Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: funkedup on February 16, 2003, 05:12:11 AM
-
...that most Americans view them as just like the crazy arabs chanting "DETH TO AMREEKA!" and shooting their AK-47's into the air? We aren't real good at drawing subtle distinctions between the various anti-American groups. And we vote.
-
No, they dont realize it. Thats why they are all morons.
-
No, what they dont realize is that they are doing a Chamberlain. That's the most sad/tragic/amusing part of these protests.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
... We aren't real good at drawing subtle distinctions between the various anti-American groups. And we vote.
Is it really their fault that you're so dimwitted?
-
Do the pro-war factions realize that many germans compare the propaganda shows of Bush jr. with the Reichsparteitag-propaganda-shows of another stupid fanatic leader decades ago ?
-
"Do the pro-war factions realize that many germans compare the propaganda shows of Bush jr. with the Reichsparteitag-propaganda-shows of another stupid fanatic leader decades ago ?"
Do the clueless morons that somehow find a way to associate the Democratic society of the United States of America with the fascist government of WW2 era Germany realize what total idiots they look like?
Here's a minor clue. If the protesters tried 1/100 of what they do today in the U.S.A. in 1930s or 1940s Germany, they would be immortalized...by the Shoah foundation.
Learn the meaning of relevance...for your own good. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by babek-
Do the pro-war factions realize that many germans compare the propaganda shows of Bush jr. with the Reichsparteitag-propaganda-shows of another stupid fanatic leader decades ago ?
Yes, and we realize they are idiots.
-
Let’s see.
On one side we have people expressing their opposition to needless death and suffering.
On the other side we have the people who support this administration with its constant threats and bullying. It’s trashing of the environment, international treaties and the Constitution of the United States. People who hang drapes over the breasts of statues and put duct tape around their windows in response to the endless terror alerts.
Who are the morons now?
-
Originally posted by blur
Let’s see.
On one side we have people expressing their opposition to needless death and suffering.
Who are the morons now?
Hear Hear - Peace In Our Times!!!
-
Do the Anit-War Protestors Realize...
...that most Americans view them as just like the crazy arabs chanting "DETH TO AMREEKA!" and shooting their AK-47's into the air?
Americans aren't that stupid.
-
Next time, it might be Berlin, Brussels, Paris, or London:
(http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~amaslov/wtc/Img17-medium.jpg)
Have a nice day, appeasers......
Cabby
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Next time, it might be Berlin, Brussels, Paris, or London:
Have a nice day, appeasers......
Cabby
And of course invading Iraq will stop all those evil Saudi Arabian and Egyptian terrorists from crashing US commercial planes into US buildings.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
And of course invading Iraq will stop all those evil Saudi Arabian and Egyptian terrorists from crashing US commercial planes into US buildings.
Indirectly. It will ensure that no Iraq oil money goes to funding al qa'eda or other terror groups. But be patient! Rome wasn't built in a day.
-
You mean Saudi Arabia is next ? It was their money that paid for September 11 last i checked.
-
Actually, I think the theory is that it would make biological, chemical and radiological agents less likely to be used in a terrorist attack against the US.
Although there is that case of "Islamicists" training on a Boeing 707 parked in Salman Pak from about 1995 to as recently as September 2000. Corroborated by two Iraqi defectors, Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami and a former intelligence officer who defected in early 2001. Through a translator, Mr. Alami described, according to the Wall street Journal, a daily regimen of exercises on kidnapping, assassination, and -- using a Boeing 707 parked inside the complex -- how to hijack a plane or bus without weapons. He said that a separate group of non-Iraqis were being similarly trained by Saddam's intelligence service, the mukhabarat.
After September 11th, a private US satellite photo company, Space Imaging, went through its archives and found a photo that included a plane parked in the Salman Pak compound.
But I'm sure that's all bogus information and must be dismissed.
From your POV, of course.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
And the link between the Iraqi DEFECTORS and the Iraqi State would be ...?
once again he comes up with sig line material...amazing.
-
I thought I was on your ignore list? What happened?
-
Originally posted by -dead-
And of course invading Iraq will stop all those evil Saudi Arabian and Egyptian terrorists from crashing US commercial planes into US buildings.
Are do you think if we don't go into Iraq, it will stop.
Hell, this Terror has been going on since at least the mid 80s.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What the hell is a "Islamicists"?
And the link between the Iraqi DEFECTORS and the Iraqi State would be ...?
I believe, since the original article puts the word in quotes, that it is the term Mr. Alami used to describe those trained.
The link would be the same as the one between Victor Belenko and the Soviet Union, ie: an excellent intelligence source.
-
I don't see the logic in attacking Iraq.
1: Do they have WMD?...
Yes,and probably a nuke or two.
2:Can Allied forces destroy all WMD and missles before Saddam orders their use?...
No way.Remember Cuba when the USA was considering pre-emptive strikes on the visible missle sites?They woulda got 95% of them which would not have been enough.And little did USA know that Fidel had nukes locked and loaded for launch had the Americans provided air cover and attacked.
If Allies go into Iraq(with or without UN approval),Isreal will be raining SCUD's loaded with Anthrax,Mustard gas and whatever they can cram in.
It's called "Mutually Assured Destruction"(MAD) and has prevented nukes from being used since WW2...In fact,this is what most likely prevented the Allies from finishing off Saddam in Desert Storm.He had WMD back then and with his back against the wall,most certainly would have launched them on Isreal.
Same situation now...invade and the horrors of MAD will very possibly be seen for the first time.
Personally,I beleive it's a bluff by GWB.If he gets the whole world to believe he's going in(including the UN)..which he has...Then the Iraqi's in upper government might feel there is no choice but to get rid of Saddam themselves.
Now that Powell is beating the war drum,I am positive it is sabre rattling to produce change without invasion,destabilisation and massive loss of life....
-
Yup Sirloin...that's been my theory since the beginning of this party....what's interesting is we have seen a clear picture of who our allies really are.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Now that Powell is beating the war drum,I am positive it is sabre rattling to produce change without invasion,destabilisation and massive loss of life....
1. I hope you are 100% correct.
2. I hope it works.
3. I will probably pull a muscle trying not to bust a gut laughing and bite my tongue in two trying not to say "I told you so" to the "warmongers!" marching crowd if it does work out that way.
Yeah, Rude, that part of the exercise has been valuable as well.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
Do the clueless morons that somehow find a way to associate the Democratic society of the United States of America with the fascist government of WW2 era Germany realize what total idiots they look like?
Sry wulfie but u dont live in a democracy. U live in a plutocracy even though it might look like democracy.
So u have to discuss if plutocracy is a kind of fascism - i dont know how to answer this.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
If Allies go into Iraq(with or without UN approval),Isreal will be raining SCUD's loaded with Anthrax,Mustard gas and whatever they can cram in.
It's called "Mutually Assured Destruction"(MAD) and has prevented nukes from being used since WW2...In fact,this is what most likely prevented the Allies from finishing off Saddam in Desert Storm.He had WMD back then and with his back against the wall,most certainly would have launched them on Isreal.
1) No, there is no MAD situation here. Iraq lacks the ability to destroy the US.
2) I doubt Saddam will ever send any kind of wmd to Israel. The primary reason is because he would be killing as many arabs as he would jews. The secondary reason is because he knows the Israelis would retaliate with a nuke in Baghdad.
-
Too bad he can't bomb stockolm.
-
2) I doubt Saddam will ever send any kind of wmd to Israel. The primary reason is because he would be killing as many arabs as he would jews. The secondary reason is because he knows the Israelis would retaliate with a nuke in Baghdad.
1. Saddam has never worried about killing Arabs before. Saddam will kill anybody and everybody to aid his own survival.
2. An Israeli nuke on Baghdad would gain Sadam the support of the rest of the Arab states, cause huge protest in Western states, and might just save Saddam.
Don't forget his strategy in 1991 was to try to involve Israel, to rally the other Arab states to his side.
Saddam had WMD in 1991, and didn't use them because they would ensure his own death. He isn't likely to use them, or give them to terrorists, unless doing so increases his own chances of survival.
If the US and UK are prepared to stick around and rebuild Iraq, getting rid of Saddam is a good idea. If they aren't, and leave Iraq to the fundamentalists afterwards, it would be better to do nothing.
I am ambivalent about the war, because I don't have faith that the US and UK will put in the required effort (and take the required casualties) post-war.
-
I hope some countries secret service is quietly crossing out the pictures of known terrorists and rich supporters from their "big picture book of terrorists"
lazs
-
with 6 million peace protesters supporting saddam , he will never leave now, he thinks the whole world supports him and hates the USA oil mongers.
-
with 6 million peace protesters supporting saddam , he will never leave now, he thinks the whole world supports him and hates the USA oil mongers.
...and thus the inevitability of war..sad
-
with us or with the terrorist.....
Rude and Toad, yeah it was nice of the weasels to show us who they are. One can only hope our government will take the propper action. I see no reason why any german or frech products should be allowed in our country period. Sorry Rip no spare parts for you, though I'm sure somebody here could machine them. Hell I'd be for freezing all thier assests and using them to pay off some bills. And I see no reason why the UN should be in NYC, I think Paris is a much more fitting place for that debating society.
-
Quote:
"with 6 million peace protesters supporting saddam , he will never leave now, he thinks the whole world supports him and hates the USA oil mongers."
Why do you think if someone is protesting against this war is automaticaly an allied or friend of Saddam?
The world is not black&white only.
sailor
-
So how do we remove Saddam Hussein from power without al least a credible and visible threat of force. Since these degenerates rule out force they do in effect supportb the hussein government.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So how do we remove Saddam Hussein from power without al least a credible and visible threat of force. Since these degenerates rule out force they do in effect supportb the hussein government.
Your reasoning is risible.
The 'if you're not with us you are against us' false dichotomy is old hat, you need a new slogan.
-
Do the pro-war factions realize that many germans compare the propaganda shows of Bush jr. with the Reichsparteitag-propaganda-shows of another stupid fanatic leader decades ago ?
If thats the case I'm very interested to know what those same 'many Germans' compare saddum to?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Actually, I think the theory is that it would make biological, chemical and radiological agents less likely to be used in a terrorist attack against the US.
But the chances of avoiding another 9-11 by invading Iraq are still, realistically speaking, zero. Which runs counter to what Cabby seemed to imply. Indeed I would posit that it rather accelerates the chances of a 9-11 type incident. One of the many reasons I am against the invasion & regime change option as a method of disarming Iraq.
Although there is that case of "Islamicists" training on a Boeing 707 parked in Salman Pak from about 1995 to as recently as September 2000. Corroborated by two Iraqi defectors, Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami and a former intelligence officer who defected in early 2001. Through a translator, Mr. Alami described, according to the Wall street Journal, a daily regimen of exercises on kidnapping, assassination, and -- using a Boeing 707 parked inside the complex -- how to hijack a plane or bus without weapons. He said that a separate group of non-Iraqis were being similarly trained by Saddam's intelligence service, the mukhabarat.
After September 11th, a private US satellite photo company, Space Imaging, went through its archives and found a photo that included a plane parked in the Salman Pak compound.
But I'm sure that's all bogus information and must be dismissed.
From your POV, of course.
I'm afraid so - I'm treating this whole affair like any messy squabble - neither the US nor the Iraqi governments can be trusted any futher than they can be spat.
How fortuitous that Space Imaging found that picture in their archive. That would be the same Space Imaging that sold all the exclusive rights to their stock of images of Afghan bomb damage to the pentagon, and the same company that just got a $120 million government mapping contract (with a five-year ceiling of $500 million) shortly after finding the archived picture, and no doubt in a squeaky clean vision of the US government, these incidents are all unrelated.
"It definitely is the largest contract we've received to date," said Gary Napier, of Space Imaging. "And that satellite imagery would be used for mapping any part of the world for the Dept. of Defense." Source (http://ia.thedenverchannel.com/iraq/1920594/detail.html)
Nothing eldritch about that, I'm sure. OK, so the US Department of Defence has its own imaging satellites, but I'm sure they're all way too busy doing super crack elite secret stuff. And of course defectors wouldn't ever make up exciting stories just to get green cards and government allowances. (Or if you like your stories a bit more paranoid - CIA guy: "Go on TV and say this and we'll let you stay." Iraqi defector: "Sure. And the subscription to Penthouse?" CIA guy: "Lifetime guaranteed." Iraqi defector: "Where do I sign? I am ready for my close up now!") Hark at my cynicism, next I'll be be portraying these Iraqi defectors as turncoats or something! ;)
Sorry, but it sounds suspiciously like propaganda to me: so I'll take it with a large pinch of salt, same as the Iraqi position of "we ain't got nothing to hide".
I may be being overly cynical, but I have seen enough fights to not take either side's accusations of the other's evilness whilst maintaining their own "butter wouldn't melt" position at face value. Watch an episode of "People's Court" before you read or watch another thing about Iraq. It's nasty medicine, but it beefs the cynicism gland right up. ;)
I personally hope that the US & France are involved in a kind of good cop, bad cop routine on Iraq to get them to comply. I hope it works too. I hope it forces a few more countries to refrain from the proliferation of WMD, especially biological weapons (nudge, nudge). But I'm not sure how much of that nice fantasy scenario I believe. However: The invasion replacement plan is a dreadful political minefield, and the sort of thing that has lead to some of the worst sociopathic regimes of the last 50 years, a club in which Saddam could probably be included. And any government installed in Iraq would be instantly labelled a US puppet by the rest of the Arab world, and probably rightly so, which may lead to much worse trouble a decade on.
-
BTW funked - Anit-War Protestor?!? Shome mishtake shurely?
-
Originally posted by Udie
with us or with the terrorist.....
Rude and Toad, yeah it was nice of the weasels to show us who they are. One can only hope our government will take the propper action. I see no reason why any german or frech products should be allowed in our country period. Sorry Rip no spare parts for you, though I'm sure somebody here could machine them. Hell I'd be for freezing all thier assests and using them to pay off some bills. And I see no reason why the UN should be in NYC, I think Paris is a much more fitting place for that debating society.
That's the problem in the relationship between America and ya european friends.
Europeans have the feeling that America is all to arrogant with us.
Are we partners or just mercenaries.
German special forces helped ya in afganisthan, don't they? And we helpin still there, our warships crussin next to Africa huntin terrorists, makin us a target to islam fanatics too and we like to do that but we can't always follow your ideas.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
But the chances of avoiding another 9-11 by invading Iraq are still, realistically speaking, zero.
I think more "9/11's" are on the way whether we invade Iraq or not.
However, I DO believe that removing Saddam from power would be a benefit with respect to lessening the chances of anti-US terrorists getting some really effective chem or bio agents.
NSA has sat photos of the plane from US recon devices as well.
There's also a report that Charles Duelfer, the former vice chairman of Unscom, the U.N. weapons inspection team, who actually visited the Salman Pak camp several times saw the fuselage as well.
You can blow off the defectors if you like too. That's the easy way out for your side of the argument.
And any government installed in Iraq would be instantly labelled a US puppet by the rest of the Arab world, and probably rightly so, which may lead to much worse trouble a decade on.
It's always hard to get a new government installed, operational and having the confidence of the people it serves. No one said it would be easy. But is leaving Saddam in charge better?
It's been done before and quite successfully. By the US. Right after WW2.
We can all sit around and say "too hard"....... or we can give it our best shot.
All that said, I am still at the present time against invading Iraq. However, I do view it as ever more inevitable.
-
Originally posted by blitz
That's the problem in the relationship between America and ya european friends.
Europeans have the feeling that America is all to arrogant with us.
Are we partners or just mercenaries.
German special forces helped ya in afganisthan, don't they? And we helpin still there, our warships crussin next to Africa huntin terrorists, makin us a target to islam fanatics too and we like to do that but we can't always follow your ideas.
Regards Blitz
No, it's the way Adolf Schröder went about it, he could care less about the Iraqi people. he used it as a election issue, instead of the Germany economy.
Of course the friends he made in Congress isn't going to help his economy much.
Sorry, he is not much of a Diplomat, witch is why the German coalition is starting to split now.
-
"Iraq today greeted the global outpouring of opposition to a possible U.S.-led war, saying the rallies by millions of people signal an Iraqi victory and "the defeat and isolation of America."
Do the Anti-War protestors realize they are in fact encouraging war?
France and Germany stand strong against Bush, but why didn't they have the same courage to stand strong against Saddam?
History is amazing in hindsight, one mans war-protestors can be another mans path to war. It will be interesting to see what hindsight shows us.
-
Originally posted by blitz
That's the problem in the relationship between America and ya european friends.
Europeans have the feeling that America is all to arrogant with us.
Are we partners or just mercenaries.
German special forces helped ya in afganisthan, don't they? And we helpin still there, our warships crussin next to Africa huntin terrorists, makin us a target to islam fanatics too and we like to do that but we can't always follow your ideas.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
We don't want you to be mercenaries if that's what you would think you would be. I can totaly see where German people would not want to go to any war, given your history. France on the other hand are being total hypocrites. They are Iraq's biggest business partner and THAT'S why they don't want him gone they stand to lose too much money, that to me is dispicable. We just want you to get the diddly out of the way so that we can get this over with, with minimal loss of life. The more you guys block this the more people die under his regiem.
This whole thing isn't something new. Part of Bush's campain was that he would deal with Iraq. That's a need that's been there for 12 long years. Our last president didn't do toejam but lob some missles over there for 8 years. This should have been done in 98 when saddam kicked the inspectors out. If we were doing this for diddlying oil it would have been done already. The irony of the whole stupid oil argument is that by blocking this you guys are making TONS of money for oil companies. Oil prices will keep getting higher until this thing is over. Another stupid argument is that this is "Bush's war" That's utter roadkill. There is a large chunck of the American people that get off on freeing countries from evil dictators it's kinda what we do. That right there is the ONLY reason I support this and why I get so pissed at you damn saddam supporters, and that's exactly what you do by blocking this. You help support his sorry bellybutton staying in power, period. I don't expect that you will even acknowledge that fact but it's true non the less.
And yeah we're seeing who our friends are and hopefully there will be reprocusions on your end of it. Why the diddly should we support your worthless nation anymore?
-
Originally posted by Monk
No, it's the way Adolf Schröder went about it, he could care less about the Iraqi people. he used it as a election issue, instead of the Germany economy.
Of course the friends he made in Congress isn't going to help his economy much.
Sorry, he is not much of a Diplomat, witch is why the German coalition is starting to split now.
This thing went crazy when bush administration announced that they will go to war with Iraq with UN or without UN a year ago.
No doubt Gerhard Schroeder used it as election issue, don't liked that either. No idea why he didn't switched back on bush-fire course.
Normally we love to run behind our American friends like a hound.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
I am positive it is sabre rattling to produce change without invasion,destabilisation and massive loss of life....
That may be, but the events of this weekend put him in a very tricky situation.
Like to be a bug on the wall right about now.
-
Originally posted by Udie
We don't want you to be mercenaries if that's what you would think you would be. I can totaly see where German people would not want to go to any war, given your history. France on the other hand are being total hypocrites. They are Iraq's biggest business partner and THAT'S why they don't want him gone they stand to lose too much money, that to me is dispicable. We just want you to get the diddly out of the way so that we can get this over with, with minimal loss of life. The more you guys block this the more people die under his regiem.
This whole thing isn't something new. Part of Bush's campain was that he would deal with Iraq. That's a need that's been there for 12 long years. Our last president didn't do toejam but lob some missles over there for 8 years. This should have been done in 98 when saddam kicked the inspectors out. If we were doing this for diddlying oil it would have been done already. The irony of the whole stupid oil argument is that by blocking this you guys are making TONS of money for oil companies. Oil prices will keep getting higher until this thing is over. Another stupid argument is that this is "Bush's war" That's utter roadkill. There is a large chunck of the American people that get off on freeing countries from evil dictators it's kinda what we do. That right there is the ONLY reason I support this and why I get so pissed at you damn saddam supporters, and that's exactly what you do by blocking this. You help support his sorry bellybutton staying in power, period. I don't expect that you will even acknowledge that fact but it's true non the less.
And yeah we're seeing who our friends are and hopefully there will be reprocusions on your end of it. Why the diddly should we support your worthless nation anymore?
This stupid bush thing: "You're with us or against us" just don't work. punt.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
Originally posted by blitz
This stupid bush thing: "You're with us or against us" just don't work. punt.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
Fine line up against us, if you're that stupid.
-
Yeah baby, might makes right.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Yeah baby, might makes right.
when it comes right down to it, when hasn't it?
-
"Iraq today greeted the global outpouring of opposition to a possible U.S.-led war, saying the rallies by millions of people signal an Iraqi victory and "the defeat and isolation of America."
Collateral damage, we tried to minimize it but some smart bombs lost laser track.
[ Do the Anti-War protestors realize they are in fact encouraging war?
It was decided a year ago in pentagon so how can we have encouraged it?
[ France and Germany stand strong against Bush, but why didn't they have the same courage to stand strong against Saddam?
We are strong against that peep saddam.
[ History is amazing in hindsight, one mans war-protestors can be another mans path to war. It will be interesting to see what hindsight shows us.
It's all bushs decision as it was from the beginning.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by Toad
I think more "9/11's" are on the way whether we invade Iraq or not.
My original point exactly.
However, I DO believe that removing Saddam from power would be a benefit with respect to lessening the chances of anti-US terrorists getting some really effective chem or bio agents.
I would love to believe it were that easy, but I just can't. I reckon the terrorists can get hold of either from many sources, so I don't see it as much of a benefit really. Getting rid of Iraq's bio/chem weapons will IMO realistically only lessen the chances of Hussein himself using them. The catch 22 is that invading Iraq will most probably lead to Hussein using bio/chem weapons.
NSA has sat photos of the plane from US recon devices as well.
There's also a report that Charles Duelfer, the former vice chairman of Unscom, the U.N. weapons inspection team, who actually visited the Salman Pak camp several times saw the fuselage as well.
You can blow off the defectors if you like too. That's the easy way out for your side of the argument.
Save your fingers from RSI, my amphibian friend - I remain unswayed by more US government testimony. It goes without saying that the NSA would never lie to serve the US government's interests, of course. And the vice chairman of UNSCOM (the weapons inspection team which IIRC was compromised by CIA espionage) is obviously above board and without any hidden agenda - just look at his resume:
Before joining the commission, he was deputy assistant secretary of state for arms control and multilateral defense matters. From 1990 to 1992, Mr. Duelfer was in charge of defense trade matters as the director of the Center for Defense Trade and deputy to the assistant secretary of state for politico-military affairs. In this capacity he had responsibility for arms transfers, munitions licensing, and conventional arms control. From January to March 1991 he was tasked with directing the State Department's Task Force in support of Desert Storm. Mr. Duelfer first joined the Politico-Military Bureau of the State Department in 1983 and was responsible for special regional activities (conflicts in Chad, Libya, and Grenada), as well as ongoing strategic verification, space and strategic defense issues. In 1984, he became deputy director of the Office of International Security Policy and was responsible for European, African, and Latin American regions. He became director, with responsibility for regional security issues worldwide, in 1985. During this period, Mr. Duelfer also worked with the special coordinator for counterterrorism to develop, implement, and exercise the State Department's terrorism response system. Before joining the Department of State, Mr. Duelfer worked at the White House Office of Management and Budget (1977-1983), where he was responsible for Department of Defense strategic nuclear forces and space programs.
Nevertheless, I still maintain that it smacks of US government propaganda. Pass the salt over here, please.
It's always hard to get a new government installed, operational and having the confidence of the people it serves. No one said it would be easy. But is leaving Saddam in charge better?
It's been done before and quite successfully. By the US. Right after WW2.
We can all sit around and say "too hard"....... or we can give it our best shot.
Well I'll believe it when I see it - the US track record in the region frankly sucks: Ba'ath Party in Iraq, Shah in Iran, and it could be argued to some degree the Taliban in Afghanistan. And as to rolling out Germany & Japan as examples - sorry, but there's been a few since '45 - and the US has placed/propped up some really nasty pieces of work in the last 50 years as well: Suharto, Pinochet, Noriega... etc etc. You're only as good as your last military coup: The proof of the latest pudding in Afghanistan sadly remains to be seen, but things may not be running entirely smoothly there according to some reports. Perhaps this is a vindication of the Discordian Law of Eristic Escalation: "Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos", or perhaps it will all come up roses in the end. We don't know yet.
Is leaving Hussein in charge better? Well in my opinion, no, but as I am not the majority of Iraqis, it's really not for me to say. And until someone can work out a way of asking all the Iraqis whether they want rid of Hussein or not (fairly & without fear of threats/coercion) it's really not for anyone outside of Iraq to say. This fair referendum obviously won't happen, but does highlight the fact that we are all just guessing about what the people of Iraq really think. Common sense tells me they would mostly be glad to see him gone, but common sense also tells me the Earth is flat and the sun goes round it, so is common sense an infallible or even reliable guide?
-
Originally posted by Udie
I see no reason why any german or frech products should be allowed in our country period. (...) Hell I'd be for freezing all thier assests and using them to pay off some bills.
Interesting - We had the same stupidy here some decades ago.
Instead "Americans - defend yourself - dont buy german or french products" they painted "Deutsche - Wehrt euch ! Kauft nicht beim Juden !" on the jewish shops...
Disturbing to see that intolerance and fascism is not a german monopoly...
-
Originally posted by blitz
It was decided a year ago in pentagon so how can we have encouraged it?
We are strong against that peep saddam.
It's all bushs decision as it was from the beginning.
Blitz, what was 'decided' a year ago was that Iraq has to meet its obligations that it agreed to, and that it must be prevented from owning WoMD.
Are France and Germany strong against that 'peep'? Why did the weapons inspectors get let back in? Was it because France and Germany stood strong and bullied Saddam into letting the inspectors in? Iraq only respond to force. No force, no inspectors.
Its like two parents arguing over how to punish a naughty child. The child soon learns that the rift between the parents means he can get away with anything.
On one hand, we have the US, who has demanded the full punishment. The US who has yelled down the Iraqi's, who was forced them into allowing those weapon inspectors back into Iraq. This is the parent thats prepared to smack the child.
Then on the other hand we have the French/Germans. They're the ones who want to 'talk' to the child. Taking the soft approach. Well guess what, talking didn't get the weapons inspectors in there.
If the French and Germans don't want war thats fine. But, they should take a neutral stance, not an aggressive anti-US stance. They are only giving Saddam hope and time to get off the hook.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Blitz, what was 'decided' a year ago was that Iraq has to meet its obligations that it agreed to, and that it must be prevented from owning WoMD.
What was said was: ' We goin with or without UN and friends'
Quote: Are France and Germany strong against that 'peep'? Why did the weapons inspectors get let back in? Was it because France and Germany stood strong and bullied Saddam into letting the inspectors in? Iraq only respond to force. No force, no inspectors.
Agree on that.
Quote: Its like two parents arguing over how to punish a naughty child. The child soon learns that the rift between the parents means he can get away with anything.
Quote: On one hand, we have the US, who has demanded the full punishment. The US who has yelled down the Iraqi's, who was forced them into allowing those weapon inspectors back into Iraq. This is the parent thats prepared to smack the child.
Quote: Then on the other hand we have the French/Germans. They're the ones who want to 'talk' to the child. Taking the soft approach. Well guess what, talking didn't get the weapons inspectors in there.
I understand ya point but the way that was sold by bush and his friends sounded all to well like : "Listen up nations of the world, we are the last Superpower. We do what we want, whether ya like or not, better be with us"
Quote: If the French and Germans don't want war thats fine. But, they should take a neutral stance, not an aggressive anti-US stance. They are only giving Saddam hope and time to get off the hook. [/B][/QUOTE]
We never really had the chance bein neutral. 'Be with us or against us' and on the other hand i don't believe we are.
We hate Saddam but the propaganda war of bush administration together with foolish handling by german government ruined it all.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
-
Originally posted by Toad
1. I hope you are 100% correct.
2. I hope it works.
3. I will probably pull a muscle trying not to bust a gut laughing and bite my tongue in two trying not to say "I told you so" to the "warmongers!" marching crowd if it does work out that way.
Yeah, Rude, that part of the exercise has been valuable as well.
Well, if there is no war, then the 'stop the war' campaign is what?
unsuccessful?
or
successful?
remember, this is a false dichotomy - there is no middle ground. You are either warmongering butcher or potsmoking hippie peacenik.
-
the people of iraq must want saddam to stay in power , 95% of them voted for saddam last election.
-
I can't help but thinking that if these protestors were say Iraqi citizens, and they happened to be protesting oh lets say Saddams war with Iran, or they protested Saddams invasion of Kuwait. You think any one of them would be alive today? I don't and thats why I think this nut needs to get shut down.
-
Originally posted by blitz
We never really had the chance bein neutral. 'Be with us or against us' and on the other hand i don't believe we are.
We hate Saddam but the propaganda war of bush administration together with foolish handling by german government ruined it all.
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.
I disagree Blitz. NZ has taken a 'neutral' stance. We have said we will not participate in any military action against Iraq unless it is sanctioned by the UN. We have also stated we would be prepared to help with humanitarian needs.
The French and Germans could quite have easily said the same. Its all in the way you word it. The US will not back down now. And unfortunately, this split in the UN and NATO gives Saddam a glimmer of hope.
This week we've had 10 warheads filled with mustard gas destroyed by the inspectors. 10 illegal warheads not declared by Iraq. We've had a missile developed by Iraq declared illegal, and the Iraqi's tell the UN to get stuffed over it.
-
Do the Pro war americans realize they look like brainwashed idiots?
Do they realize that in any parallel between the munich crisis and today Sadam will play the part of the Czech President and Bush will play the part of Hitler. So Sadam is appeasing aggression by trying to meet the US demands and not the other way arround?
-
i think i see your point.. saddam is not the threat.
bomb paris.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
I reckon the terrorists can get hold of either from many sources, so I don't see it as much of a benefit really.
One less source is one less source. The rest will have to wait their turn.
I will save my fingers. There is no proof that you will accept that would necessitate changing your mind. No security service from any country is going to expose all their sources and information down to the last detail in order to convince people that cannot be convinced. You, by admission, are one of those.
Everyone is lying everywhere and all the time...... except of course the sources YOU choose to believe.
You remind me of Boroda and the Katyn Forest culpability issue. :)
I'm sure it will be difficult without the input of France and Germany but I believe it will be the UN that plays the largest role in determining the nature of any "future" Iraq. That sainted UN the world so reveres.
If not, well you can rely on your belief that the US always has evil ulterior motives to harm the innocent. One of those would have to be to destablize the Gulf Arab dictatorships/monarchies by planting a successful democracy in their midst.
:D
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Sry wulfie but u dont live in a democracy. U live in a plutocracy even though it might look like democracy.
So u have to discuss if plutocracy is a kind of fascism - i dont know how to answer this.
Plutocracy: (1) government by the wealthy, (2) a controlling class of the wealthy. From the Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos, wealth, and kratia, advocate of a form of government.
Thats why I find it so hard to argue that the US isn't faciest... if you don't see it I pity you ... hello thats why they want Iraq, OIL
also Italy in/before WWII would be a better comparison for the USA now than Germany.
and if you thought the Patriot Act was good don't worry they have a sequal .. Patriot 2... starring: the constitution being burned!
-
"If not, well you can rely on your belief that the US always has evil ulterior motives to harm the innocent. One of those would have to be to destablize the Gulf Arab dictatorships/monarchies by planting a successful democracy in their midst. "
?
I think the last two democrosies planted by the US were in Japan and Germany. The US really finds democrocies inconvientent in the coutries it uses for resource supply.
It is right now working to tear down the democracy in guatimala.
-
Yes, you mentioned South America before.
I didn't see your reply to my questions about that.
I ask them again.
-
Originally posted by blur
Let’s see.
On one side we have people expressing their opposition to needless death and suffering.
Yeah, and on the other side you have all the pro Saddam protetesters .
-
Originally posted by Toad
One less source is one less source. The rest will have to wait their turn.
Hmm... let's assume for a moment that Hussein is a source: where does it end? Will the US military eventually invade hardware stores and pharmacies? Ban X-rays, hospitals and medical research? The potential sources are really too numerous, and 9-11 shows the terrorists really don't need that much in the way of what we consider weapons to do the job. But back to the source assumption - is he really? I personally don't know, and I can't off hand recall any evidence that he is. And Hussein is certainly aware that if you give biological and chemical weapons to others they may be used against you later. After all, he himself has done exactly that to the West. Although that said, I'd be up for erring on the side of caution and assuming he is. I will save my fingers. There is no proof that you will accept that would necessitate changing your mind. No security service from any country is going to expose all their sources and information down to the last detail in order to convince people that cannot be convinced. You, by admission, are one of those.
Everyone is lying everywhere and all the time...... except of course the sources YOU choose to believe.
You remind me of Boroda and the Katyn Forest culpability issue. :)
Oh no I could be convinced, if there is solid evidence from third party or disinterested people. Find me a quote from someone in UNSCOM who has not worked for an espionage agency and has not spent most of his working life in the US State Department and I would be much more receptive. But anything coming from US government agencies or employees that backs up that government's statements has to be treated as being suspicious. I am, however, an equal opportunities paranoid - I believe anything coming from Iraqi government agencies or employees that backs up that government's statements has to be treated as being suspicious as well. I rather hoped you might avoid any risk of RSI typing out more evidence from US government sources, or sources that have just received fat US government contracts after helping out the pentagon. Perhaps your difficulty in comprehension of this concept stems from the old adage that it's always much easier to see the other side's propaganda. Certainly something that has been reinforced by many arguments involving Boroda I have seen. I remain eminently convincible and entirely unconvinced. As to your wonderful truism that I only believe sources that I choose to believe - welcome to reality - I think you'll find everyone does that, you included. I'm sure it will be difficult without the input of France and Germany but I believe it will be the UN that plays the largest role in determining the nature of any "future" Iraq. That sainted UN the world so reveres.
Sorry I don't understand this bit - what will be difficult without the input of France and Germany? Why won't France and Germany be making inputs if it's to do with the UN? Hehe, I do believe the very mention of the dreadful UN makes you lose your train of thought. ;) If not, well you can rely on your belief that the US always has evil ulterior motives to harm the innocent. One of those would have to be to destablize the Gulf Arab dictatorships/monarchies by planting a successful democracy in their midst. :D
Well as I said last post - I'll believe it when I see it, but the US track record since Germany and Japan has been pretty much all downhill from those two. Whether this is an insidious plot or not I don't know. Perhaps your view of the US as an altruistic state, a political fairy godmother if you will (waving it's magic military might and saying "you shall be a democracy") is correct. If so, however, the case histories seem to bear out the old phrase: "the path to hell is paved with good intentions." And by extension the US foreign policy of altruism since 45 has been so incompetently run that US foreign experts should probably not even be allowed to play with plastic scissors.
I personally think that US foreign policy is cobbled together ad hoc, by professional bureaucrats informed by information of varying reliability who are lead by well-meaning total amateurs who really aren't sure what they're doing. All these people are trying to protect US self-interest in the short term (4-8 years). Much the same as any other country. Of course the US has the extra complication of having a military that's larger than the next 6 militaries put together. The heads of the military realize that the military has to be used fairly often to justify the enormous expenditure that it incurs, and no doubt advise the government accordingly, as indeed they themselves are advised, because nobody likes to lose their toys or their jobs. Mix these elements plus US culture & business together and you come up with US foreign policy - no insidious plot, and no political fairy godmother either. And definitely open to all the usual human fallibilities and foibles.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the people of iraq must want saddam to stay in power , 95% of them voted for saddam last election.
My god !!!
you trust this kind of election ????
-
Man you Conservatives are simple minded fools.
I really, really, really wish the world worked the way you think it does, but unfortunately actions have reactions and reactions and reactions, ect, ect, ect. Removing Saddam is not some surgical operation that ends then and there and we can move on to other things. There is going to be a huge ripple effect, only a little of which can the CIA / Mossad or MI6 predict, much less a bunch of Conservative or Liberal whacks sitting in God knows where with no connection to any of this at all.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
How fortuitous that Space Imaging found that picture in their archive. That would be the same Space Imaging that sold all the exclusive rights to their stock of images of Afghan bomb damage to the pentagon, and the same company that just got a $120 million government mapping contract (with a five-year ceiling of $500 million) shortly after finding the archived picture, and no doubt in a squeaky clean vision of the US government, these incidents are all unrelated.
Recently reported:
Southeast of Baghdad, Marines seized one of Saddam's palaces, poked through remnants of a Republican Guard headquarters and searched a suspected terrorist training camp, finding the shell of a passenger jet believed to be used for hijacking practice.
:p
-
There's a point you came dangerously close to getting. You better watch that. :D
Originally posted by straffo
My god !!!
you trust this kind of election ????
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Do the Pro war americans realize they look like brainwashed idiots?
Do they realize that in any parallel between the munich crisis and today Sadam will play the part of the Czech President and Bush will play the part of Hitler. So Sadam is appeasing aggression by trying to meet the US demands and not the other way arround?
Its a Foxnews type of thing...keep it simple for the simpleton.
Everything has to be put in the Chamberlain, Munich , Auschwitz comparisons.
Thats how you can have the...be like the appeasers who let hitler start WW2, and who let Auchwitz happen arguments.
Tronsky