Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 607

Thread: IRAQ THREAD originaly "Seems at least one Brit agrees with me....er us."

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Better to Reign in Hell than Serve in Heaven
    Posts
    922
    1stdeadeye brings up a good point....why didnt anyone (US included) do anything about Rwanda? Actually why didnt we even hear or see anything about Rwanda?


    JDub

    "Automags.org. You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."

  2. #182
    Collegeboy Guest
    No I am not making up anything. That number was a number that was said around the bombing numbers. It might have been the number of Palestinians killed by Israel I have no idea.

    I am not making up the illegal occupation of lands by Israel. If the camps are run by Jordanians and Palestinians then how can Israel go in there with their tanks and kill Palestinians.

    What does it matter if the Jordan people ceded the land to the Palestinians or it was there. It is outside of the land give to Israel in the partition plan of 1948. They are now on Palestinian land. What is the difference?

    UN didn't do anything in Rwanda. Have you heard of UNAMIR. Here is a site about it

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/

    An interesting read, especially US's involvement in it, as well as France's.

    FOL. What does Lenin have to do with you saying my post was stupid?

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    "The SC" (South Carolina)
    Posts
    16,216
    This is some of the reports on Terrorist links in Bagdad and how they are or not connected. In these reports it apears there is some protection of a group that does get money from Al Quedea network and they are in Iraq but no one knows why or what Iraq may be doing with them there. But there is some there we know that.

    http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/5350132.htm

    Also note that there are now many CNN and MSNBC reports that Al Quedea has promised to come into Iraq and attempt to use Chemical Weapons against US/British Troops. If nothing more than to join in on the fray. Their motives could be questioned as to wether they are helping Iraq or just trying to score some kills and brag about it. But this shows no matter how much they may not like each other they would band together to kill any of us. And where would they get these chemicls to use. Very likely from Iraq. We know they trained them to make them and gave them some of the precursors to make them...

  4. #184
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Liberalism is a persistent vegatative state.
    Posts
    2,504
    Originally posted by Collegeboy
    FOL. What does Lenin have to do with you saying my post was stupid?
    I didn't say your post was stupid.

    I said you were a Useful Idiot.

    And you call yourself a student of history.

  5. #185
    Collegeboy Guest
    Originally posted by FactsOfLife


    I didn't say your post was stupid.

    I said you were a Useful Idiot.

    And you call yourself a student of history.
    And that has to do with Lenin because.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Liberalism is a persistent vegatative state.
    Posts
    2,504
    Originally posted by Collegeboy


    And that has to do with Lenin because.
    Do your homework boy. I already have.

  7. #187
    Collegeboy Guest
    Originally posted by FactsOfLife


    Do your homework boy. I already have.
    So it is now boy. Ok, I see.

    But I still don't get what you are saying.

  8. #188
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Washington... AKA 'Cocker Country... Come get Some!
    Posts
    1,982
    Originally posted by Collegeboy

    ShooterJM

    The partition plan of 1948 is Israel’s legal boarders. The land they have gained after that through wars is the occupied land that I am saying give back to their lawful owners. The 1948 partition plan still stands today as the boarders of Israel officially. I have read many books about life in Palestine prior to 1948 and after. I know about the Jewish terrorist groups and the Palestinian Terrorist groups that attacked the British to get them out. I know about the Balfour Declaration and such.
    ...so the land that was taken after wars should be given back to their righful owners, huh?

    Well, I guess millions of americans better start packin' their bags, cuz we damn near stole the land *WE* live on from the "First nations" "indians" or "native americans" (whatever you pc people want) via wars.

    My Trading Feedback

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
    -Edmond Burke

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    9,169
    Originally posted by joeyjoe367
    ...so the land that was taken after wars should be given back to their righful owners, huh?

    Well, I guess millions of americans better start packin' their bags, cuz we damn near stole the land *WE* live on from the "First nations" "indians" or "native americans" (whatever you pc people want) via wars.
    I love arguments like that. LOL If you followed that way of thinking, almost no country would belong to those who now occupy it. That is unless they just sprang from the dirt of that land… which they did not.

    Conquest is a part of world history and human history. The Israel issue can not be explained by such simplistic thinking. There was MUCH more to it than just giving back lands taken by war.

    Also, the lands taken from Native American peoples, for the most part, was not THEIRS. I think if you do some research you will see that even THEY did not believe they owned the land. They just lived on it and hunted on it, etc. Not to mention that the lands in the western and central United States were used in a nomadic manner by the Native Americans without having one fixed “home”.

    Then we forget that even the Native Americans fought each other too. Had been for their entire history. We (the expanding peoples) just did it better and were stronger.

    Now, add to that the fact that there were different types of tribes and peoples depending on what part of the continent you are talking about… north east, central, south east, south central, south west, north west, etc. They spoke different languages, had different cultures, etc. But folks like to lump them all into one large group for “argument” sake. And let’s not forget that they were given lands to live on, and offered to join the ruling society as part of it… No, we can not compare what was done to that Jewish peoples to that of the conquest of other “lands”.

    No my friend, we are talking apples and oranges. But nice try.

    www.ShartleyCustoms.com
    Custom Paintball Products and Accessories
    CLICK HERE to Check out our PDU SERIES GEAR!


    its more like a paper cut that has primadonna's yelling murder... - Glickman

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    8,501

    Exclamation Think!

    Originally posted by Collegeboy
    No I am not making up anything. That number was a number that was said around the bombing numbers. It might have been the number of Palestinians killed by Israel I have no idea.

    That is still wrong. At the time of that bombing the total number of Palestinians killed was about 1800. You did not address my point about the single largest loss of life during this conflict was inflicted by Palestinian Suicide bombers at an Israeli Passover (religious) celebration. That's a proper target huh?


    I am not making up the illegal occupation of lands by Israel. If the camps are run by Jordanians and Palestinians then how can Israel go in there with their tanks and kill Palestinians.


    There is more then one camp! There are quite a few scattered throughout the area. Some are in Gaza, some the West Bank, and some in Jordon. The camps in Jordon are administered by the UN with oversight from Jordon. The conditions in those camps is not great. Why can't the Arab world build them better accomodations there? Because they don't want to! The government of Jordon wants the Palestinians out!


    What does it matter if the Jordan people ceded the land to the Palestinians or it was there. It is outside of the land give to Israel in the partition plan of 1948. They are now on Palestinian land. What is the difference?


    I guess the US should give back the southwestern part of the US to Mexico then? How about France giving back Alsayce-Lorrainne (sp) to Germany? Or for that manner, the Normans giving England back to the Saxons? Conquest is conquest. It is a part of history and will continue to occur. Israel conquered those lands and to the victors the spoils. I hope they don't keep all of that land. I truly hope that a land for peace deal can be reached. I doubt it will happen in my life time. Not when one of the warring parties is fighting to exist and the other has the total destruction of the former IN THEIR CHARTER!


    UN didn't do anything in Rwanda. Have you heard of UNAMIR.

    Isn't that one of the reasons the United Nations was formed? To address and stop horrific events such as this? The UN is impotent! As for the U.S. role, who was in power at the time? That's right Clinton. Do you think his actions were prudent? Do you think the G.W. would have allowed this to happen?
    Last edited by 1stdeadeye; 03-12-2003 at 09:33 AM.

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Formerly Denver - Now Florida
    Posts
    3,651
    Originally posted by Collegeboy
    I am not making up the illegal occupation of lands by Israel. If the camps are run by Jordanians and Palestinians then how can Israel go in there with their tanks and kill Palestinians.

    What does it matter if the Jordan people ceded the land to the Palestinians or it was there. It is outside of the land give to Israel in the partition plan of 1948. They are now on Palestinian land. What is the difference?


    OOOOH OOOHH Pick me! Pick ME! I know I know!

    I said earlier the palestinians rejected 181 and immediately moved with their arab neighbours to using military action to conquor the land they felt was theirs. That led the the '49 occupation and, in effect, voided the original plan as it was only approved by the UN (also note if you go back to UN that the UK would be in control of the region).

    [Let me repeat: Resolution 181 was never implemented and is nothing more than a General Assembly proposal (and therefore not binding or enforceable under international law). ]

    This lasted up until the Six Day War of June 1967. Following an unprovoked attack by Jordan on West Jerusalem, Israeli forces liberated the eastern parts of the city. Only a few days after the cease-fire, the Israeli Knesset passed an amendment that stated that 'The law, jurisdiction and administration of the State shall extend to any area of the Land of Israel designated by the Government by order.' On the strength of that, which took effect on the day it was passed, the Israeli Government on the next day issued an order that applied the State's laws, jurisdiction and administration to East Jerusalem, which was formally brought within the boundaries of Israeli Jerusalem.

    Anyway the annexation by Jordan, in 1950, was illegal under international law, but Israel acted defensively and well within the limits of international law in both 1948-1949 and in 1967. So that's why the late Prof Julius Stone wrote (credited as being one of the twentieth century's leading authorities on the Law of Nations) in 1980, 'Where the prior holder of a territory has seized that territory unlawfully [Jordan, in this case], the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defence has, against that prior holder, better title' (Assault on the Law of Nations).

    Also note the UN 242 and 338 still require Israel to be responisble for for quelling civil unrest in the disputed territories.

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    England...not new, just t
    Posts
    2,433
    Originally posted by shartley

    I love arguments like that. LOL If you followed that way of thinking, almost no country would belong to those who now occupy it. That is unless they just sprang from the dirt of that land… which they did not.

    Conquest is a part of world history and human history. The Israel issue can not be explained by such simplistic thinking. There was MUCH more to it than just giving back lands taken by war.

    Also, the lands taken from Native American peoples, for the most part, was not THEIRS. I think if you do some research you will see that even THEY did not believe they owned the land. They just lived on it and hunted on it, etc. Not to mention that the lands in the western and central United States were used in a nomadic manner by the Native Americans without having one fixed “home”.

    Then we forget that even the Native Americans fought each other too. Had been for their entire history. We (the expanding peoples) just did it better and were stronger.

    Now, add to that the fact that there were different types of tribes and peoples depending on what part of the continent you are talking about… north east, central, south east, south central, south west, north west, etc. They spoke different languages, had different cultures, etc. But folks like to lump them all into one large group for “argument” sake. And let’s not forget that they were given lands to live on, and offered to join the ruling society as part of it… No, we can not compare what was done to that Jewish peoples to that of the conquest of other “lands”.

    No my friend, we are talking apples and oranges. But nice try.
    You are correct about the non owning of the land they believed that it belonged to the people not one tribe even if they did fight a nieghbouring tribe, this was done for the ability to ensure that they could still hunt unopposed, sure the american goverment DID give the tribes land...Geronimo was was given land in Florida...great if that was present day but at the time it was swampland. Dunno how that court case is going, if it still is, regarding the ownership of Manhatten Island apparently it was a lease type deal which expired some years ago. It is a differing situation to the formation and expansion of Israel but the parallels are still there albeit vague ones.

    To kind of swing this towards paintball (even though this is friendly corner for non paintball subjects) since WWII the woods in Germany have been removed from the ownership of individuals (it belongs to the people) so thats why you can't play paintball in the woods...I know we have all basically come out of the woods but the game started there, and the rules/laws still in force there (reunification aside) means that we can only play on former military land as full access to the land is still required by the people.....playing a game and a couple of hikers walk through the 50..not good.

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,375
    Listened to Conda Rice speak today. As I have said I am not sure that I am opposed to the current Iraq plan but I can't stand some of the rhetoric I see preached on this board. Thankfully our nation is not full of people who preach blind patriotism.

    To be honest after listening to Conda Rice I felt more inclined that the war might be necessary and justified. If only Bush and Rumsfeld (sp?) would let her do the speaking and shut up! It is painful to listen to these two and their demanding condescending tone to the international community.

    Things are coming to a head and our current administration has skillfully backed us in a corner where we look weak if we back down and like imperialists if we move forward. Probably best to move forward and not give the impression of weakness. We can make up with the international community in a year or so by jettisoning Bush!
    ULE Body Level 10 Automag intelliframe + retrovalve

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    9,169
    Originally posted by aaron_mag
    Listened to Conda Rice speak today. As I have said I am not sure that I am opposed to the current Iraq plan but I can't stand some of the rhetoric I see preached on this board. Thankfully our nation is not full of people who preach blind patriotism.

    To be honest after listening to Conda Rice I felt more inclined that the war might be necessary and justified. If only Bush and Rumsfeld (sp?) would let her do the speaking and shut up! It is painful to listen to these two and their demanding condescending tone to the international community.

    Things are coming to a head and our current administration has skillfully backed us in a corner where we look weak if we back down and like imperialists if we move forward. Probably best to move forward and not give the impression of weakness. We can make up with the international community in a year or so by jettisoning Bush!
    LOLROF What a bunch of crap.. sorry.

    Did you read my points that France and Germany felt NO need for UN support or backing for the Cosovo stuff? But they seem to think differently NOW. LOL Hypocrites.

    You keep thinking the US is the bad guy and that everyone will like us more if we “jettison Bush”. LOL The International Community is just sitting back to benefit from OUR actions, but acting like they don’t approve of it. Watch how they flock in like vultures when we take care of the mess and our actions don’t “blow up” like some “fear” they will (or hope they will depending on who you talk to).

    The problem is, that the world is now filled with “politicians” and very few LEADERS. Leaders are people who do what is NEEDED in spite of the fact that you will ALWAYS have people who cry about it… and they do it because it HAS to be done.

    As for condescending tones… you better believe it. When a country makes decisions ONLY because they have a “financial” investment, and not what is truly the correct thing to do, yup… I have more than “condescension” for them, and they are darn lucky our leaders display only THAT.

    Your argument now is not whether our actions are needed or not, but how the “message” is being presented. LOL Too funny. Of course that is the easy way to slide into supporting the action.. after taking such a hard stance the other way. I wonder how many more we will see doing the same thing?

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    9,169
    This was posed in another thread... now closed... so I brought it here.
    Originally posted by beam
    I don't know why this popped into my head just now, but I got to thinking about the French, and how they will not approve a war with Iraq under ANY circumstances.

    I wonder if they are trying to move towards a Utopian society like in the movie Demolition Man. hahahaha

    I will freak if I read a quote in CNN from Jacques Chirac

    "President Bush needs to enhance his calm. A war with Iraq will not give him the joy joy feeling of a peaceful society he so much desires."

    They would probably want to fine people credits for using the terms Weapons of Mass Destruction, Anthrax, Al Qaeda, etc.

    I don't know, I'm in a silly mood today.

    Be well.
    Nah… but that is funny.

    France is ONLY doing what they are now because they have invested in Iraq and with a new regime they could lose it all. They don’t really care about the UN unless it favors THEM. Like I stated a couple times already, they didn’t care about UN Backing or “approval” when they used the US to take care of Milosovich(sp?) in Cosovo…. who they admitted was not even as bad as Saddam (of whom they say is the most evil dictator since Hitler… THEIR words).

    Wow… but the US is so bad, right? At least we are standing up for principles… where France has NONE.

  16. #196
    Collegeboy Guest
    Say that France is only doing what they are doing now because of the economic gains they have invested is pointless. For the US stands to gain the backing of the government of a country that sets upon the third largest oil reserve in the world (Might not be the third but it is high). Now when the war is "over" (If it ever is), and if the government last more then 2 years, then you will see Iraq pulling out of OPEC, and guess what will happen in the US. Gas prices at 99 cent again. Now is this the only reason we are going to war, or the main reason. NO, but it is a reason.

  17. #197
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,375
    Shartley your post showed as usual that you do not read or think about what other people post. I had stated in several of my posts that I was not in total disagreement with our official (ie government) stance on Iraq. I also have stated several times that I thought Bush's stance of seeming to be eager to go to war might be actually be good in that it might achieve compliance without war through forcing cooperations with the weapons inspectors.

    What I have always disliked was the total lack of diplomacy in dealing with our allies (note our allies not our enemies). I do not mind "heavy handed" politicking behind doors but public statements and speeches should be about friendship and working with our allies. As I have stated Rumsfield's published statements have made me want to punch him in the mouth.

    People talk about international prejudice. When I was abroad in France in the early 90s I couldn't believe that there were stores called America selling clothes with American Flags. There were tons of kids wearing these American Flags in France. To say that we hated around the world is a bunch of BS.

    You bring up Kosovo. Note that there was not huge anti-American sentiment against the US nor was there the same feeling in the first Gulf war. You are going to believe what you want to believe. I am just going to hope that in the next election the people who feel as I do outnumber those who feel as you do.

  18. #198
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    9,169
    Originally posted by Collegeboy
    Say that France is only doing what they are doing now because of the economic gains they have invested is pointless. For the US stands to gain the backing of the government of a country that sets upon the third largest oil reserve in the world (Might not be the third but it is high). Now when the war is "over" (If it ever is), and if the government last more then 2 years, then you will see Iraq pulling out of OPEC, and guess what will happen in the US. Gas prices at 99 cent again. Now is this the only reason we are going to war, or the main reason. NO, but it is a reason.
    I guess you don’t understand the small amount of oil we do get from Iraq. I guess you don’t understand that even if they didn’t sell another barrel of oil (to anyone) that it would not affect our oil directly. What it would do is cause the other nations who we currently purchase oil from to raise their prices.. THAT would affect us, NOT whether we were friendly with the Iraqi Government. LOL As long as they sold to ANYONE, it would not put us in any worse or better shape than we are in NOW.

    Plus, if you have listened to any of the people who REALLY know about the oil situation, you would know that the chances of oil prices going to 99 cents again is pretty slim.

    I guess that blows your argument pretty much to crap. We don’t need to go to war with Iraq so we can benefit by them being “friendly” to us… as long as they are friendly with ANYBODY and selling oil to ANYBODY all is well. LOL I guess you don’t know much about the Oil Industry and how it all works on a global scale now do you?

    I had to edit this because I noticed that you are in “prediction mode” again, and KNOW what Iraq will do. LOL Must be nice to own that crystal ball. Why do so many of your arguments hinge on YOUR predictions of what will happen? LOL

    There are MANY reasons we are going to war, yes. But the MAJOR reasons are not because of oil. It is because of Human Rights Violations as well as Weapons Violations. The other reasons are like tack on charges when a police officer pulls you over for speeding….. and your tail light is out… and you were not wearing a seat belt.. etc. but that is not the reason you were pulled over.
    Last edited by shartley; 03-12-2003 at 01:01 PM.

  19. #199
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    "The SC" (South Carolina)
    Posts
    16,216
    *** Note seperate French issues thread now***

    ANY OF THE IS SUBJECT TO CLOSURE AT ANY TIME!

  20. #200
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    9,169
    Originally posted by aaron_mag
    Shartley your post showed as usual that you do not read or think about what other people post. I had stated in several of my posts that I was not in total disagreement with our official (ie government) stance on Iraq. I also have stated several times that I thought Bush's stance of seeming to be eager to go to war might be actually be good in that it might achieve compliance without war through forcing cooperations with the weapons inspectors.

    What I have always disliked was the total lack of diplomacy in dealing with our allies (note our allies not our enemies). I do not mind "heavy handed" politicking behind doors but public statements and speeches should be about friendship and working with our allies. As I have stated Rumsfield's published statements have made me want to punch him in the mouth.

    People talk about international prejudice. When I was abroad in France in the early 90s I couldn't believe that there were stores called America selling clothes with American Flags. There were tons of kids wearing these American Flags in France. To say that we hated around the world is a bunch of BS.

    You bring up Kosovo. Note that there was not huge anti-American sentiment against the US nor was there the same feeling in the first Gulf war. You are going to believe what you want to believe. I am just going to hope that in the next election the people who feel as I do outnumber those who feel as you do.
    Sorry, but I DO read and think about what people post. If I was off a bit on YOURS I apologize, but that is not a “norm” as you now are trying to claim…. Get a grip.

    Are we in the early 90’s any more? Hmmmm I didn’t think so. Thanks for pointing that out, maybe you should remember that too.

    Anti-American sentiment against the US with the Kosovo and Gulf War… hmmmm So now we judge what we have to do by how the world thinks about us, and not by what is RIGHT? Interesting concept. And what about the FACT that IN the US the actions in Kosovo received 15% LESS support from the American People than the action NOW in Iraq does. But we went ahead and did it. Hmmmm that is interesting too!

    The simple truth of the matter is that you don’t like the “appearance” of our actions, or the manner in which the “message” is being delivered. LOL This is funny since the end result is the same, and the reasons FOR it are just. That is like denying the truth because you didn’t like the book it was written in, or who the author was. LOL

  21. #201
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    8,501

    Not even close!

    Originally posted by Collegeboy
    Say that France is only doing what they are doing now because of the economic gains they have invested is pointless. For the US stands to gain the backing of the government of a country that sets upon the third largest oil reserve in the world (Might not be the third but it is high). Now when the war is "over" (If it ever is), and if the government last more then 2 years, then you will see Iraq pulling out of OPEC, and guess what will happen in the US. Gas prices at 99 cent again. Now is this the only reason we are going to war, or the main reason. NO, but it is a reason.
    Actually Iraq sits upon the second largest "proven" reserves. Russia's may be larger, but we don't know. You are mistaken. If every country we saved pulled out of OPEC, why is Kuwait still in it? The U.S. wants to put a democratic government in, not a puppet regime. Why are you so focused on that possibility? We could have put any regime we wanted in Kuwait after Gulf War I, we didn't. We returned the country to the people. Why would Iraq be any different? Iraq has a well educated populace who should be more then capable of running their own country once free of Saddam's terror!

    On CNN last night, Connie Chung did an interview with an Iraqi dissident (granted she was biased) who stated that her family and friends in Iraq are afraid of the campaign, not freedom. They are anticipating their liberty! Her friends and family stated that most Iraqi troops will surrender(with the exception of the Republican Guard). The counter-point to that interview was Tim Robbins who came accross as a complete moron. I am so happy that his career is circling the bowl!

    I am sure you saw CPhil's article about Iraqis already trying to surrender. You know what, at this rate we can start calling Iraq-the France of the Middle East!
    Last edited by 1stdeadeye; 03-12-2003 at 01:22 PM.

  22. #202
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Liberalism is a persistent vegatative state.
    Posts
    2,504
    Originally posted by shartley
    Wow… but the US is so bad, right? At least we are standing up for principles… where France has NONE.
    It's kinda hard to stand up straight with NO backbone.

  23. #203
    Collegeboy Guest
    Shartley and 1st deadeye you all are wrong. What does it matter where the US gets its oil from now? It is hampered by OPEC. Do you think that given the chance the US would kill (notice the word kill) to have a huge oil reserve in which Opec doesn't control. Or better yet to have an oil reserve in which the US controlled. Come on I thought you were smarter then that.

    My arguments are hinged on what will happen because we are talking about what will happen and what are the reasons to go to war.

    The US couldn't care less about the Iraqi citizens, they are in no worse shape (even better shape) then Saudi Arabia’s citizens (and guess what they are our allies). So please don't spout that humanity propaganda. THIS WAR IS NOT ABOUT THE IRAQI PEOPLE.

  24. #204
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,375
    Originally posted by shartley
    [B]
    Sorry, but I DO read and think about what people post. If I was off a bit on YOURS I apologize, but that is not a “norm” as you now are trying to claim…. Get a grip.
    What do you want me to get a grip on? (that is a joke by the way).

    Are we in the early 90’s any more? Hmmmm I didn’t think so. Thanks for pointing that out, maybe you should remember that too.
    But I like the 90s! I was younger, slimmer, and having a heck of alot of fun! Now I'm married, sedentary, and very boring. If you haven't already figured out I am going to be one of those hopeless sorts that is listening to the 80/90s song stations when it is the year 2030!

    There are MANY reasons we are going to war, yes. But the MAJOR reasons are not because of oil. It is because of Human Rights Violations as well as Weapons Violations. The other reasons are like tack on charges when a police officer pulls you over for speeding….. and your tail light is out… and you were not wearing a seat belt.. etc. but that is not the reason you were pulled over.
    Human rights violations? I thought we were going to war over national security? War for national security or the security of our allies I can accept but I cannot accept war for human rights violations. Human rights violations happen ALL OVER THE WORLD! Do I want to see the US go into armed conflict with every petty dictator in the world? NO! We CANNOT police the world. I don't want to see young Americans die fighting all over the world. Even a few casulties are too many. Show me that this is to stop another terrorist attack. Tell me that Turkey (a UN ally) is calling for our aid against an impending Iraqi attack. Don't tell me, however, that we are now in charge of invading every country with human rights violations. Those changes must come from within their own country.

  25. #205
    Collegeboy Guest
    When will Bush go to war against Zimbabwae, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, etc........ ? All bad examples of human rights violations.

  26. #206
    Originally posted by Jack_Dubious
    1stdeadeye brings up a good point....why didnt anyone (US included) do anything about Rwanda? Actually why didnt we even hear or see anything about Rwanda?


    JDub
    Because Rwanda did not and still does not have weapons of mass destruction and an intense burning hatred of America.

  27. #207
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    9,169
    LOL Too funny…. Look how they flock to attack me adding “human rights violations” into the reasons to go to war. LOL

    Look, that may not be one of the major factors either, but it is one. National security, yup.. that too. Heck, I am sure we could find all sorts of reasons for this war. LOL

    Again, I find it funny that such a quick attack was made on “human rights violations”…… LOL Yes, there are other places that have human rights violations, but we don’t need to get into EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM here, do we? And then you can’t sit back and say that as long as SOMEONE is committing human rights violations and we don’t take care of EVERY ONE OF THEM that we should not do ANYTHING for ANY OF THEM. LOL But we have gone over this before as well.

    ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He said “human rights violations”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But I guess you guys were so hungry to somehow be right about SOMETHING that you will take anything you can get. LOLROF

    Too funny………….

  28. #208
    Originally posted by aaron_mag
    Sorry....I have to be the voice of disharmony (as 1stdeadeye is sure to predict).

    September 11th was a horrible tragedy and the tragic nature was recognized by people around the world (as was alluded to in the article). I remember reading stories about German boats flying US flags after 9/11! It brought tears to my eyes.

    The general feeling in the US is the goodwill is gone from world and that the world has become anti-American. The question that some of us fail to ask about ourselves is WHY! How can we go from Germans flying US Flags to feeling like they are ungrateful to all we have done for them (which is alot).

    I would submit that they feel slighted by us! So many countries extended the hands of friendship after 9/11 until we started the "you are either with us or against us speeches". It was like slapping them in the face! I appreciate the Brits statement of solidarity but I will also submit that if we are a freedom loving country (which I believe that we are) then we must accept that other countries can disagree with us without them being our "enemies". On this board there are a ton of anti French jokes. Is respect not a two way street?

    This is not an anti military statement. As I have said before on the board my cousin is a Marine pilot and two of my uncles are retired army. I have no problem with a strong military. If anything our technological advantage to GROW! Anyway I've put in my two cents.
    Aaron, do you even the slightest idead of just how much money America gives out to prop uo failing economies the world round? Do you have any idea how much money alone is funneled into the Middle East ruling clans? That money is the primary reason there is so much hatred for the US.

    The US supports the rise of Clan A to power who immediately put Clan B, C, D and E into a really bad place. Do clans B, C, D, and E go against Clan A? No. Why? Because it would be bad in the eyes of their religion. So, who do they turn their hatred too? The people who back Clan A, America.

    Also Aaron, regardless of whatever things we did wrong in the Middle East we never, ever, ever intentionally murder innocents. The WTC was not an attack on any type of military installation. It was an attack on innocents which is why it is all the more horrible than Pearl Harbor, the Pentagon or the MArine barracks a few year back. Those in the military undertake the venture with a knowledge that they might die. How can you [in a general sense] even possibly argue that innocent civilians, who have absolutely no say in foreign policy, deserved to die like that?

    Do other countries have the right to disagree with us? Of course they do. But we also have the right to remove federal funding if they won't help us.

    As for the repsect for the French. As soon as they give it to others we will give it to them. I have had the displeasure of working with French nationals and even french-canadians for about the past ten years and all I can say is that I have yet to meet one that I like. My personal experience has found them to be, to the last one, obnixious, sniveling, obsequious, superficial little brats. Again, that's just my personal experience and not my definition of every single one.

  29. #209
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,375
    ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He said “human rights violations”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But I guess you guys were so hungry to somehow be right about SOMETHING that you will take anything you can get.
    This is where my comments on not reading posts come from. Since the very beginning when you all were arguing with collegeboy about if women are getting raped in Iraq (which was a totally ridiculous argument on collegeboys part) I was saying that I was not willing to risk American troops (even though I think there will be very few casulties) on such things. Yes it is cold and cruel of me but I feel that we as a nation cannot provide justice to the entire world. We have enough difficulty providing it to our own country! 1stdeadeye and I disagree on things but we debate/discuss. There is nothing that is debate/discussion in your statement above.

    Aaron, do you even the slightest idead of just how much money America gives out to prop uo failing economies the world round? Do you have any idea how much money alone is funneled into the Middle East ruling clans? That money is the primary reason there is so much hatred for the US.

    The US supports the rise of Clan A to power who immediately put Clan B, C, D and E into a really bad place. Do clans B, C, D, and E go against Clan A? No. Why? Because it would be bad in the eyes of their religion. So, who do they turn their hatred too? The people who back Clan A, America.

    Also Aaron, regardless of whatever things we did wrong in the Middle East we never, ever, ever intentionally murder innocents. The WTC was not an attack on any type of military installation. It was an attack on innocents which is why it is all the more horrible than Pearl Harbor, the Pentagon or the MArine barracks a few year back. Those in the military undertake the venture with a knowledge that they might die. How can you [in a general sense] even possibly argue that innocent civilians, who have absolutely no say in foreign policy, deserved to die like that?
    Read the post where you quoted me. Does it say that I support the 9/11 attacks? Does it say that we shouldn't be in Afgahnistan? It is about our allies and the support they had for us in our time of need. It is about fostering good will between allies rather than being devisive. If my quote is arguing in favor of the 9/11 attack it must be in such a metaphysical "general sense" that I cannot comprehend it.

  30. #210

    I never said that you supported the 9/11 attacks.

    I was merely trying to explain how those extremists see a lot of the problems they face as being Americas fault.

    As for your comment on America's stance of "Your either with us or against us" is a posture we should of taken a long time ago. What really rubs my rhubarb is that France and Germany both decided that they did not have to uphold their NATO agreement and defend Turkey simply because they do not approve of the war.

    As some may remember Turkey, the only NATO country that shares a border with IRaq was at first more than agreeable to allow us to use their bases as staging points with the caveat that other European NATO partners defended them should they garner any backlash because of the war. FRANDE AND GERMANY REFUSED!!!! That is totally unacceptable and I am horrified and dismayed that they have not been forcibly ejected from NATO because of that. What good is the alliance when you can pick and choose when and how you will defend other members of that alliance. I think it is issues like that where the mindset of "You are either a part of the problem or the solution" is warranted.

    A lot of people are saying right now "What right gives America the power to say who is bad and who is good?" As far as I am concerned it's our billions upon billions of dollars donated to foerign aid. It's also the fact that no one else is willing to do it. Another point is that we are just cleaning up our own mess. But what can you expect. We get blamed for making the mess and we get blamed for cleaning it up.
    Last edited by Hasty8; 03-12-2003 at 03:52 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •