-
Posted by jawwad01
u think he needs to give himself a reason to attack? He never has done before
How many times has Saddam attacked over the last years and how many times have the USA attacked others in that time? Who is the real threat to world peace? They attack Saddam because they say he has broken UN resoultions. Well, right now the USA and the uK are doing the same: they break international law. I wish they call call their leaders to account for that.
I dont think this is about money
This is naive. In a capitalistic world system all is about money.
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
How many times has Saddam attacked over the last years and how many times have the USA attacked others in that time? Who is the real threat to world peace? They attack Saddam because they say he has broken UN resoultions. Well, right now the USA and the uK are doing the same: they break international law. I wish they call call their leaders to account for that.
I dont think this is about money
This is naive. In a capitalistic world system all is about money.
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
I find it rather pathetic if people do nothing to support anti-war campaigns. This war could have been avoided, if it wasn't for a weak wannabe-John Wayne and his lap dog who apparently tries to revive old dreams of a past Empire. (Just as you said the attack was not aimed agaisnt the people of Iraq but against their leaders, the same goes for my comment)
Eric Bogle on the Falkland war, May 25 th., 1982 :
The jingoism always remains the same... it's just the wars that are different
Post Edited (03-21-03 21:42)
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
Eric Bogle on the Falkland war, May 25 th., 1982 :
The jingoism always remains the same... it's just the wars that are different
Post Edited (03-21-03 21:42)
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
How many times has Saddam attacked over the last years and how many times have the USA attacked others in that time? Who is the real threat to world peace? They attack Saddam because they say he has broken UN resoultions. Well, right now the USA and the uK are doing the same: they break international law. I wish they call call their leaders to account for that.
In responce:
how many reasons has USA (and UK, and others) given for any attacks, and how many has Saddam given? How many reasons has he provided for the execution of inoccent people?
Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps
In responce:
how many reasons has USA (and UK, and others) given for any attacks, and how many has Saddam given? How many reasons has he provided for the execution of inoccent people?
Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps
You want reasons?
The USA dropped bombs on 23 countries since WW II, for example on
China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964, Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1984
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-1999
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Compare this to Saddam's score.
I am not going to talk about the countless assassinations of political heads throughout the world in which the CIA participated (around 20)
What about the following? This list is by ne means complete.
Argentina - 1890 - Troops sent to Buenos Aires to protect business interests.
Chile - 1891 - Marines sent to Chile and clashed with nationalist rebels.
Haiti - 1891 - American troops suppress a revolt by Black workers on United States-claimed Navassa Island.
Hawaii - 1893 - Navy sent to Hawaii to overthrow the independent kingdom - Hawaii annexed by the United States.
Nicaragua - 1894 - Troops occupied Bluefield's, a city on the Caribbean Sea, for a month.
China - 1894-95 - Navy, Army, and Marines landed during the Sino-Japanese War.
Korea - 1894-96 - Troops kept in Seoul during the war.
Panama - 1895 - Army, Navy, and Marines landed in the port city of Corinto.
China - 1894-1900 - Troops occupied China during the Boxer Rebellion.
Philippines - 1898-1910 - Navy and Army troops landed after the Philippines fell during the Spanish-American War; 600,000 Filipinos were killed.
Cuba - 1898-1902 - Troops seized Cuba in the Spanish-American War; the United States still maintains troops at Guantanamo Bay today.
Puerto Rico - 1898 - present - Troops seized Puerto Rico in the Spanish-American War and still occupy Puerto Rico today.
Nicaragua - 1898 - Marines landed at the port of San Juan del Sur.
Samoa - 1899 - Troops landed as a result over the battle for succession to the throne.
Panama - 1901-14 - Navy supported the revolution when Panama claimed independence from Colombia. American troops have occupied the Canal Zone since 1901 when construction for the canal began.
Honduras - 1903 - Marines landed to intervene during a revolution.
Dominican Rep 1903-04 - Troops landed to protect American interests during a revolution.
Korea - 1904-05 - Marines landed during the Russo-Japanese War.
Cuba - 1906-09 - Troops landed during an election.
Nicaragua - 1907 - Troops landed and a protectorate was set up.
Honduras - 1907 - Marines landed during Honduras' war with Nicaragua.
Panama - 1908 - Marines sent in during Panama's election.
Nicaragua - 1910 - Marines landed for a second time in Bluefields and Corinto.
Honduras - 1911 - Troops sent in to protect American interests during Honduras' civil war.
China - 1911-41 - Navy and troops sent to China during continuous flare-ups.
Cuba - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American interests in Havana.
Panama - 1912 - Marines landed during Panama's election.
Honduras - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American interests.
Nicaragua - 1912-33 - Troops occupied Nicaragua and fought guerrillas during its 20-year civil war.
Mexico - 1913 - Navy evacuated Americans during revolution.
Dominican Rep 1914 - Navy fought with rebels over Santo Domingo.
Mexico - 1914-18 - Navy and troops sent in to intervene against nationalists.
Haiti - 1914-34 - Troops occupied Haiti after a revolution and occupied Haiti for 19 years.
Dominican Rep 1916-24 - Marines occupied the Dominican Republic for eight years.
Cuba - 1917-33 - Troops landed and occupied Cuba for 16 years; Cuba became an economic protectorate.
World War I - 1917-18 - Navy and Army sent to Europe to fight the Axis powers.
Russia - 1918-22 - Navy and troops sent to eastern Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution; Army made five landings.
Honduras - 1919 - Marines sent during Honduras' national elections.
Guatemala - 1920 - Troops occupied Guatemala for two weeks during a union strike.
Turkey - 1922 - Troops fought nationalists in Smyrna.
China - 1922-27 - Navy and Army troops deployed during a nationalist revolt.
Honduras - 1924-25 - Troops landed twice during a national election.
Panama - 1925 - Troops sent in to put down a general strike.
China - 1927-34 - Marines sent in and stationed for seven years throughout China.
El Salvador - 1932 - Naval warships deployed during the FMLN revolt under Marti.
World War II - 1941-45 - Military fought the Axis powers: Japan, Germany, and Italy.
Yugoslavia - 1946 - Navy deployed off the coast of Yugoslavia in response to the downing of an American plane.
Uruguay - 1947 - Bombers deployed as a show of military force.
Greece - 1947-49 - United States operations insured a victory for the far right in national "elections."
Germany - 1948 - Military deployed in response to the Berlin blockade; the Berlin airlift lasts 444 days.
Philippines - 1948-54 - The CIA directed a civil war against the Filipino Huk revolt.
Puerto Rico - 1950 - Military helped crush an independence rebellion in Ponce.
Korean War - 1951-53 - Military sent in during the war.
Iran - 1953 - The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah to power.
Vietnam - 1954 - The United States offered weapons to the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh.
Guatemala - 1954 - The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas in power.
Egypt - 1956 - Marines deployed to evacuate foreigners after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal.
Lebanon - 1958 - Navy supported an Army occupation of Lebanon during its civil war.
Panama - 1958 - Troops landed after Panamanians demonstrations threatened the Canal Zone.
Vietnam - 1950s-75 - Vietnam War.
Cuba - 1961 - The CIA-directed Bay of Pigs invasions failed to overthrow the Castro government.
Cuba - 1962 - The Navy quarantines Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Laos - 1962 - Military occupied Laos during its civil war against the Pathet Lao guerrillas.
Panama - 1964 - Troops sent in and Panamanians shot while protesting the United States presence in the Canal Zone.
Indonesia - 1965 - The CIA orchestrated a military coup.
Dominican Rep- 1965-66 - Troops deployed during a national election.
Guatemala - 1966-67 - Green Berets sent in.
Cambodia - 1969-75 - Military sent in after the Vietnam War expanded into Cambodia.
Oman - 1970 - Marines landed to direct a possible invasion into Iran.
Laos - 1971-75 - Americans carpet-bomb the countryside during Laos' civil war.
Chile - 1973 - The CIA orchestrated a coup, killing President Allende who had been popularly elected. The CIA helped to establish a military regime under General Pinochet.
Cambodia - 1975 - Twenty-eight Americans killed in an effort to retrieve the crew of the ayaquez, which had been seized.
Angola - 1976-92 - The CIA backed South African rebels fighting against Marxist Angola.
Iran - 1980 - Americans aborted a rescue attempt to liberate 52 hostages seized in the Teheran embassy.
Libya - 1981 - American fighters shoot down two Libyan fighters.
El Salvador - 1981-92 - The CIA, troops, and advisers aid in El Salvador's war against the FMLN.
Nicaragua - 1981-90 - The CIA and NSC directed the Contra War against the Sandinistas.
Lebanon - 1982-84 - Marines occupied Beirut during Lebanon's civil war; 241 were killed in the American barracks and Reagan "redeployed" the troops to the Mediterranean.
Honduras - 1983-89 - Troops sent in to build bases near the Honduran border.
Grenada - 1983-84 - American invasion overthrew the Maurice Bishop government.
Iran - 1984 - American fighters shot down two Iranian planes over the Persian Gulf.
Libya - 1986 - American fighters hit targets in and around the capital city of Tripoli.
Bolivia - 1986 - The Army assisted government troops on raids of cocaine areas.
Iran - 1987-88 - The United States intervened on the side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.
Libya - 1989 - Navy shot down two more Libyan jets.
Virgin Islands - 1989 - Troops landed during unrest among Virgin Island peoples.
Philippines - 1989 - Air Force provided air cover for government during coup.
Panama - 1989-90 - 27,000 Americans landed in overthrow of President Noriega; over 2,000 Panama civilians were killed.
Liberia - 1990 - Troops entered Liberia to evacuate foreigners during civil war.
Saudi Arabia - 1990-91 - American troops sent to Saudi Arabia, which was a staging area in the war against Iraq.
Kuwait - 1991 - Troops sent into Kuwait to turn back Saddam Hussein.
Somalia - 1992-94 - Troops occupied Somalia during civil war.
Bosnia - 1993-95 - Air Force jets bombed "no-fly zone" during civil war in Yugoslavia.
Haiti - 1994-96 - American troops and Navy provided a blockade against Haiti's military government. The CIA restored Aristide to power.
Zaire - 1996-97 - Marines sent into Rwanda Hutus' refugee camps in the area where the Congo revolution began.
Albania - 1997 - Troops deployed during evacuation of foreigners.
Sudan - 1998 - American missiles destroyed a pharmaceutical complex where alleged nerve gas components were manufactured.
Afghanistan - 1998 - Missiles launched towards alleged Afghan terrorist training camps.
Yugoslavia - 1999 - Bombings and missile attacks carried out by the United States in conjunction with NATO in the 11 week war against Milosevic.
Iraq - 1998-2001 - Missiles launched into Baghdad and other large Iraq cities for four days. American jets enforced "no-fly zone" and continued to hit Iraqi targets since December 1998.
Now, tell me again, who has brought more death, destruction and misery into this world - Iraq or the USA?
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
The USA dropped bombs on 23 countries since WW II, for example on
China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964, Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1984
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-1999
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Compare this to Saddam's score.
I am not going to talk about the countless assassinations of political heads throughout the world in which the CIA participated (around 20)
What about the following? This list is by ne means complete.
Argentina - 1890 - Troops sent to Buenos Aires to protect business interests.
Chile - 1891 - Marines sent to Chile and clashed with nationalist rebels.
Haiti - 1891 - American troops suppress a revolt by Black workers on United States-claimed Navassa Island.
Hawaii - 1893 - Navy sent to Hawaii to overthrow the independent kingdom - Hawaii annexed by the United States.
Nicaragua - 1894 - Troops occupied Bluefield's, a city on the Caribbean Sea, for a month.
China - 1894-95 - Navy, Army, and Marines landed during the Sino-Japanese War.
Korea - 1894-96 - Troops kept in Seoul during the war.
Panama - 1895 - Army, Navy, and Marines landed in the port city of Corinto.
China - 1894-1900 - Troops occupied China during the Boxer Rebellion.
Philippines - 1898-1910 - Navy and Army troops landed after the Philippines fell during the Spanish-American War; 600,000 Filipinos were killed.
Cuba - 1898-1902 - Troops seized Cuba in the Spanish-American War; the United States still maintains troops at Guantanamo Bay today.
Puerto Rico - 1898 - present - Troops seized Puerto Rico in the Spanish-American War and still occupy Puerto Rico today.
Nicaragua - 1898 - Marines landed at the port of San Juan del Sur.
Samoa - 1899 - Troops landed as a result over the battle for succession to the throne.
Panama - 1901-14 - Navy supported the revolution when Panama claimed independence from Colombia. American troops have occupied the Canal Zone since 1901 when construction for the canal began.
Honduras - 1903 - Marines landed to intervene during a revolution.
Dominican Rep 1903-04 - Troops landed to protect American interests during a revolution.
Korea - 1904-05 - Marines landed during the Russo-Japanese War.
Cuba - 1906-09 - Troops landed during an election.
Nicaragua - 1907 - Troops landed and a protectorate was set up.
Honduras - 1907 - Marines landed during Honduras' war with Nicaragua.
Panama - 1908 - Marines sent in during Panama's election.
Nicaragua - 1910 - Marines landed for a second time in Bluefields and Corinto.
Honduras - 1911 - Troops sent in to protect American interests during Honduras' civil war.
China - 1911-41 - Navy and troops sent to China during continuous flare-ups.
Cuba - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American interests in Havana.
Panama - 1912 - Marines landed during Panama's election.
Honduras - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American interests.
Nicaragua - 1912-33 - Troops occupied Nicaragua and fought guerrillas during its 20-year civil war.
Mexico - 1913 - Navy evacuated Americans during revolution.
Dominican Rep 1914 - Navy fought with rebels over Santo Domingo.
Mexico - 1914-18 - Navy and troops sent in to intervene against nationalists.
Haiti - 1914-34 - Troops occupied Haiti after a revolution and occupied Haiti for 19 years.
Dominican Rep 1916-24 - Marines occupied the Dominican Republic for eight years.
Cuba - 1917-33 - Troops landed and occupied Cuba for 16 years; Cuba became an economic protectorate.
World War I - 1917-18 - Navy and Army sent to Europe to fight the Axis powers.
Russia - 1918-22 - Navy and troops sent to eastern Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution; Army made five landings.
Honduras - 1919 - Marines sent during Honduras' national elections.
Guatemala - 1920 - Troops occupied Guatemala for two weeks during a union strike.
Turkey - 1922 - Troops fought nationalists in Smyrna.
China - 1922-27 - Navy and Army troops deployed during a nationalist revolt.
Honduras - 1924-25 - Troops landed twice during a national election.
Panama - 1925 - Troops sent in to put down a general strike.
China - 1927-34 - Marines sent in and stationed for seven years throughout China.
El Salvador - 1932 - Naval warships deployed during the FMLN revolt under Marti.
World War II - 1941-45 - Military fought the Axis powers: Japan, Germany, and Italy.
Yugoslavia - 1946 - Navy deployed off the coast of Yugoslavia in response to the downing of an American plane.
Uruguay - 1947 - Bombers deployed as a show of military force.
Greece - 1947-49 - United States operations insured a victory for the far right in national "elections."
Germany - 1948 - Military deployed in response to the Berlin blockade; the Berlin airlift lasts 444 days.
Philippines - 1948-54 - The CIA directed a civil war against the Filipino Huk revolt.
Puerto Rico - 1950 - Military helped crush an independence rebellion in Ponce.
Korean War - 1951-53 - Military sent in during the war.
Iran - 1953 - The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah to power.
Vietnam - 1954 - The United States offered weapons to the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh.
Guatemala - 1954 - The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas in power.
Egypt - 1956 - Marines deployed to evacuate foreigners after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal.
Lebanon - 1958 - Navy supported an Army occupation of Lebanon during its civil war.
Panama - 1958 - Troops landed after Panamanians demonstrations threatened the Canal Zone.
Vietnam - 1950s-75 - Vietnam War.
Cuba - 1961 - The CIA-directed Bay of Pigs invasions failed to overthrow the Castro government.
Cuba - 1962 - The Navy quarantines Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Laos - 1962 - Military occupied Laos during its civil war against the Pathet Lao guerrillas.
Panama - 1964 - Troops sent in and Panamanians shot while protesting the United States presence in the Canal Zone.
Indonesia - 1965 - The CIA orchestrated a military coup.
Dominican Rep- 1965-66 - Troops deployed during a national election.
Guatemala - 1966-67 - Green Berets sent in.
Cambodia - 1969-75 - Military sent in after the Vietnam War expanded into Cambodia.
Oman - 1970 - Marines landed to direct a possible invasion into Iran.
Laos - 1971-75 - Americans carpet-bomb the countryside during Laos' civil war.
Chile - 1973 - The CIA orchestrated a coup, killing President Allende who had been popularly elected. The CIA helped to establish a military regime under General Pinochet.
Cambodia - 1975 - Twenty-eight Americans killed in an effort to retrieve the crew of the ayaquez, which had been seized.
Angola - 1976-92 - The CIA backed South African rebels fighting against Marxist Angola.
Iran - 1980 - Americans aborted a rescue attempt to liberate 52 hostages seized in the Teheran embassy.
Libya - 1981 - American fighters shoot down two Libyan fighters.
El Salvador - 1981-92 - The CIA, troops, and advisers aid in El Salvador's war against the FMLN.
Nicaragua - 1981-90 - The CIA and NSC directed the Contra War against the Sandinistas.
Lebanon - 1982-84 - Marines occupied Beirut during Lebanon's civil war; 241 were killed in the American barracks and Reagan "redeployed" the troops to the Mediterranean.
Honduras - 1983-89 - Troops sent in to build bases near the Honduran border.
Grenada - 1983-84 - American invasion overthrew the Maurice Bishop government.
Iran - 1984 - American fighters shot down two Iranian planes over the Persian Gulf.
Libya - 1986 - American fighters hit targets in and around the capital city of Tripoli.
Bolivia - 1986 - The Army assisted government troops on raids of cocaine areas.
Iran - 1987-88 - The United States intervened on the side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.
Libya - 1989 - Navy shot down two more Libyan jets.
Virgin Islands - 1989 - Troops landed during unrest among Virgin Island peoples.
Philippines - 1989 - Air Force provided air cover for government during coup.
Panama - 1989-90 - 27,000 Americans landed in overthrow of President Noriega; over 2,000 Panama civilians were killed.
Liberia - 1990 - Troops entered Liberia to evacuate foreigners during civil war.
Saudi Arabia - 1990-91 - American troops sent to Saudi Arabia, which was a staging area in the war against Iraq.
Kuwait - 1991 - Troops sent into Kuwait to turn back Saddam Hussein.
Somalia - 1992-94 - Troops occupied Somalia during civil war.
Bosnia - 1993-95 - Air Force jets bombed "no-fly zone" during civil war in Yugoslavia.
Haiti - 1994-96 - American troops and Navy provided a blockade against Haiti's military government. The CIA restored Aristide to power.
Zaire - 1996-97 - Marines sent into Rwanda Hutus' refugee camps in the area where the Congo revolution began.
Albania - 1997 - Troops deployed during evacuation of foreigners.
Sudan - 1998 - American missiles destroyed a pharmaceutical complex where alleged nerve gas components were manufactured.
Afghanistan - 1998 - Missiles launched towards alleged Afghan terrorist training camps.
Yugoslavia - 1999 - Bombings and missile attacks carried out by the United States in conjunction with NATO in the 11 week war against Milosevic.
Iraq - 1998-2001 - Missiles launched into Baghdad and other large Iraq cities for four days. American jets enforced "no-fly zone" and continued to hit Iraqi targets since December 1998.
Now, tell me again, who has brought more death, destruction and misery into this world - Iraq or the USA?
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
Execution of innocent people?
Do you have an idea how many innocent people have been executed in the USA, especially in Texas when a certain George W. Bush was gouvenor there?
The USA and the UK attack Iraq because Saddam has allegedly broken international law - the UN weapon inspectors tell you a different story. Now, if they are so much concerned about fulfilling UN resolutions, why do they break them themselves? With this war they have deliberately placed themselves outside of international law. They showed the world that they don't care f*ck about the UN. Now, tell me, shouldn't the UN send blue helmet troops to the USA and UK to make sure UN law is respected?
This war will have severe consequences for the current world order. Nothing will be the same anymore. There will be no stopping the USA anymore. If they were ready to break international law once, who will stop them doing so next time? Maybe when the "new democratic leaders" of Iraq do not suit them anymore? Who is going to be the next? Maybe Germany? Rumsfield already associated Germany with the Axis of Evil. Not only because "Who is not with us is against us", he really said it verbatim. Who knows?
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
Do you have an idea how many innocent people have been executed in the USA, especially in Texas when a certain George W. Bush was gouvenor there?
The USA and the UK attack Iraq because Saddam has allegedly broken international law - the UN weapon inspectors tell you a different story. Now, if they are so much concerned about fulfilling UN resolutions, why do they break them themselves? With this war they have deliberately placed themselves outside of international law. They showed the world that they don't care f*ck about the UN. Now, tell me, shouldn't the UN send blue helmet troops to the USA and UK to make sure UN law is respected?
This war will have severe consequences for the current world order. Nothing will be the same anymore. There will be no stopping the USA anymore. If they were ready to break international law once, who will stop them doing so next time? Maybe when the "new democratic leaders" of Iraq do not suit them anymore? Who is going to be the next? Maybe Germany? Rumsfield already associated Germany with the Axis of Evil. Not only because "Who is not with us is against us", he really said it verbatim. Who knows?
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
This is naive. In a capitalistic world system all is about money.
Here is why I like socialist regimes like Cuba. All is about sex there!
I find it rather pathetic if people do nothing to support anti-war campaigns
Actually who is pathetic is the mob who goes throwing stones in Dundee trying to help the cause of an Arab gangster and the business of his French and German friends.
Be ready!
Here is why I like socialist regimes like Cuba. All is about sex there!
I find it rather pathetic if people do nothing to support anti-war campaigns
Actually who is pathetic is the mob who goes throwing stones in Dundee trying to help the cause of an Arab gangster and the business of his French and German friends.
Be ready!
Vader, it is all good and well lsiting times, but can u go research the reasons they gave for doing so? I dont for one minute belive that America said "hmm....we are bored, elts bomb a raondom place". they always gave a reason, whether u agree or not is a different matter.
Actually who is pathetic is the mob who goes throwing stones in Dundee trying to help the cause of an Arab gangster and the business of his French and German friends.
Thank you for agreeing with me
I find it quite funny now "we are going to protest a war by throwing stones and bottles and bricks, with the sole intention of hurting other people"
Yup....makes sense now....
Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps
Actually who is pathetic is the mob who goes throwing stones in Dundee trying to help the cause of an Arab gangster and the business of his French and German friends.
Thank you for agreeing with me
I find it quite funny now "we are going to protest a war by throwing stones and bottles and bricks, with the sole intention of hurting other people"
Yup....makes sense now....
Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps
You want to know if I have reasons for the US military actions? Let me think about it! Well: hegemony, domination, wealth ...
War is always good for economy. A prospering arms industry guarantees jobs and boom after boom. Apart from that, if you destroy things, you will have to reconstruct them afterwards. This is - surprise, surprise - a task the winner will usually do. Another fine way to make your economy boom.
War does abstract from domestically problems. Ever seen "Wag the Dog"? Even if this was supposed to be a comedy, there is a lot of truth in it. In fact most conflicts have been started just because of that.
Now, let
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
War is always good for economy. A prospering arms industry guarantees jobs and boom after boom. Apart from that, if you destroy things, you will have to reconstruct them afterwards. This is - surprise, surprise - a task the winner will usually do. Another fine way to make your economy boom.
War does abstract from domestically problems. Ever seen "Wag the Dog"? Even if this was supposed to be a comedy, there is a lot of truth in it. In fact most conflicts have been started just because of that.
Now, let
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
But this is not the point. The point is: All those actively participating in this attack are breaking international law and should be made to pay for it.
Actaully USA and America were on TV together expalining why it wasnt rbeaking international law. Ok, i didnt understand a word of what they said, but apparently it is legal
Even if those people demonstrating for peace do the wrong thing (i.e. throw stones and start riots) that does not mean the other side is right.
Two wrongs dont make a right. Just because one side of the argument is wrong is some views, doesnt mean the other side can be just as wrong
The majority in your country is against the war.
the latest polls (which is the only way of knowing) showed the UK was slightly PRO war. The protestors have been saying "over a million people turned out to protest, thats show we are agaisnt war"
Well in the same way, WAY more than a million people DIDNT turn out to protest, so that shows we are Pro-WAR
A lot of (and I really mean A LOT OF) people in the USA are against the war.
Poll- released this morning was 70% for war. To me thats ALOT more than agaisnt
Now what can you do if your politicians NOT only ignore the UN, but also ignore the explicit demands of their own people?
Thats what the protestors said this morning, and the person being questioned simply said "we have looked at the votes, and more people are for war". If more people are for war, then u take the majority. I suggest looking at the most recent polls, rather than the ones that were taken months ago befor war started
n this respect France and Germany seem to be the only free countries nowadays
Well what you are syaing is UK and US arent "free" counties cos they are going to war agsaisnt the views of some of there people.
Well im sure that in France and Germany there are people for war. I find it hard to belive that every single person in that country is agaisnt war. Therefore, thse caountries are not free either, cos they arent satisfying the full views of all the people.
More people are for war in the UK and USA in the latest polls, and more MPs voted t go to war than voted not to go to war. Therefore they are acting with the majority in mind.
You cant satisfy everyone, but i would put money on that if something good comes of this war, Saddam is killed, and power is handed to a REAL Iraqi gonverment, then alot of ppl will chnage there minds and say "well yeah this war was a good thing".
I suppose u didnt see the videos of iraqi people appluading the US and UK troops as they entered iraqi towns? Or i suppose that was all fake what was on the TV this morning? It seemed to me they were pretty dam happy to have someone finally do somehting about the 12 years of suffering Saddam has given the people. But of course, we wouldnt want the people of Iraq to finally be happy would we?
what is 6 more months of suffering under a war, than anohter 20 years of suffering Saddam would have casued?
Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps
Actaully USA and America were on TV together expalining why it wasnt rbeaking international law. Ok, i didnt understand a word of what they said, but apparently it is legal
Even if those people demonstrating for peace do the wrong thing (i.e. throw stones and start riots) that does not mean the other side is right.
Two wrongs dont make a right. Just because one side of the argument is wrong is some views, doesnt mean the other side can be just as wrong
The majority in your country is against the war.
the latest polls (which is the only way of knowing) showed the UK was slightly PRO war. The protestors have been saying "over a million people turned out to protest, thats show we are agaisnt war"
Well in the same way, WAY more than a million people DIDNT turn out to protest, so that shows we are Pro-WAR
A lot of (and I really mean A LOT OF) people in the USA are against the war.
Poll- released this morning was 70% for war. To me thats ALOT more than agaisnt
Now what can you do if your politicians NOT only ignore the UN, but also ignore the explicit demands of their own people?
Thats what the protestors said this morning, and the person being questioned simply said "we have looked at the votes, and more people are for war". If more people are for war, then u take the majority. I suggest looking at the most recent polls, rather than the ones that were taken months ago befor war started
n this respect France and Germany seem to be the only free countries nowadays
Well what you are syaing is UK and US arent "free" counties cos they are going to war agsaisnt the views of some of there people.
Well im sure that in France and Germany there are people for war. I find it hard to belive that every single person in that country is agaisnt war. Therefore, thse caountries are not free either, cos they arent satisfying the full views of all the people.
More people are for war in the UK and USA in the latest polls, and more MPs voted t go to war than voted not to go to war. Therefore they are acting with the majority in mind.
You cant satisfy everyone, but i would put money on that if something good comes of this war, Saddam is killed, and power is handed to a REAL Iraqi gonverment, then alot of ppl will chnage there minds and say "well yeah this war was a good thing".
I suppose u didnt see the videos of iraqi people appluading the US and UK troops as they entered iraqi towns? Or i suppose that was all fake what was on the TV this morning? It seemed to me they were pretty dam happy to have someone finally do somehting about the 12 years of suffering Saddam has given the people. But of course, we wouldnt want the people of Iraq to finally be happy would we?
what is 6 more months of suffering under a war, than anohter 20 years of suffering Saddam would have casued?
Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps
Actaully USA and America were on TV together expalining why it wasnt rbeaking international law. Ok, i didnt understand a word of what they said, but apparently it is legal
Again this is pretty naive. What did you expect from them? Most experts will say they indeed broke the law.
Besides, are you sure USA and America were together on TV today?
Two wrongs dont make a right. Just because one side of the argument is wrong is some views, doesnt mean the other side can be just as wrong
Excactly. So if you say protest are wrong, this does not mean that the war isn't wrong, too. The justification of the war has nothing to do with the protests. In this case you came up with an invalid agument when you mentioned the protests in Dundee. The war is wrong since it is against internationla law, no matter what the USA and its vassal states say.
Well in the same way, WAY more than a million people DIDNT turn out to protest, so that shows we are Pro-WAR
Are we trying to argue in a serious way or are we trying to make fun? Now, what kind of an argument is that? I could say there are more people protesting agaisnmt the war as protesting for it! I could also say more people in Iraq have never used C weapons or attacked Kuwait - so you why attack them? Sorry, but this argument is silly beyond belief.
Poll- released this morning was 70% for war. To me thats ALOT more than agaisnt
If you knew a bit more about how US-Americans tick, you would know what to think of this poll. In times of trouble most Americans will support their president and the troops, even if they know he is wrong. This is what, for example, the Democrats said. "We are against the war and we know Bush is doing the wrong thing, but since it can't be helped, we owe our soldiers the full support. We will discuss this issue again once the war is over"
Besides only very naive people actually belief polls are objective. I may quote Winston Churchill: "Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself"
Thats what the protestors said this morning, and the person being questioned simply said "we have looked at the votes, and more people are for war". If more people are for war, then u take the majority. I suggest looking at the most recent polls, rather than the ones that were taken months ago befor war started
See above. If the USA and the UK were sure too have the majority, why didn't they dare to bring another resolution to the UN to make sure they are legally on save ground? I tell you a secret: Because they knew they would loose. Instead of accepting defeat they decided to act like poor loosers: full of defiance.
Well im sure that in France and Germany there are people for war. I find it hard to belive that every single person in that country is agaisnt war. Therefore, thse caountries are not free either, cos they arent satisfying the full views of all the people.
Now you are doing what you always accuse others of. You take a quote out of its context and put it into another one to twist its meaning. I never said anything about "satisfying the full views of all the people". You are changing the argument when you introduce a new premiss.
More people are for war in the UK and USA in the latest polls, and more MPs voted t go to war than voted not to go to war. Therefore they are acting with the majority in mind.
First of all "see above" again. Polls mean nothing as long as you don't tell us what has been asked exactly, who has asked, how many people have been asked, what the political bias of the opinion researchers is. Otherwise it is just a bunch of numbers everybody can make up as they go along. Leave this for The Sun, but let it out of a serious discussion.
Most MPs voted for the war, yes, but who? Nice to know you voted for Labour just to get a Prime Minister who has no majority in his own party and turns out to be a Tory in disguise. This is what I call forthrightness towards the voters.
I suppose u didnt see the videos of iraqi people appluading the US and UK troops as they entered iraqi towns? Or i suppose that was all fake what was on the TV this morning? It seemed to me they were pretty dam happy to have someone finally do somehting about the 12 years of suffering Saddam has given the people. But of course, we wouldnt want the people of Iraq to finally be happy would we?
Yes, you are really naive. What do you think are we seeing on TV? The truth? Good moring and welcome to the Age of Media. After the first Gulf War against Iraq (Opereation Desert Storm) the US military admitted that at leats 90% of all pictures they let CNN and others show were fake. I cannot really belive that there are still people on earth actually thinking the media shows an objective picture of the world. Of course they only show stuff that suits tghem. That's why even "democratic" armies have censors that need to approve of the material shown.
12 years of suffering? Excuse me, but twelve years ago was the first Iraq War. If you bomb a country to the stoneage and impose an embargo afterwards, you must not wonder if they suffer the next 12 years or so.
Do you have any idea what the situation of the Iraqi people was like before Saddam came around? Do you have any clue what he did for his country when he started his reign? He modernized the country, introduced religious tolerance, liberated women rights, almost abolished poverty and illiteracy. The problems only started with the Iran-Iraq conflict and we all know that the especially the USA screwed it up their big time (for example the Iran/contra affair.) So what?
what is 6 more months of suffering under a war, than anohter 20 years of suffering Saddam would have casued?
"Would" - you are saying "would". I have no crystal ball.
Post Edited (03-22-03 16:50)
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
Again this is pretty naive. What did you expect from them? Most experts will say they indeed broke the law.
Besides, are you sure USA and America were together on TV today?
Two wrongs dont make a right. Just because one side of the argument is wrong is some views, doesnt mean the other side can be just as wrong
Excactly. So if you say protest are wrong, this does not mean that the war isn't wrong, too. The justification of the war has nothing to do with the protests. In this case you came up with an invalid agument when you mentioned the protests in Dundee. The war is wrong since it is against internationla law, no matter what the USA and its vassal states say.
Well in the same way, WAY more than a million people DIDNT turn out to protest, so that shows we are Pro-WAR
Are we trying to argue in a serious way or are we trying to make fun? Now, what kind of an argument is that? I could say there are more people protesting agaisnmt the war as protesting for it! I could also say more people in Iraq have never used C weapons or attacked Kuwait - so you why attack them? Sorry, but this argument is silly beyond belief.
Poll- released this morning was 70% for war. To me thats ALOT more than agaisnt
If you knew a bit more about how US-Americans tick, you would know what to think of this poll. In times of trouble most Americans will support their president and the troops, even if they know he is wrong. This is what, for example, the Democrats said. "We are against the war and we know Bush is doing the wrong thing, but since it can't be helped, we owe our soldiers the full support. We will discuss this issue again once the war is over"
Besides only very naive people actually belief polls are objective. I may quote Winston Churchill: "Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself"
Thats what the protestors said this morning, and the person being questioned simply said "we have looked at the votes, and more people are for war". If more people are for war, then u take the majority. I suggest looking at the most recent polls, rather than the ones that were taken months ago befor war started
See above. If the USA and the UK were sure too have the majority, why didn't they dare to bring another resolution to the UN to make sure they are legally on save ground? I tell you a secret: Because they knew they would loose. Instead of accepting defeat they decided to act like poor loosers: full of defiance.
Well im sure that in France and Germany there are people for war. I find it hard to belive that every single person in that country is agaisnt war. Therefore, thse caountries are not free either, cos they arent satisfying the full views of all the people.
Now you are doing what you always accuse others of. You take a quote out of its context and put it into another one to twist its meaning. I never said anything about "satisfying the full views of all the people". You are changing the argument when you introduce a new premiss.
More people are for war in the UK and USA in the latest polls, and more MPs voted t go to war than voted not to go to war. Therefore they are acting with the majority in mind.
First of all "see above" again. Polls mean nothing as long as you don't tell us what has been asked exactly, who has asked, how many people have been asked, what the political bias of the opinion researchers is. Otherwise it is just a bunch of numbers everybody can make up as they go along. Leave this for The Sun, but let it out of a serious discussion.
Most MPs voted for the war, yes, but who? Nice to know you voted for Labour just to get a Prime Minister who has no majority in his own party and turns out to be a Tory in disguise. This is what I call forthrightness towards the voters.
I suppose u didnt see the videos of iraqi people appluading the US and UK troops as they entered iraqi towns? Or i suppose that was all fake what was on the TV this morning? It seemed to me they were pretty dam happy to have someone finally do somehting about the 12 years of suffering Saddam has given the people. But of course, we wouldnt want the people of Iraq to finally be happy would we?
Yes, you are really naive. What do you think are we seeing on TV? The truth? Good moring and welcome to the Age of Media. After the first Gulf War against Iraq (Opereation Desert Storm) the US military admitted that at leats 90% of all pictures they let CNN and others show were fake. I cannot really belive that there are still people on earth actually thinking the media shows an objective picture of the world. Of course they only show stuff that suits tghem. That's why even "democratic" armies have censors that need to approve of the material shown.
12 years of suffering? Excuse me, but twelve years ago was the first Iraq War. If you bomb a country to the stoneage and impose an embargo afterwards, you must not wonder if they suffer the next 12 years or so.
Do you have any idea what the situation of the Iraqi people was like before Saddam came around? Do you have any clue what he did for his country when he started his reign? He modernized the country, introduced religious tolerance, liberated women rights, almost abolished poverty and illiteracy. The problems only started with the Iran-Iraq conflict and we all know that the especially the USA screwed it up their big time (for example the Iran/contra affair.) So what?
what is 6 more months of suffering under a war, than anohter 20 years of suffering Saddam would have casued?
"Would" - you are saying "would". I have no crystal ball.
Post Edited (03-22-03 16:50)
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
Do you have any idea what the situation of the Iraqi people was like before Saddam came around? Do you have any clue what he did for his country when he started his reign? He modernized the country, introduced religious tolerance, liberated women rights, almost abolished poverty and illiteracy. The problems only started with the Iran-Iraq conflict and we all know that the especially the USA screwed it up their big time (for example the Iran/contra affair.) So what?
It is a real shame for poor old Mustache that he has not some more Vaders among his fervent subjects, I'm pretty sure if you were there you would fight to the death instead of surrender like Iraquis are doing right now. It is a true shame that such a nice bloke, who seized power with so many good intentions was screwed up by the evil Americans. Maybe we could have 3 free countries in the world now and not just 2.
Be ready!
It is a real shame for poor old Mustache that he has not some more Vaders among his fervent subjects, I'm pretty sure if you were there you would fight to the death instead of surrender like Iraquis are doing right now. It is a true shame that such a nice bloke, who seized power with so many good intentions was screwed up by the evil Americans. Maybe we could have 3 free countries in the world now and not just 2.
Be ready!
Jawwad stated about poor medical facitilies because the USA refused to help. But don't forget after the GUlf War, Saddam's punishment is to exchange oil for food and medical supplies. I have heard that the Iraqi health services has been improving in the last few years.
Also the RC (Red Cross) said that they are well organised and prepared to help the injured.
So far the civilian fatalies has been very low but there are a lot of injuries though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did your birth certificate come with an apology letter from Durex?
Also the RC (Red Cross) said that they are well organised and prepared to help the injured.
So far the civilian fatalies has been very low but there are a lot of injuries though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did your birth certificate come with an apology letter from Durex?
Come on Predictor. If you had cared to read my posts (all of it) you would have noticed that I never said Saddam was a good Samaritan. he is a dictator and he certainly will not stand a chance to apply for the Nobel Peace Prize. If there was a clear UN resolulotion things woulöd be different. I just think this war is neither necessary nor justified. Even if it has been reluctant, Saddam has fulfilled every demand of the UN inspectors. He has, even if most of the time unwilligly, coorporated according to Blix and his staff. So why attack now? Why niot wait until the UN inspectors say the Iraq will not disarm? Why can the USA decide alone if a resolution has failed? This war is a breach of internatinal law and it is a crime against humanity to support it - as long as there is no UN reslotuion that says the war is justified.
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
Vader don't be amazingly naive. You keep singing this UN song, but it is a moot point.
First it doesn't exists an "international law" as such and this argument it twice misleading.
First because could lead people to think that there is a predefined crime and a correlated sanction for waging war, which is not true.
What exists is rather a code of behaviour, good manners and such that has developed itself over the centuries depending on what sovereign states used to do. This is the so called "international law".
For a law to exists you need a sovereign authority which emanates the rules and who has the power to enforce them.
Point is the the UN is not a sovereign authority and it has no power to enforce anything by itself.
His chart is nothing more than a compilation of good propositions ("I'll play the good boy and I'll restrain myself to attack my neighbor, but I'll keep talking to him till we can't go on"
.
This kind of stuff is good to use sunday morning when the Pope speaches to believers in Piazza S.Pietro, but doesn't go much further than that.
Doesn't take much to see that I can be nasty as hell without even firing a single rifle and I will never be "sanctioned" by anybody.
If one tries to think with his own brain, throwing past his shoulders ideologies and propaganda, he can actually see that, just like history is written by the winner so are these kind of rules, usually ex post.
You mentioned Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I could add Bremen and each single innumerable mission of terror bombing conducted by the Allies (supposedly the good guys) against Germany in WWII.
Was anybody ever convicted for them? Of course not. F.D Roosevelt is surely regarded as a very good boy by history, but nonetheless his planes killed far more helpless people than the ones of Hermann Goering, who was convicted, and was meant to be hung if he had not committed suicide.
Japan was literally forced to war by USA and UK, who were trying (successfully) during the thirties to strangle his economy.
Was anybody convicted for this? Of course no one, but the Japanese leaders were condemned, with the notable exception of the Emperor himself and not because he was an innocent "good fellow", just because he was worshipped like a sort of god by Japanese people, and fiddling with other's deities often leads to troubles.
Not very moral, is it?
In the our long history, usually the winner has killed or jailed the loser. It has always happened just because it belongs to human nature.
But now the world has changed and "because I won and you lost" is not accepted anymore as a reason. But indeed "I won and you lost" and I wanna be sure that you will not raise in revenge. So I setup a trial for you, I go telling people (only I can, since you lost and you have not a voice anymore) that I am the good, you are the evil, and justice has to be done.
An admirable effort of sanctimony, but that is, people like it better this way.
That was the climate in which UN were spawn.
Plus the ricurrent illusion that talking can solve anything. I'm still wondering why we keep arresting and jailing thieves and assassins instead of talking with them, but that is.
UN are not the deity of justice incarnated. They are simply an assembly of representative which often makes a good podium for propaganda.
Basically the way it is supposed to work is: "there is a problem? You guys talk about it, we - the UN will moderate the debate. You cannot solve the problem between yourselves? We then will decide what has to be done, who wins and who loses, no need for a brawl".
Who decides then? Majority.
Clever? Maybe. Right? Hardly. Moral? No way.
Morality and justice have nothing to do which a majority vote, since - guess what? - each and every state votes only according to his own interests and nothing else.
So don't mud waters please. Don't judge a war by a UN resolution. Those don't change reality by any mean.
If, by chance, France, Russia, China and Germany were not making good petrol deals with Saddam UN most likely would had said: "let's go, kick the ass of this tyrant".
Yet the situation was exactly THE SAME.
Fact is the the UN has demonstrated itself quite useless. If we had peace for 70 years it was just because of the A bomb, noy because of UN resolutions.
Now back to this war. Was it necessary? Right now probably no. Was it avoidable? In the long run no. Saddam had no intentions to dismantle is weapons. If he was to do so, he had not waited for mr. Blix. All he wanted was to gain time and resting his hopes on the pacifists or his business partners.
Of course he and the european and asian "smartasses" have lost, and the amercan "dumbass" has won. Amazing.
Is the war justified? Of course yes. No one in this world who has brain enough can leave so much resources in the hand of a guy like Saddam.
Let's not speak of the dictatorship point. The world as it is now can't deal with every single dictator, tyrant or despot on the face of the earth.
Last of all can the UN. Those kind of guys have the majority there.
So much for your beloved resolutions.
And, to conclude, if the western world has to - and it MUST to - deal with terrorism, which by all means is islamic terrorism at present, then Iraq is a necessary stage. Lat's just hope it will be not the last one.
P.S. Ironically, that gentleman of Yassir Arafat must be delighted. Saddam was financing his supposed-to-be successor. Another gentleman, of course.
Be ready!
First it doesn't exists an "international law" as such and this argument it twice misleading.
First because could lead people to think that there is a predefined crime and a correlated sanction for waging war, which is not true.
What exists is rather a code of behaviour, good manners and such that has developed itself over the centuries depending on what sovereign states used to do. This is the so called "international law".
For a law to exists you need a sovereign authority which emanates the rules and who has the power to enforce them.
Point is the the UN is not a sovereign authority and it has no power to enforce anything by itself.
His chart is nothing more than a compilation of good propositions ("I'll play the good boy and I'll restrain myself to attack my neighbor, but I'll keep talking to him till we can't go on"
.This kind of stuff is good to use sunday morning when the Pope speaches to believers in Piazza S.Pietro, but doesn't go much further than that.
Doesn't take much to see that I can be nasty as hell without even firing a single rifle and I will never be "sanctioned" by anybody.
If one tries to think with his own brain, throwing past his shoulders ideologies and propaganda, he can actually see that, just like history is written by the winner so are these kind of rules, usually ex post.
You mentioned Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I could add Bremen and each single innumerable mission of terror bombing conducted by the Allies (supposedly the good guys) against Germany in WWII.
Was anybody ever convicted for them? Of course not. F.D Roosevelt is surely regarded as a very good boy by history, but nonetheless his planes killed far more helpless people than the ones of Hermann Goering, who was convicted, and was meant to be hung if he had not committed suicide.
Japan was literally forced to war by USA and UK, who were trying (successfully) during the thirties to strangle his economy.
Was anybody convicted for this? Of course no one, but the Japanese leaders were condemned, with the notable exception of the Emperor himself and not because he was an innocent "good fellow", just because he was worshipped like a sort of god by Japanese people, and fiddling with other's deities often leads to troubles.
Not very moral, is it?
In the our long history, usually the winner has killed or jailed the loser. It has always happened just because it belongs to human nature.
But now the world has changed and "because I won and you lost" is not accepted anymore as a reason. But indeed "I won and you lost" and I wanna be sure that you will not raise in revenge. So I setup a trial for you, I go telling people (only I can, since you lost and you have not a voice anymore) that I am the good, you are the evil, and justice has to be done.
An admirable effort of sanctimony, but that is, people like it better this way.
That was the climate in which UN were spawn.
Plus the ricurrent illusion that talking can solve anything. I'm still wondering why we keep arresting and jailing thieves and assassins instead of talking with them, but that is.
UN are not the deity of justice incarnated. They are simply an assembly of representative which often makes a good podium for propaganda.
Basically the way it is supposed to work is: "there is a problem? You guys talk about it, we - the UN will moderate the debate. You cannot solve the problem between yourselves? We then will decide what has to be done, who wins and who loses, no need for a brawl".
Who decides then? Majority.
Clever? Maybe. Right? Hardly. Moral? No way.
Morality and justice have nothing to do which a majority vote, since - guess what? - each and every state votes only according to his own interests and nothing else.
So don't mud waters please. Don't judge a war by a UN resolution. Those don't change reality by any mean.
If, by chance, France, Russia, China and Germany were not making good petrol deals with Saddam UN most likely would had said: "let's go, kick the ass of this tyrant".
Yet the situation was exactly THE SAME.
Fact is the the UN has demonstrated itself quite useless. If we had peace for 70 years it was just because of the A bomb, noy because of UN resolutions.
Now back to this war. Was it necessary? Right now probably no. Was it avoidable? In the long run no. Saddam had no intentions to dismantle is weapons. If he was to do so, he had not waited for mr. Blix. All he wanted was to gain time and resting his hopes on the pacifists or his business partners.
Of course he and the european and asian "smartasses" have lost, and the amercan "dumbass" has won. Amazing.
Is the war justified? Of course yes. No one in this world who has brain enough can leave so much resources in the hand of a guy like Saddam.
Let's not speak of the dictatorship point. The world as it is now can't deal with every single dictator, tyrant or despot on the face of the earth.
Last of all can the UN. Those kind of guys have the majority there.
So much for your beloved resolutions.
And, to conclude, if the western world has to - and it MUST to - deal with terrorism, which by all means is islamic terrorism at present, then Iraq is a necessary stage. Lat's just hope it will be not the last one.
P.S. Ironically, that gentleman of Yassir Arafat must be delighted. Saddam was financing his supposed-to-be successor. Another gentleman, of course.
Be ready!
short answers (or rather "uestions":
If you say there is no international law, what is Iraq accused of then?
If the UN has no power to enforce the laws, say thank you to the USA who refuse to accept the authority of the newly founded International Court.
If there is no moral even Spetember 11th cannot be wrong. It just happened and that's it.
If we cannot leave so much resources to Saddam, how can Europe leaver so much resources to the USA?
If we really want to live in a dog-eat-dog world we should at least have the guts to be honest about. "This is a free world and you've got the right to hate whom I want, so let's start busting heads". If this is the game, just let me know and I am going to play it, too.
Of course Iraq will not be the last stage. Wait another decade ór two until Europe has become the United States of Europe (if this ever happens) and we are the target. My prediction. Mark my words.
Ever heard about Sorcerer's Apprentice - "from the spirits that I called, Sir, deliver me!"? Now they have called the spirits, let's hope they'll be delivered. Pandora's box does not close easily.
Post Edited (03-25-03 01:22)
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
:If you say there is no international law, what is Iraq accused of then?
If the UN has no power to enforce the laws, say thank you to the USA who refuse to accept the authority of the newly founded International Court.
If there is no moral even Spetember 11th cannot be wrong. It just happened and that's it.
If we cannot leave so much resources to Saddam, how can Europe leaver so much resources to the USA?
If we really want to live in a dog-eat-dog world we should at least have the guts to be honest about. "This is a free world and you've got the right to hate whom I want, so let's start busting heads". If this is the game, just let me know and I am going to play it, too.
Of course Iraq will not be the last stage. Wait another decade ór two until Europe has become the United States of Europe (if this ever happens) and we are the target. My prediction. Mark my words.
Ever heard about Sorcerer's Apprentice - "from the spirits that I called, Sir, deliver me!"? Now they have called the spirits, let's hope they'll be delivered. Pandora's box does not close easily.
Post Edited (03-25-03 01:22)
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
Larry and roadhog -
It takes some balls to stand against the USA these days. Some have the balls, others rather obvioulsy prefer pull in their horn and run with the pack. Let them run, for even ThePredictor cannot foretell wher they are heading to. But one thing is clear; once they are there, his cynicism will not help him any further.
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
It takes some balls to stand against the USA these days. Some have the balls, others rather obvioulsy prefer pull in their horn and run with the pack. Let them run, for even ThePredictor cannot foretell wher they are heading to. But one thing is clear; once they are there, his cynicism will not help him any further.
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.