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

[Koosh]

I'm saying the debate was trivial on calling it a "detainment camp" or a "concentration camp" or whatever else I missed by skimming the last five pages. Either way it was a terrible thing that only the most sadistic of the human race could bring themselves to do.

When we have people going to dictionaries to look up the definition of a concentration camp, then people disputing what it actually means, what does that prove about the people that actually survived through the horror? The people that saw it first hand?

They can call it Hitlers Happy Fun Time Summer Camp, but it won't change the fact that over 7 million people were slaughtered in them....

[1stdeadeye]

Get my point now!

Originally posted by TheFlamingKoosh
I'm saying the debate was trivial on calling it a "detainment camp" or a "concentration camp" or whatever else I missed by skimming the last five pages. Either way it was a terrible thing that only the most sadistic of the human race could bring themselves to do.

When we have people going to dictionaries to look up the definition of a concentration camp, then people disputing what it actually means, what does that prove about the people that actually survived through the horror? The people that saw it first hand?

They can call it Hitlers Happy Fun Time Summer Camp, but it won't change the fact that over 7 million people were slaughtered in them....

Exactly! I took great umbrage that CB was comparing the Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany to UN run Refugee Camps! He played a game of semantics with the term, when he knew darn well what everyone would take it to mean. Make you debate with facts, not loaded emotional terms! That is all I was argueing about! He was trivializing the experience of that horrid event for his own gain in a debate and wrongly so.

Again, my wife's grandfather saw Auschwitz about a week after it was liberated. He still does not like to talk about it at all except to say that he never saw depravity like he did there and hopes never to see again!

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by TheFlamingKoosh
I'm saying the debate was trivial

You can't just read the last five pages, read the whole thread and keep in mind the importance of defineing terms when debating Collegeboy.


Collegeboy - You know I'm still waiting for some semblence of fact or back up you have for a palestinian state or illegaly occupied land.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am not disagreeing I think a nonviolence approach will do best, but it will never happen. To bad though.

Originally posted by TheFlamingKoosh
He's worse. The American news cant describe with a million words what terrors he can do to people who speak out against him. He has men who's ONLY job is to forcibally RAPE women in order to get information from them and the men that care for them.

There is no question Saddam needs to go. But I look at this with a little hypocrisy. I can guarantee you that there are some othe nations out there with leaders just as bad if not worse then him, yet nothing is done. Of course we didn't fight against the other nations when they invaded a smaller neighbor country either, so there would be no political backing for it...

Originally posted by TheFlamingKoosh
One more thing, I must say, I read the last 5 pages of this thread, and I must say, You are all idiots. Every single one. Well, not everyone, just the ones who argued about the concentration camps... I was reading that and just thinking about how much time was wasted while coming up with responses on both sides...

Originally posted by ShooterJM
You can't just read the last five pages, read the whole thread and keep in mind the importance of defineing terms when debating Collegeboy.

Bingo.

[Collegeboy]

Another failed attempt by Shartly. I will not even post it again. Read what I wrote you should be able to tell what I said and what I didn't say.

1de. So Israel is ok holding Palestinian land while forcing them to live in camps (Be it concentration, detainment, refugee, what ever you want to use) Arafat has no control over stopping the groups like Hamas and such. Only the people of the country can. And they will never do so until Israel gets out of the land that is rightfully Palestinian land. By the way you are now advocating Israeli imperialism, or it seems like you are.


Nope check around you will see the majority of the people in the world sees that Palestinian's a displaced race forced to live in camps (again attach your own word). That are forced to humiliation just to get to work. That are at times confined to their house for weeks upon weeks. They see the Israelis as rightfully defending themselves, but not rightfully holding on to Palestinian land. To back this why does the whole Security Council want to sanction Israel for its actions against Palestinians but the US is the only country that veto it every time.

The terror won't stop until Israel leaves Palestinian land.

As to the question as to what is and what isn't Palestinian land. Here is a link.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/2411.htm

The above is a bias site, but I couldn't find a nonbiased site on any side. But this site gives a good understanding of why it is illegal.

[luke]

I didn't read this thread, except for what Army posted.........

I have never been more proud to be an American until after 9/11, and most certainly after last nights address from President Bush. I'm proud of MY PRESIDENT (first one for me) for standing up for what is right.

To many of our leaders in the past didn't have the guts to do the right thing. Our country and the world for that matter, has needed someone like President Bush for far too long. I think our world is coming into a new age, where terror will truly no longer be permitted by the people that have the power to say, NO MORE!

What I don't understand is why anybody would want to protect Saddam, because if you are not for this War, that is exactly what you are doing. Finally someone has the guts to go get this madman, and I'm damn proud to support the man that's doing it.............

[Collegeboy]

Re: I didn't read this thread, except for what Army posted.........

Originally posted by luke


What I don't understand is why anybody would want to protect Saddam, because if you are not for this War, that is exactly what you are doing.

I will not say anything about you first part for it is your right to believe in what ever you want to beleive. But that quoted part is what gives me problems. You will find that the majority if not all the protestors want Saddam gone, but they don't think war will do anything but cause more problems.

Any one notice how on the news they always show the protestors carrying Iraqi flags. That just makes me laugh at how bad our media is getting.

[cphilip]

Another British Officials views and comments in the London Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html

Couple of new tidbits unconfirmed.

Cook has un-resigned. This fellow once was fired by Tony Blair long ago and was holding a party postion but resigned in protest yesterday but seems a very uncommited fellow now doesn't he? reports are he has unresigned now. Can you do that?

France allows overflights...they seem very committed to thier stand too don't they?

Sarcasm...

[ShooterJM]

Tell me you're joking. THAT's what you come up with! Do you know who Dr. Al-Kidwa is? Little background for you.

Al-Kidwa joined the Fatah faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization in '69. Oh yeah, and he's member of the Revolutionary Council of Fatah since 1981. What is the Fatah revolutionary council you ask. Lucky for you I know!

The organization claims that the armed struggle against Israel is a sacred principle, the only way to achieve the liberation of all of Palestine, and nobody can deny it from the Palestinian people. Fatah and its leaders have betrayed this principle and the Palestinian Covenant so they must be punished. Both inter-Arab and intra-Palestinian terrorism are needed in order to precipitate an all-embracing Arab revolution that can alone lead to the liberation of Palestine. Fatah-RC was considered the most dangerous, active and murderous Palestinian terror organization in the 1980s. It has demonstrated an ability to operate in the Middle East, Asia, South America and Europe. It has carried out operations and terrorist acts against targets of various Arab countries, more than any other Palestinian organization, and also against Palestinian militants considered to be too moderate.

It's hard to find an article without some bias. But I choked on the author on that one. I'll read it and see what he says.

[luke]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


You will find that the majority if not all the protestors want Saddam gone, but they don't think war will do anything but cause more problems.

How many more YEARS do you want to TALK about disarming Saddam? Don't you find it just a little bit curious that he's ready to "bring the fight to the world"? Does that have any meaning to you at all? His claims that he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction is ludicrous!


If war is not the answer, what is?

[shartley]

Re: Re: I didn't read this thread, except for what Army posted.........

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Another failed attempt by Shartly. I will not even post it again. Read what I wrote you should be able to tell what I said and what I didn't say.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Nope check around you will see the majority of the people in the world sees that Palestinian's a displaced race forced to live in camps (again attach your own word). That are forced to humiliation just to get to work. That are at times confined to their house for weeks upon weeks. They see the Israelis as rightfully defending themselves, but not rightfully holding on to Palestinian land. To back this why does the whole Security Council want to sanction Israel for its actions against Palestinians but the US is the only country that veto it every time.

The terror won't stop until Israel leaves Palestinian land.

As to the question as to what is and what isn't Palestinian land. Here is a link.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/2411.htm

The above is a bias site, but I couldn't find a nonbiased site on any side. But this site gives a good understanding of why it is illegal.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I will not say anything about you first part for it is your right to believe in what ever you want to beleive. But that quoted part is what gives me problems. You will find that the majority if not all the protestors want Saddam gone, but they don't think war will do anything but cause more problems.

[spazzed]

Re: Re: I didn't read this thread, except for what Army posted.........

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I will not say anything about you first part for it is your right to believe in what ever you want to beleive. But that quoted part is what gives me problems. You will find that the majority if not all the protestors want Saddam gone, but they don't think war will do anything but cause more problems.

Any one notice how on the news they always show the protestors carrying Iraqi flags. That just makes me laugh at how bad our media is getting.

Ok, so if they (& you), want him gone so bad, how do you suggest "we" accomplish this? Do you not think the U.S. government has considered other options? Uprising, etc.
I mean seriously, there really isn't any other choice. That is, unless you want to lure him out of one of his many palaces with a trail of Dorito's

As for the Media, don't even get me started on that can of worms. Good for nothing bunch of crackpots.

[aaron_mag]

Re: I didn't read this thread, except for what Army posted.........

Originally posted by luke
What I don't understand is why anybody would want to protect Saddam, because if you are not for this War, that is exactly what you are doing. Finally someone has the guts to go get this madman, and I'm damn proud to support the man that's doing it.............

Saddam is bad. Many people compare him to Hitler but he models himself after Stalin. Everyone wants to be rid of him. There was a great show on Iraq last night. The essence of the debate comes down to the Hawks versus the Moderates. As early as 1991 the war hawks in Washington had drafted up a plan for American foriegn policy that was more "muscular". It included preemptive strikes and ignoring UN approval (going it alone). Opposing this plan were more moderate conservatives like Bush Sr. and Colin Powell who still believed in building coalitions and containment. The U.N. can be a pesky thing. In 1998 Clinton wanted to attack Iraq but there was no support for it in the UN.

Then Bush Jr. was elected. He showed no significant difference in foriegn policy than Clinton. In his campaign speeches he even stated that he would not use U.S. soldiers as peacekeepers between warring parties indefinetely. Then 9/11 happen. This opened things up. The Hawks seized on this for regime change in Iraq. More moderate conservatives like Colin Powell wanted to reign it in and focus on Afghanistan and Bin Laden. In the show they showed the speeches made by Colin Powell and a Hawk. I can't remember the Hawk's name. The Hawk talked about the Presidents words of not distinguishing between the terrorists or those that harbor them. He implied that this included nations like Iraq. Colin Powell contradicted him right after and focused on terrorists. Here you see opposing forces even in the Republican party.

Iraq is not a hot bed for terrorist activity. Saddam is so paranoid he probably puts any potential terrorists to death before they start attacking him! Plus he is terrified of U.S. invasion. In the first Gulf War he was almost in tears and kept asking his generals if they thought the allied forces would push on to Bagdhad. He sent his Generals out to secure a cease fire at any cost. Despite what he says he has no illusions that his fire power is totally inferior to the U.S. and is also pretty sure his troops will surrender quickly. The point is that the debate is not over whether Saddam is a bad guy or not (he clearly is bad for the people of Iraq) but it is the debate over what American foriegn policy should be? Do we still build coalitions and work through the U.N. or do we go it alone? Rumsfield, for example, is in the Hawk camp. He thinks that the U.S. needs to have a muscular foriegn policy and go it alone if need be. This should be evident in his comments to other nations when trying to build a coalition. At any rate you see it is not as simple as whether Saddam is a good guy or not.

[Restola]

Re: Re: Re: I didn't read this thread, except for what Army posted.........

Originally posted by shartley

Eh I dont really agree with that...

Would you leave so peacefully if your state was given to another country?

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Do we still build coalitions and work through the U.N. or do we go it alone?

I wish people would stop saying that, considering it is completely incorrect and you probably know better. Last I heard there were over 40 countries openly supporting the US action against Iraq. Rather than quoting some liberal line, tell the truth.

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Restola
Eh I dont really agree with that...

Would you leave so peacefully if your state was given to another country?

There is no palestinian state.