-
06-19-03, 07:54 AM #1
Support 'Operation Truth'
http://www.moveon.org/distortion/misleader.pdf
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/5252422
Now the war hawks have changed their drums to saying "WE NEED MORE TIME..BECAUSE IRAQ IS AS BIG AS CALIFORNIA!!!!!!"
What was the UN & Blix saying to the "Coalition" before the invasion? Did the landmass of Iraq increase after our Crusader army landed there?
If anything, things are worse off because:
1) Iraqi towns are in ruins.
2) Many civilians are dead.
3) More fuel added to "Kill America & Americans" fire.
4) Iraqi culture, schools, social infrastructure has been destroyed.
5) Did I mention the large number of civilians that died needlessly...ALL for OUR safety???? Or more like petrol for our patriotic SUV's.
6) If WMD did exist, they now are most likely in the hands of people who are more dangerous than Saddam.
7) If WMD ARE found, the world will not be convinced BECAUSE there is no way to independently verify the validity. For what it's worth, Bush Sr. had them planted. Do not forget Bush Sr. was the head of the CIA before his reign.
-
06-19-03, 09:20 AM #2...Iraqi cultureLOLhas been destroyed.
One of, if not THE most ancient culture (not to mention the source of your civilization) destroyed???
What are you smoking?
-
06-19-03, 09:52 AM #3
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2955421.stm
-VS-PRESUMED MISSING
80,000 cuneiform tablets with world's earliest writing
Bronze figure of Akkadian king - 4,500 years old
Silver harp from ancient city of Ur - 4,000 years old
Three-foot carved Sumerian vase - 5,200 years old
Headless statue of Sumerian king Entemena - 4,600 years old
Carved sacred cup - 4,600 years old
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20.../64382-ap.html
*phew* thank god they didn't get the oil.
-
06-23-03, 03:55 AM #4
Oil is elder than statues and cuneiform tablets... it's just a priority problem!
-
06-23-03, 04:39 PM #5
1. Actually we left individual towns mostly alone. What shape were they in before?
2. More than Saddam would have allready killed?
3. You cant get much worse after you reach the "kill all infidels by any means necessary even if it means your own death" stage. Been there for a while.
4. Actually their infrastructure in many fields is better now than it was before the war.
5. It would have been cheaper to just buy the oil instead of invade and then buy the oil. If we wanted it that bad we would have kept Kuait.
6. Ex-Soviet Union allready took care of that.
7. We don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks. They have no say. If they wont bother the sandmonkey named Saddam after all he did they won't bother us.
-
06-24-03, 03:32 AM #6paradox generator
- Posts
- 4,089
Pretty bad. But now theyre worse, thanks to the sewage flowing down the street and little electricity supply.Originally posted by Clockwood
1. Actually we left individual towns mostly alone. What shape were they in before?
A bootless argument.2. More than Saddam would have allready killed?
not a lot to be said about that.3. You cant get much worse after you reach the "kill all infidels by any means necessary even if it means your own death" stage. Been there for a while.
Really? That would be the oil fields, right?4. Actually their infrastructure in many fields is better now than it was before the war. ?
Dont you read anything? Keeping Kuwait was too obvious, but now with Iraq, you can have guaranteed cheaper oil for 20 or 30 years.5. It would have been cheaper to just buy the oil instead of invade and then buy the oil. If we wanted it that bad we would have kept Kuait.
Maybe. but theres even less evidence of that so far than of Saddam having WMD right before the war started.6. Ex-Soviet Union allready took care of that.
Ahh, the unbridled pride, the conviction of empire. Do you work for USA imperialism Inc?7. We don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks. They have no say. If they wont bother the sandmonkey named Saddam after all he did they won't bother us.
Maybe some of us believe that you shouldnt bother others unless they bother you. Unlike the majority of US gvts.
But then dont get surprised if you wake up and find the US attakced by the rest of the world.
-
06-24-03, 03:42 AM #7It was the same... without bombs!Originally posted by Clockwood
1. Actually we left individual towns mostly alone. What shape were they in before?
Yes! (need to proove it? after you will have show us their WMD)2. More than Saddam would have allready killed?
Oh really! Where? Thanks to USA?4. Actually their infrastructure in many fields is better now than it was before the war.
Cheaper? LOL...5. It would have been cheaper to just buy the oil instead of invade and then buy the oil. If we wanted it that bad we would have kept Kuait.
And what would you have said about Kuait? "It's an islamic country that has hidden WMD and that will attack USA in the next months"?
And US too...6. Ex-Soviet Union allready took care of that.
Arghhh.... biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip.....7. We don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks. They have no say. If they wont bother the sandmonkey named Saddam after all he did they won't bother us.
-
06-24-03, 10:28 PM #8
Quotes originally posted by guthrie
Personally I have no problem with empires as long as the indiviual citizen is treated well and they dont just massacer whoever they invade. However, I wouldn't necessarily call us an empire as we dont fit all the criteria.Ahh, the unbridled pride, the conviction of empire. Do you work for USA imperialism Inc?
Leaving someone like Saddam in charge of a country is like leaving a man in a household where he beats his wife and children every night. And if we are ever attacked on our home soil by an acutal military force I have no doubt we will adopt a scorched earth policy. When we are attacked as a country we go mad and sometimes stay that way for a very long time.Maybe some of us believe that you shouldnt bother others unless they bother you. Unlike the majority of US gvts. But then dont get surprised if you wake up and find the US attakced by the rest of the world.
-
06-24-03, 10:41 PM #9I've heard this analogy before. I still think that knowing that he beats his family doesn't give you leave to storm his house with an assault rifle and handgrenades.Leaving someone like Saddam in charge of a country is like leaving a man in a household where he beats his wife and children every night.
-
06-24-03, 10:47 PM #10
If there is a standoff and he is thought to be a danger to either the family or any officers trying to arrest his a sniper would have no hesitation blowing his brains out. A swat team may also blow the door down and storm the place using teargass and live ammo.
-
06-24-03, 11:01 PM #11
Clockwood, you're abusing your own analogy. The US is not the world's police force, for several reasons, chief amongst them being the fact that police forces are sworn to uphold the law of the state - whereas the US is the worst abuser of international law over the past 50 years.
-
06-24-03, 11:14 PM #12
Yes we are the world's police force because nobody else will take the job. We may be a wild-west type sheriff but until someone better and with the will to use their power we are all you've got. You take the badge if you think you can handle it.
Half the world is just plane insane, Europe is a weak and phlegmatic jumble of minor powers. The UN is a beaurocratic mess incapable of real action who is composed partly of those they should be cracking down on. Who would you turn the keys over to?
-
06-24-03, 11:27 PM #13No, you are NOT the world's police force, that job is taken by more qualified people. You can recognise them from their blue berets. And the record of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan is showing how inadaquate the US is when it comes to the job of being the world's police force.Yes we are the world's police force because nobody else will take the job.
As it happens, Irish soldiers have an excellent record in peacekeeping with the UN.You take the badge if you think you can handle it.
That "weak and phlegmatic" jumble happens to have a stronger economy than the US, it gives out seven times more aid than the US, and there's a serious case for the sale of oil to switch to it's currency - at which point, the US economy would dive head-first into a freefall that would make '29 look like a boom.Half the world is just plane insane, Europe is a weak and phlegmatic jumble of minor powers.
The UN is not meant to be anything but an organisation composed of everyone - including those that it chooses to sanction. It is not a seperate body, it's a forum for it's members to negotiate solutions instead of the current US "Yee-Haw" foreign policy solutions. The UN has an incredibly good record for humanitarian actions and negotiated solutions.The UN is a beaurocratic mess incapable of real action who is composed partly of those they should be cracking down on.
Certainly not the nation with the worst record in the world for overthrowing democratic governments and engaging in wars over the last fifty years. (That's the US, by the way).Who would you turn the keys over to?
-
06-24-03, 11:56 PM #14
Oh, I really see Ireland or any european country taking on N. Korea. Howabout Iraq as it was? China?
France cant even handle an african country at the rear-end of the world.
-
06-25-03, 12:10 AM #15
Clockwood,
It'd be nice if you read what I posted once in a while. Ireland is not the UN. France is not the UN. Nor is any other individual country.
-
06-25-03, 03:00 AM #16paradox generator
- Posts
- 4,089
"Personally I have no problem with empires as long as the indiviual citizen is treated well and they dont just massacer whoever they invade. However, I wouldn't necessarily call us an empire as we dont fit all the criteria. "
I think theres a whole nuther thread there. Suffice to say, a few billions are likely to disagree with you, moreover, your comment is unamerican! hehehe.
"When we are attacked as a country we go mad and sometimes stay that way for a very long time."
Hhmm, you mean like the past 100 years or so?
"Oh, I really see Ireland or any european country taking on N. Korea. Howabout Iraq as it was? China? "
Why would we have to take it on? Dont you believe in isolationism?
-
06-25-03, 07:28 AM #17They don't invade countries... they are just peacekeepers there!Originally posted by Clockwood
France cant even handle an african country at the rear-end of the world.

Reply With Quote
Bookmarks