I'm pretty certain you can guess the country I'm talking about (and if you don't believe any of the stories, I'm sure I can post links), and I don't think it's as bad as the above scenario makes out, yet it's all fact, and it can all be presented as a mass of evidence to show that the country in question is out of control, oppressive and evil.

Quote:

---

I don't think for a second that Mendak is trying to say that Saddam was a good guy, but we are fed our news by a biased source.

---

Alright, that makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
I don't think I was close minded...

---

I didn't say that. :)

Quote:

---

Honestly..you really think that the gov't killed 3k people as a political stunt?

---

I didnt say that. :)

Quote:

---

I mean come on....you have to draw the line somewhere. I looked at your site thing and I am curious as to where you got that information :eek:.

---

ALL information can be questioned. All information should be questioned before accepting it. What I linked you to was a conspiracy theory. The sources are always there, it's about interpretation and presentation. Our mainstream media will give us a presentation and interpretation that supports our collective needs or the needs of those in power. The needs could be, for example, gaining public acceptance for the war. Possible, isn't it? Think about it.

That is what I am trying to show you. Do you see what I'm trying to say? I know you are!

Quote:

---

There is a line between paranoia and being open-minded. I can be open minded and not agree with something. That is something I can't agree with. At first, I couldn't tell if he was even being serious....as did others. This is a crazy accusation. lol. I mean...it wouldn't be as outrageous if he actually supported it with a source or soemthing, but to just come out and say things like that. What do you expect someone to say to it?

---

There is also a fine line between thinking and being told to think. And before you take it the wrong way again, let me say that I'm not saying that's how you're going about it. I am trying to show you that you can't always accept what is told to you. So, be open to possibilities.



Back in school, there'd often be a fight between two boys. Both of them have their stories. After you listen to both their stories... you really begin to wonder about history. :p


So, what do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
I didn't say that. :)



I didnt say that. :)



ALL information can be questioned. All information should be questioned before accepting it. What I linked you to was a conspiracy theory. The sources are always there, it's about interpretation and presentation. Our mainstream media will give us a presentation and interpretation that supports our collective needs or the needs of those in power. The needs could be, for example, gaining public acceptance for the war. Possible, isn't it? Think about it.

That is what I am trying to show you. Do you see what I'm trying to say? I know you are!



There is also a fine line between thinking and being told to think. And before you take it the wrong way again, let me say that I'm not saying that's how you're going about it. I am trying to show you that you can't always accept what is told to you. So, be open to possibilities.



Back in school, there'd often be a fight between two boys. Both of them have their stories. After you listen to both their stories... you really begin to wonder about history. :p


So, what do you think?

---

I see your point....and it makes sense....lol....I hear about that all the time though and it makes me mad now. (The conspiracy that the gov't did it as a political stunt). Maybe I should have thought before I spoke. I still believe that it is just a conspiracy and it isn't true.

I'm going to do myself some good now. I didn't realize what I was getting myself into when I made this thread. (Half the people that have come here probably didn't watch the movie I posted to begin with anyways.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
I still believe that it is just a conspiracy and it isn't true. AND even the 1% chance that it is true, the evidence to prove it has been eradicated by now. :lol: May I ask who would you think would be behind it if it were true? ( Not you Mendhak ;) but Corona...)

I still stand by my points though.

---

I hope that it's a conspiracy also, but I know the government we have in place today is corrupt, so I won't rule anything out. As for who is behind it, Bush would have gave the orders, but there are more people involved besides him, Its really sad but people actually capitalized off of 9/11, Bush, Israel, New world order?, you name it. As for where mendhak got his info there is a ton of sources on the net. The remains of the WTC were immediately melted down into scrap metal, no analasys no investigation, I mean come on. pure coverup.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
I hope that it's a conspiracy also, but I know the government we have in place today is corrupt, so I won't rule anything out. As for who is behind it, Bush would have gave the orders, but there are more people involved besides just him, Its really sad but people actually capitalized off of 9/11, Bush, Israel, New world order?, you name it. As for where mendhak got his info there is a ton of sources on the net.

---

Alright. Thanks Corona. (And I publicly apologize for harping your case so quick and so bad)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer


I have found out 1 thing about myself though. I am not open minded. At first I just got mad when you guys said I wasn't open minded and though you were just feeding me liberal b***s***, but maybe you aren't trying to bash me. Maybe you really mean it when you say I am not open minded enough. I got mad when Merri said I was a bad programmer, but I am not open minded, and that therfore means he is right.

...

Instead of having my PM's deleted. How do you change yourself to be open minded? I realize to be a good programmer you have to be open minded. How do you "open" your mind? Can someone please tell me? I want to be a good open minded programmer. I need to be open minded to get all the view points I can to solve a problem. Don't come back to me with politics. I tried to PM a few folks but I don't get replies.

---

At the risk of getting you mad again, I'll tell you that you are wrong here. You are not close minded. In fact, because you mentioned that you are feeling that you might have a problem implies that you are more open-minded than a lot of us here. Most of us here have already formed an opinion and wouldn't like to change very much. If we were to change, our change would be slow. You have acknowledged this, and therefore you are open to views.

To tell you the truth, I am quite impressed by you. You display the mental capacity and intelligence of a person much older than yourself. It's rare nowadays, from what I've observed. I'm sure others here will agree with that.

So my first point would be to not let yourself get down just because of something someone tells you. If I have characterized you in any of my posts, ignore it.

Form your own opinions about something. If you have a question, google it, ask people, post here if you'd like. Take all the opinions, and see if it fits in well with what you feel is right. I do not want to say that your dad is giving you incorrect info. I'm only saying that do the search yourself first, and then see what others have to say.

One more thing... "I am too young to argue points" is not something you should say. If you say it enough times, you will eventually start believing it. I don't believe that age has anything to do with 'arguing points'. You should meet my dad. You should see my boss. Hell, you should see my coworkers! I can wipe the floors with their nostrils when it comes to astronomy, world events, general knowledge, paranormal, yadda yadda yadda. And I'm just average when it comes to the standards here on vbforums.com I'm the only guy below 25 in my team, but my age has no bearing on the impression that the people have come to hold of me.

Hope this makes sense, and good work, guy. :thumb:

Yip! Pretty much agree with everything Mendak said there.

I don't think you're closed minded. I think you're doing very well in these debates.

There are at least two sides to every argument, and it is quite possible that both of them can be correct.

For example: I believe Bush went into Iraq to get his hands on the Oil reserves. To be honest, I think that's a pretty good reason. It's sure a hell of a lot better than liberating Iraq/Finding WMD/Al-Quieda links. Why do I think it's a better reason? Well for one it's not a stupid reason, the US could do with controlling that Oil - as at present they're pretty much at the mercy of OPEC. Secondly, it's a move that will do America good in the long run financially. Now, look at it from Bush's perspective. He can't come out and say that - as it's a highly illegal thing to do - invade another country to plunder their resources.

So morally I think it's a dispicable thing to do, but I could see his reasoning for doing it.

Can I see any reasoning for the whole WMD/Al-Quieda/Liberate Iraq motives, no - they were either obviously false or the US had nothing to gain from it.

Just for the record: I don't think Bush did this line to Rumsfelds pockets, I think that was just an side-effect of securing the oil.

Maybe part of the problem is that I notice most Americans refer to this mythical beast the left wing liberal or the right-winger..... maybe that's what comes of having a two party system.

I don't think you can categorise people that easily. Here are some of my beliefs and were they fit in to the US political system.

- I don't think prisons are tough enough - no telly, no smokes, nothing but a pot to piss in. (Right Wing)
- I'm against the death penalty, too many innocent people have been killed for me to think it is a fair system for a modern culture. Also, I'd rather see someone suffer for years than give them the quick and easy option out. (Left wing - apparently)
- I'm against government grants for projects which don't have any real payback (right wing)
- I believe strongly in free health care and full education for everyone (left wing)
- I think the 1st Gulf war was the right thing to do, but I think the 2nd one was a poorly advised move (apparently this makes me left wing - quite how, I don't know).

Do you see what I'm getting at, people can't be categorised as liberal or right wing, everyone has differing opinions on everything.

Now, this is where it starts to get cloudy. Why is someone for or against the war?

If someone is against the war because they say that "War is wrong and we shouldn't do it.", then I would disagree and say that war has solved many problems.
If someone is against the war because they don't want people to die, then I would disagree, war is dirty, people die, there's a time and a place to fight for what is right.
If someone is against the war because the say it was a counterproductive move that has actually increased the terrorist threat - then I'd agree wholeheartedly with them.

So, there you have three people agreeing on the fact that we shouldn't be in Iraq, but I strongly disagree with two of their reasonings - and certainly wouldn't associate myself with their views.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
Alright. Thanks Corona. (And I publicly apologize for harping your case so quick and so bad)

---

No problem, I am always open for debate.

I noticed that throughout the last 4 years there has been a lot of things come up...one that leads to another. example:

1. OK. We have to go to Afghanistan and fight terrorism.
2. Iraq has terrorist we have to go to Iraq.
3. We have to fight Saddam and pull him out of power.
4. We have to overthrow their ENTIRE government and make it suit our demands
5. (Next and upcoming) We have to go to Iran.
6. bla bla bla etc etc

If you will, please, look at number 1. Then look at number 4. How does going into Afghanistan turn into overthrowing the Iraqi government? I will be the first to tell you he was a ruthless SOB that needed to die in the worst possible way. But this way didn't really make sense. There are a ton of countries just like Iraq, or similar to Iraq, that could have been "randomly" selected to have their government overthrown.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer

1. Somewhere in the good book it says the end of the world will come when all the nations ally up against Israel. (we are getting deadly close to this) Count the nations that are allied with Israel. Now count the nations that aren't :eek:

---

I suspect if Isreal stopped attacking it's neighbours they might have a few more allies. But apart from that Isreal wasn't around when the bible was written. I think most prophecies are bunkum. Look at all the Nostrodamus/Apocalypse predicitons for year 2000. What people want to believe is their own business, but I'm not going to worry about it personally. ;)

wow....are you serious? Israel wasn't around at that time?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer


It's a hard thing for my mind to even think about. You know that Saddam and his sons are abusing ever lick of power they have. And if you are a man/woman of religion or even if you have a consious or any moral in you at all you know that you want to help them (good samaratan act). But how do you go about it? Do you go in, kick there ass, and say there you go, you are free now? How do you go about freeing a country from oppression?(and they were oppressed).

---

An excellent question. :thumb:

Kerry did have a point when he said that actions such as the invasion of Iraq should pass a foreign acceptance test. If Bush had been more patient, or hadn't been so beligerant with his allies, then he may well have got world acceptance for an attack on Iraq (much like the 1st Gulf War) and then their would not be as much resentment in the middle east, and it wouldn't have been viewed as an invasion (IMHO) but as a liberation. I think that would be the first major step: Have true international participation.

Secondly, let the general population do most of the fighting. if this was about liberation, then where were the battalions of dissident Iraqi's. Look at the liberation of France, they were attacked, taken over, and huge amounts of French fought to remove the Germans. This was a totally different situation. here you have an Iraqi oppressing the Iraqi's.

Strange though it may seem, most of the people in Saddam's Iraq probably had a fairly reasonable life before the 1st Gulf War, they see a foreign power come storming into their country, and consequently making their country look weak, and of course they are going to be against you. It's the same as another country saying, "look at America, they have a poor education and health system, they have incredibly high crime, look at us, we have great health and education and we have no crime." We'll invade and take them over for their own good, they'll thank us for it when we install Al-Akhbar as their new Ayatholla, but we will hold elections later so they can elect a new leader.

Wouldn't you feel a bit pee'd off no matter what the reason for the invasion. Neither the lack of education and health-care nor the free crime rate may not affect you at all. So despite an outsider saying these things are wrong, as far as your concerned your life is fine. So why are they attacking. I suspect much of Iraq was like that. Also, with the attacking you have people losing children, brothers, sisters etc. Do you honestly think they are going to be happy that the US attacked.

Thirdly: You need to have an exit stratergy. One of the points I argued relentlessly before this war was that if we go in, there's no way out.

Do we just withdraw and leave it open to a blood-bath?
Do we stay and put our troops in the firing line for evermore?

You could argue that holding elections would allow us to withdraw, but I doubt it. We can't create a situation and then wash our hands of the consequences. Besides, Iraq was a fairly secular country. What happens now when they hold elections and put a Muslim fundamentalist government in power. One who joins forces with Iran and now controls the middle-east. It's a sad fact, but it was actually hugely to our advantage that Iraq and Iran were mortal enemies. Good help us now if they ally with each other.

Fourth: You make sure you can justify your reasons for liberating the Iraqi's to the Iraqis. One of the problems at present (so I hear) is that the Iraqi's are still without power in massive areas. Yet, all the wests efforts is going into supply power for the oil wells (most of which are back up and running). So, it doesn't really appear to the Iraqi's that you were there to liberate them, only to help yourself to their oil.

So to cap it all, imagine you're an iraqi on the ground. Life under Saddam didn't really bother you that much, after all, you lived in the big city, had free healthcare, a good job, two kids etc. Your children were killed when the US bombed your house. You and your wife have been without electricity or clean water for over a year, (but the oil well down the road had it's generator fixed within weeks of the war and has lights burning day and night), foreign troops (the one's reponsible for killing your children) patrol the street, search you at random, let dogs into your house (which are considered unclean by muslims), tanks patrol the roads (shooting at people who overtake them), there is massive civil unrest and killings, .... do you welcome thim with open arms, or do you feel inclined to shoot a few of them? It's a hypothetical situation, but probably not that far from the truth in reality. Now, I know that it's not GI Joe's fault, but unfortunatly he's the guy on the front line, and he's the only person they can vent their anger against. So, when the press calls them insurgents, really it's just Average old Akhbaar avenging his family/country etc.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
wow....are you serious? Israel wasn't around at that time?

---

Isreals only 50 or 60 years old. That's what part of the problem is. The arabs see it as a huge land-grab. It's actually the British to blame for that one.... we screwed up bad there.

The "nation" of Israel a.k.a children of Israel did exist in biblical times though. Moses led them out of Egypt. It didn't exist as a nation or a kingdom. More like a collection of tribes, about 40 I believe. (Anyone correct this?)

Of course, if people were to start claiming descendency from those tribes, we'd have a large part of the Middle East being called "Israelis". That'd eliminate the land grab problem :lol:

Quote:

---

Kerry did have a point when he said that actions such as the invasion of Iraq should pass a foreign acceptance test. If Bush had been more patient, or hadn't been so beligerant with his allies, then he may well have got world acceptance for an attack on Iraq (much like the 1st Gulf War) and then their would not be as much resentment in the middle east, and it wouldn't have been viewed as an invasion (IMHO) but as a liberation. I think that would be the first major step: Have true international participation.

---

There never would have been world acceptance of an invasion. This is due to the fact the France and Russia would have blocked any effort to remove Saddam from power. This is due to many factors including:

1) Russia and France were the biggest benefactors in the oil for food scandal, skimming billions off the UN program that was supposed to provide food for starving Iraqi’s.
2) Key figures were bought off inside of both governments with oil stipends, in effect Saddam bought plenty of political influence with the bribe of oil.
3) France and Russia both had lucrative oil deals with Saddam both drilling rights and development rights.
4) France and Russia were key suppliers of Saddam for military arms even after the UN imposed a ban on the sale of any military hardware to Iraq.

If you also remember both France and Russia were the last to come on board in the first gulf war because they wanted an assurance that Saddam would not be removed from power, only that Saddam would be removed from Kuwait. This was all to protect their lucrative interests in Saddam’s Iraq. So you see France and Russia would always block any invasion to remove Saddam in the UN, this is the sole reason the US had to go outside the UN to form a coalition to remove him from power.

Quote:

---

Secondly, let the general population do most of the fighting. if this was about liberation, then where were the battalions of dissident Iraqi's. Look at the liberation of France, they were attacked, taken over, and huge amounts of French fought to remove the Germans. This was a totally different situation. here you have an Iraqi oppressing the Iraqi's.

---

Iraqi’s new army is taking a larger and larger role every day. The US now only accounts for 50% of the force on the ground in Iraq today and hopefully in the future can be diminished further. Also if you could remember many of the regular Iraqi army during the invasion simply left the battlefield and went home and didn’t even put up a fight with the US led coalition.

Quote:

---

Strange though it may seem, most of the people in Saddam's Iraq probably had a fairly reasonable life before the 1st Gulf War, they see a foreign power come storming into their country, and consequently making their country look weak, and of course they are going to be against you. It's the same as another country saying, "look at America, they have a poor education and health system, they have incredibly high crime, look at us, we have great health and education and we have no crime." We'll invade and take them over for their own good, they'll thank us for it when we install Al-Akhbar as their new Ayatholla, but we will hold elections later so they can elect a new leader.

---

I do say you have an interesting way at looking at things. I have seen you make life inside the USSR seem like Utopia and now you are saying that life in Iraq under Saddam gave people a “fairly reasonable life before the 1st Gulf War”. Perhaps you don’t remember the 8 or so years of war with Iran prior to the first Gulf War? Living with war for that for so long with thousands of dead and gas attacks doesn’t seem reasonable to me. Living without religious freedom or even freedom of speech doesn’t sound too “reasonable” either. I guess you and I have a different perspective of what is “reasonable”.

Quote:

---

Wouldn't you feel a bit pee'd off no matter what the reason for the invasion. Neither the lack of education and health-care nor the free crime rate may not affect you at all. So despite an outsider saying these things are wrong, as far as your concerned your life is fine. So why are they attacking. I suspect much of Iraq was like that. Also, with the attacking you have people losing children, brothers, sisters etc. Do you honestly think they are going to be happy that the US attacked.

---

After 30 years of Saddam they are probably used to losing children, brothers, and sisters. Saddam is likely responsible for the deaths of around 1 million Iraqi’s. I do believe after living though 30 years of that would likely make me a lot more “unhappy”.

Part 2 next post :)

X

Quote:

---

Thirdly: You need to have an exit stratergy. One of the points I argued relentlessly before this war was that if we go in, there's no way out.

Do we just withdraw and leave it open to a blood-bath?
Do we stay and put our troops in the firing line for evermore?

You could argue that holding elections would allow us to withdraw, but I doubt it. We can't create a situation and then wash our hands of the consequences. Besides, Iraq was a fairly secular country. What happens now when they hold elections and put a Muslim fundamentalist government in power. One who joins forces with Iran and now controls the middle-east. It's a sad fact, but it was actually hugely to our advantage that Iraq and Iran were mortal enemies. Good help us now if they ally with each other.

---

Considering US troops are still in Germany 60 years later I hardly think 1 ½ years of the US being inside of Iraq is a long period of time. It took 7 years to set a government up in Germany and I suspect as Bush has stated all along that it is going to be a long and hard road that the Iraqi’s will have to endure. However one thing can be stated that once could not, at least now they have a chance at having some measure of freedom because they never would have had such an opportunity under Saddam.

Quote:

---

Fourth: You make sure you can justify your reasons for liberating the Iraqi's to the Iraqis. One of the problems at present (so I hear) is that the Iraqi's are still without power in massive areas. Yet, all the wests efforts is going into supply power for the oil wells (most of which are back up and running). So, it doesn't really appear to the Iraqi's that you were there to liberate them, only to help yourself to their oil.

---

I guess you didn’t realize that the oil industry in Iraq is their chief source of income and jobs? As much as I want my tax dollars forever supporting Iraq (yeah right) there is a time in which the Iraqi’s must support themselves. I can see how you can look at it that way but you must look at it from the perspective of rebuilding Iraq’s ability to support itself. The sooner you are able to generate income and jobs for the Iraqi people the sooner you are able to let them forge their own destiny.

Quote:

---

So to cap it all, imagine you're an iraqi on the ground. Life under Saddam didn't really bother you that much, after all, you lived in the big city, had free healthcare, a good job, two kids etc. Your children were killed when the US bombed your house. You and your wife have been without electricity or clean water for over a year, (but the oil well down the road had it's generator fixed within weeks of the war and has lights burning day and night), foreign troops (the one's reponsible for killing your children) patrol the street, search you at random, let dogs into your house (which are considered unclean by muslims), tanks patrol the roads (shooting at people who overtake them), there is massive civil unrest and killings, .... do you welcome thim with open arms, or do you feel inclined to shoot a few of them? It's a hypothetical situation, but probably not that far from the truth in reality. Now, I know that it's not GI Joe's fault, but unfortunatly he's the guy on the front line, and he's the only person they can vent their anger against. So, when the press calls them insurgents, really it's just Average old Akhbaar avenging his family/country etc.

---

You know you are taking the far extreme case that is not seen in over 99% of Iraq. Most of the Iraqi provinces have their order restored and are receiving more power than they were under Saddam. Not to mention the new schools that have been built and the ability for many Iraqi’s to have free newspapers, the freedom to practice their religion again, and to carry on with their lives. I suppose if you just get your news from the main stream media it might be inferred that your example is happening everywhere from what I hear and see most of the trouble being reported is from the same area’s over and over again and most parts of Iraq are nothing like you describe. Not saying that your scenario doesn’t exist, I am saying it’s the exception rather than the rule.

X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
There never would have been world acceptance of an invasion. This is due to the fact the France and Russia would have blocked any effort to remove Saddam from power. This is due to many factors including:

1) Russia and France were the biggest benefactors in the oil for food scandal, skimming billions off the UN program that was supposed to provide food for starving Iraqi’s.
2) Key figures were bought off inside of both governments with oil stipends, in effect Saddam bought plenty of political influence with the bribe of oil.
3) France and Russia both had lucrative oil deals with Saddam both drilling rights and development rights.
4) France and Russia were key suppliers of Saddam for military arms even after the UN imposed a ban on the sale of any military hardware to Iraq.

If you also remember both France and Russia were the last to come on board in the first gulf war because they wanted an assurance that Saddam would not be removed from power, only that Saddam would be removed from Kuwait. This was all to protect their lucrative interests in Saddam’s Iraq. So you see France and Russia would always block any invasion to remove Saddam in the UN, this is the sole reason the US had to go outside the UN to form a coalition to remove him from power.X

---

I love the way you vilify them for being against a war. I doubt if the oil was a major factor in their decision making, but if it makes you feel better about, let's say that it is. Even so, how come most of the other major countries in the world were against the attack as well. There is more at stake here than just oil. The world is now in a mess due to Iraq and you say that the only reason the Russians and French thought it was a bad idea to go in was because of oil???? Surely there could have been other reasons.

I agree that it reached a stage where France was never going to agree, and I 100% think that France was wrong to take that stance, but I strongly believe that could have been avoided if Bush had been a bit less beligerent. If someone tries to bully you into a position, it's only natural to push back. That's exactly what I saw happening with the UN.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith

Iraqi’s new army is taking a larger and larger role every day. The US now only accounts for 50% of the force on the ground in Iraq today and hopefully in the future can be diminished further. Also if you could remember many of the regular Iraqi army during the invasion simply left the battlefield and went home and didn’t even put up a fight with the US led coalition.

---

That is totally different from fighting to liberate your own country. What your describing is apathy (leaving the battlefield) and people trying to secure a job in a wrecked economy (policing). It is not by any stretch of the imagination, an internal revolt.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith

I do say you have an interesting way at looking at things. I have seen you make life inside the USSR seem like Utopia and now you are saying that life in Iraq under Saddam gave people a “fairly reasonable life before the 1st Gulf War”. Perhaps you don’t remember the 8 or so years of war with Iran prior to the first Gulf War? Living with war for that for so long with thousands of dead and gas attacks doesn’t seem reasonable to me. Living without religious freedom or even freedom of speech doesn’t sound too “reasonable” either. I guess you and I have a different perspective of what is “reasonable”.

---

Thank you, I do believe I have an interesting way of looking at things. I have never said that life in the USSR was a Utopia, and I stand by what I said about Iraq. It's all to do with perception. If life was so bad they would have risen up themselves and thrown off their chains. I'm not saying that it was any walk in the park, and I have already stated that I wouldn't like to have been there, but from the person on the grounds perspective, it was a developing nation. Now look at it, it's a bombed out hole.

Quote:

---

In the central city of Ramadi, a Sunni Muslim area where support for Saddam has been strong, Odai Faleh voiced doubts that the former president was guilty of much beyond punishing those who deserved it.

“At least Saddam provided us with security. We have seen nothing good from the Americans,” he said.

Under Saddam, security was one element virtually guaranteed - if only out of fear of the regime’s security apparatus.

“He knew how to rule Iraq,” said Khaled Moufak, 21, a former soldier living in Baghdad. “He robbed us from our rights, but we and our women were able to be safe at the streets. He was executing those who are now sabotaging our country with the help of CIA.”

---

- In fairness, there's plenty of anti-Saddam rants with the above article as well, but I'm just using this to point out the fallicy of your statement.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
After 30 years of Saddam they are probably used to losing children, brothers, and sisters. Saddam is likely responsible for the deaths of around 1 million Iraqi’s. I do believe after living though 30 years of that would likely make me a lot more “unhappy”.

---

Okay, could I see some facts on this 1 million (other than Fox news). But say it is tru, Saddam was evil yes. But do you really think he killed 1,000,000 people personally? Those people were killed by soldiers etc. The soldiers who you are now employing as your police force. Removing Sadam isn't going to make things better. Those people are still there. It is a huge stretch of the imagination to think that people are going to be happy when you bomb their houses and kill their children..... no matter what happened before.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
Considering US troops are still in Germany 60 years later I hardly think 1 ½ years of the US being inside of Iraq is a long period of time. It took 7 years to set a government up in Germany and I suspect as Bush has stated all along that it is going to be a long and hard road that the Iraqi’s will have to endure. However one thing can be stated that once could not, at least now they have a chance at having some measure of freedom because they never would have had such an opportunity under Saddam.

---

Interesting analogy. Because you see, Germany was conquered, not liberated. Now France on the other hand was liberated, and the troops where out pretty quickly (within months actually).

Have you just shot yourself in the foot :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
I guess you didn’t realize that the oil industry in Iraq is their chief source of income and jobs? As much as I want my tax dollars forever supporting Iraq (yeah right) there is a time in which the Iraqi’s must support themselves. I can see how you can look at it that way but you must look at it from the perspective of rebuilding Iraq’s ability to support itself. The sooner you are able to generate income and jobs for the Iraqi people the sooner you are able to let them forge their own destiny.

---

Actually, I work in the Oil & Gas industry, and quite closely with a number of the Iraq contracts (in fact I was almost due to go out there a while back till they started shooting at the oil and gas workers). So, it's interesting that you think that generating revenue is more important than providing clean water and electricty to the people. How many people have to suffer and die while you kindly pump their gas out for them (oh, but of course, it's only the evil Russians and French who have get any monetory gain from the oil supplies in Iraq isn't it. Good old benign uncle Sam wouldn't dream of using it for his own advantages). You need to get into the real world somewhat. The US is using Iraqi oil to bolster it's own supplies/reserves. To be honest, as I stated in another post, I can quite understand this reasoning. But what I was trying to explain was that if you're an Iraqi on the ground and you see this stuff going on whilst your house is without power or clean water, then of course you'll feel angry. How nieve/stupid would a person have to be to believe the old "we're pumping the oil out for you, so that we can sell it, so that we can put some money back into your economy." You bombed the hell out of the country, and now you're going to take their oil to pay for the rebuilding. Wouldn't you feel a tad cheesed off if you were an Iraqi???

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
You know you are taking the far extreme case that is not seen in over 99% of Iraq. Most of the Iraqi provinces have their order restored and are receiving more power than they were under Saddam.

---

Not since before the 1st Gulf War. Trust me, they're struggling for power for towns, I know the lads who work on the power gens there. The Oil Wells and Pipelines are the number 1 priority. Everything else is right at the bottom of the pile.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
Not to mention the new schools that have been built and the ability for many Iraqi’s to have free newspapers, the freedom to practice their religion again, and to carry on with their lives. I suppose if you just get your news from the main stream media it might be inferred that your example is happening everywhere from what I hear and see most of the trouble being reported is from the same area’s over and over again and most parts of Iraq are nothing like you describe. Not saying that your scenario doesn’t exist, I am saying it’s the exception rather than the rule.

---

Possibly, but if only 1% of the country is in that situation (and I suspect it is a lot more), you've just created 2.5 million potential terrorists who hate the US. Do you think that's a good thing?