With explanatory notes Now, I have no problems with knocking off Saddam. I dislike the guy, and so does an Iraqi chap I know who was quite happy to tell me all about how Saddam is messing up his country. However, I also disliek the USA government's words and policies in this matter.
Based on what? C'mon Adam, your smarter then that. Havent you read any of the articles that I posted regarding defectors telling us that he is indeed building them? What the hell would they be lying for? Or is it the US' false intentions:bugeye: Sooo... theres no room for improvement? Once a bad nation always a bad nation? What if Germany declared the same thing that the US has. Would you yell "NONO" - because of the whole Hitler thing?
LOL....Coming out of a mouth a person, who believe that every thing on CNN and FOX is true. LOL. Defectors??? and from Iraq and telling those stories just now...........Hmm... very nice plot of a nice movie. Pretty cool miss Star. I think what you all need is a nice war movie don't you think? rather then a real war, just hire some director and he will make a good movie for you star.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm quite happy with anyone doing it. It is not the idea of knocking off Saddam that I object to. It is the hypocrisy of Bush's statements and policies. To me, the word of people is not enough for war. I like actual evidence. Photographs, film, something other than "some guy said he saw nukes". I don't even like eye witness testimony in court; it is unreliable. I would have more respect for Bush's position on this matter if he said "My country has done some of the worst stuff any nation has ever done, but now we're trying to do better, and whi;le we're at it we'll go fix Saddam's wagon". Instead he's pretending the USA is a paragon of virtue, Saddam is evil, and they're doing God's work.
Yeah sky, I believe everything on the new is truePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Gee, I dont know - maybe because this happened in 96. Yeah, nice miss to you toPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Agreed. Thanks for explainingPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As I mentioned, I know an Iraqi chap. He is NOT happy with what Saddam has done to his country, and he had some very nasty things to say about the man. I have no problem with someone knocking off Saddam. I would prefer it was one guy with a rifle, rather than a war. But Saddam has an entire country's resources dedicated to keeping him alive, so...
Adam: As a means to end WW2 when no alternatives existed, as opposed to simply slaughtering civilians, yes. What, you think he isn't? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As for what we've developed, the army has tanks. I don't have a tank. I desperately want a tank - that would be so cool to go clubbing in for a ride - does this mean I'm entitled? Morality is a fiction used to justify the excersize of power. NEXT! Your point being? I believe the gracious and munificent Star addressed this. See above. Nope, we don't have the moral authority. You know what the groovy thing is? We don't fucking need moral authority. Morality is fiction for the slaves. I seem to remember something where Iraq is complying with inspections, so it looks like the US will hold off.....I dunno.....
Xev So what you're saying is that all the moral high ground stuff from Bush, or from anyone else in this matter, is pure bollocks? I totally agree. That's why I wish Bush would completely avoid such things, and just give a rational reason for wanting to go kick Saddam's arse.
Adam: Now now, you're saying that labelling him an "evildoer" isn't enough? Great googly moogly, man, what is your problem? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
After reading your first post, Adam, I found it nice and well put. However, when you said that you think somebody should by all means go in and whip Saddam's ass, what you said turned into What justification do you have for overthrowing Saddam?
And no, the possibility that he might be doing any of those things isn't enough. Plenty of other nations "might" be doing that, yet for some reason nobody is attacking them. Maybe it has to do with oil, not intuition or an opressed people? That he opresses his people-- well, Adam, there are plenty of other countries the axis of "good" should invade at the same time. Hey, ever notice that whatever team the US is on is always the "good" team? Now, imagine this scenario: Japan wins the war for the pacific, north and south america, asia, and australia, Germany and Italy win the war for Europe and Africa, and the world is dominated by the three. Now, what goes in the history books? The atrocious acts commited by the Japanese during the war? The Germans? The Italians? Or... maybe... the allies? So, everybody please keep in mind that there is no "good" side, both sides believe what they're doing is right and saying that your side is the good side is about as logical as saying that a religion is correct (for those of you who are religious, it's about as logical as saying that a religion other than yours is correct... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) ~_~''; Also, somehow I'm seeing here Xev and Star and how their patriotism blinds them: as soon as they see anything that might be in the least bit against conservative American beliefs, they have to chop it into pieces in a way that would seem logical even if it isn't. However Xev certainly does do a better job at this than does Star, I'd like to call it propaganda that they unknowingly generate to push their point by telling slight untruths and pushing beliefs. Another example of how weird people are is this: If I make a post linking to a site that the US boiled alive Iraqis in a bombshelter, I will be bombarded with people asking me for proof, however if I say that the Iraqis did this to a Kuwaiti bombshelter, people will automatically believe me. I'm sure those filled with Iraqi propaganda would take exactly the opposite position, believing readily the first and being skeptical about the second. Making your own profiles based on sometimes even things you KNOW are propaganda is very invalid and it sucks. Though I'm not claiming I'm not filled with propaganda... After all everybody is to a certain extent, however considering my life so far: until 1~2 years ago I was filled with propaganda from my own nation against Communism, against Iraq, &c, however I decided to look at both sides of the story, and rejected whatever they did not have in common as propaganda. Read: eliminate "communists are facists" and "capitalists are nazis", "iraqis actually look like pigs when they take their masks off" and "americans are really just smart dogs with costumes on", &c... Usually this is the best way to find out real news and histories of events. However many right-wingers here will say that no, everything pro-US isn't propaganda, but everything anti-US is. Just like not being able to come up with a definition of terrorism that includes only those you want it to. I've seen people say North Korea actually commits terrorist acts, which I can say is true except for the fact that under the given definitions of most people this isn't terrorism. If it IS terrorism, and so is 11/9, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as well. What a pradecimant we haev hear!!1!!!
Star, defectors aren't good people to trust, especially since they probably have political motives. If a defector wants Saddam overthrown, they tell people that he has weapons of mass destruction or that he's building them. A US defector could go to somewhere else and say that the US has successfully implemented cybernetic technology and established contact with aliens, and people would believe them, especially if people wanted to believe them. There's room for improvement, Star, but if you never say you're sorry or what you did was wrong, then, well... Oh, and Xev, about Hiroshima... that's not exactly true, there's actually an entry in the Prez's diary saying that the British PM and the Russian FM met to discuss a message recieved by Russia from Japan about starting surrendering formalities. If you don't believe this, then where's your justification for attacking a civilian center? If it were a democratic nation at the time, then yes, the civilians are the government, but at the time it was a military dictatorship and instead of killing civilians (slaughtering civilians is what you claim was avoided by this... hmm...) soldiers or government officials should've been killed.
Sorry I have only scanned quickly what has been said but I would like to put forward my views.... 1) I will not fight in Iraq as a premtive strike. If Saddam attacks someone first then I would sign up. 2) If the USA or my country (England) launches a preemptive strike then I believe that Bush and Blair should be forced to resign, either by the citizens or by the UN council. 3) Why shouldn't Iraq dedvelop weapons of mass destruction? Even if he has/ does he is not stupid enough to use them, as he knows it will bring along total annihaltion. 4) The Bush's recent statements should be enough to get him thrown out of America. The US wanted Saddam to let in weapons inspectors, AND he now HAS unconditionally. What is the US's response? Oh "It must be a trick". What a bunch of idiots.
"As for what we've developed, the army has tanks. I don't have a tank. I desperately want a tank - that would be so cool to go clubbing in for a ride - does this mean I'm entitled?" Well that's all well and good. See, most people are able to differentiate between the two concepts of a nation and a civilian. It's a crazy, kooky thing but I think there's a difference between a nation's military having weapons and Bob down the street having a jet plane. Of course, most people also believe that every nation deserves to have the power to defend itself unless that nation is one we don't like. Like Adam, I would be cool with Bush if he would just be honest. "We want Sadam out of power for a number of reasons. For one he has previously hurt his own citizens (though this actually isn't the main reason we want him out). For two there's a possibility he has big weapones kind of like the ones we have. And the thing is, big weapons are evil, immoral things which should not be allowed when they're not held by either (a) Us (b) a democratic nation which supports us or (c) a nation which, while they may be our idea of evil, gives us aid in the form of oil or military positioning. And finally, it helps us with oil and creates another state in the middle east for us to have military advantage in." "Morality is a fiction used to justify the excersize of power. NEXT!" Thus our fucking problem with Bush et co. using morality to justify his desire. "I seem to remember something where Iraq is complying with inspections, so it looks like the US will hold off.....I dunno....." The U.S. will hold off? I seem to remember opening the paper every other morning to see Bush asking for more support in the war?
Based on my own observations and on the words of an Iraqi associate, I have a personal dislike for Saddam Hussein.
so in that case it probably allows for the real world to request for a regime change in the US cause Bush sucks and is holds a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction ...
Soo... if were making our points were blinded and if your making yours, your righteous? Hmmmm... sounds a bit hypocritical to me. Whatever though, I stand behind my arguments even though apparently I suck at themPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Xev, Munificent? NEATO!!!!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
