Sadam Hussain

[mac15]

well with all this business with him latelty, I was just wondering do you think he will lead an attack on America, and do you think he actually has nucular weapons, and chemical weapons

me personally, I think he has, but he won't attack America

[alex_ant]

Yes! An Iraqi military attack utilizing chemicalbiologicalnuclear weapons is imminent! We must invade Iraq and oust the evil dictator Saddam, for the good of democracy and God-fearing Christians everywhere... oh, and for the childern.

[mac15]

oh won't somebody please think of the childern :D

[rainman::|:|]

This is why the son of a president should not be president. He has an agenda. I don't give a rats ass if Sadam is massing chemical or nuclear weaponry, there's absolutely no reason to make war on him. Sure he went against a '91 pledge to allow UN inspectors, but come on, how much legal weight does a "pledge" have. He has not waged any attack on us, nor has a link been proven between him and terrorism. I hope to God bush sees reason before we stick our nose yet *another* place it doesnt belong.

:)
pnw

[MacMaster]

chemicalbiologicalnuclear
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: ;)

[Ensign Paris]

I personally think the US with the UK as a ful partner should a) invade or b) attack Iraq to kill or remove Saddam. Then they should work with the iRaq people to make the country work :)

Ensign

[3rdpath]

saddam is a minor threat but waging a war...c'mon. daddy bush left him there for a reason...if the economy is bad-gotta have someone to start a war with. it works every time( for both parties...)

and just wait, soon osama's gonna be rumoured to be in iraq...ahhh, the "evidence" just waiting to be found....given the time and media spin, we can justify anything.

btw, how did osama and saddam( and iran for that matter) get their weapons? from the good ol USA. the US is the largest dealer of arms to the third world countries. funny how we condemn Russia for selling weapons but when we do it --it's ok. our weapons make peace but everyone else's make war.

magical, isn't it?

and why, when so many of the 9/11 terrorists were saudi's( and financed by saudi's) don't we wage war with them? hmmmm, oil maybe?

how come there aren't any TV ads that say" if you drive a fat-butted SUV, you're financing terrorists" instead of lamely trying to tie it into the "war" on drugs...

:rolleyes:

[MacMaster]

Originally posted by Ensign Paris
Then they should work with the iRaq people to make the country work :)

Ensign
Didn't we already try that with Afganistan? And then they thought that we were EVIL! Will it work for iraq?

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by MacMaster

Didn't we already try that with Afganistan? And then they thought that we were EVIL! Will it work for iraq?

and iraq...and iran....and somalia...and vietnam...

who are we really trying to help? what are we really trying to protect? and why do the civilians in these countries suffer 100% of the time?

[Nick Hammer]

Oh, common now. Do you all actually believe what you are saying? He has done nothing wrong? He gassed the kurds in the early 90's. He launched scud missiles at Israeli civilians. He HAD a chemical/nuclear program going on before Desert Storm and do you actually think he has stopped that? He oppresses his own people and brutally rules that country. And as recent as last year there is that rumor going around saying that a Iraqi official met with one of the 911 high jackers. He has been on record saying that suicide bombers were good and is even paying each of their families a lot of money. This guy is a menace to the world and needs to be taken out.

[ShaolinMiddleFinger]

I say we should go steal their oil and let them burn!:D ;) :D ;) :D :) :D :D

[Jays]

Originally posted by Nick Hammer
This guy is a menace to the world and needs to be taken out.

I agree totally, haven't we learned from history that dangerous dictators, like Hitler for one, could have been stopped before disaster strikes!

Sadam has openly (in Arabic) stated exactly what his goal is: the distraction of U.S.A and Israel. He is the biggest fret right now even more than Osama.

Or we hit him first or he gets us all!

btw has anyone els noticed on the video's shown recently by CNN Al Qaida using Mac's. They at least have one thing right.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Nick Hammer
Oh, common now. Do you all actually believe what you are saying? He has done nothing wrong? He gassed the kurds in the early 90's.
Two words: Tuskeegee Experiment
He launched scud missiles at Israeli civilians.
The US has launched missiles at various civilians (many more than Iraq has) as well.
He HAD a chemical/nuclear program going on before Desert Storm and do you actually think he has stopped that?
The US has something just as bad going on: a mature and sophisticated nuclear weapons program. And it continues to this day.
He oppresses his own people and brutally rules that country.
The US Government oppresses many of its people and I'm sure many would call its rule brutal. So by your same criteria, we should bomb ourselves as well.
And as recent as last year there is that rumor going around saying that a Iraqi official met with one of the 911 high jackers.
Great, let's bomb the crap out of them because of a rumor that they were consorting with TERRORISTS. (Read: People the US doesn't like)
He has been on record saying that suicide bombers were good and is even paying each of their families a lot of money. This guy is a menace to the world and needs to be taken out.
I hope my post goes a small way towards providing you with an alternate viewpoint. This is not "good vs. evil." Saddam Hussein thinks HE and his people are "good," and WE are "evil." Who is right? Could it be that neither are right, and reality is much more complicated?

[Durandal7]

Saddam Hussein, more like Sodamn Insane. What a rush :D

Just figured I'd lighten the mood a bit before this becomes an all out flame war.

[Wes]

Spymac reports apple will soon be developing iRaq, personal owned biological weapons. Idea: Esign Paris

Seriously, I think that Sadam should be assasinated and then the people should set up their own government.

[Choppaface]

i don't think the question is whether we should or not, it's how well the public would support it if we did

[Nick Hammer]

The US has launched missiles at various civilians (many more than Iraq has) as well.

Um...The US does not intentionally target civilians. Civilians have been killed before by us but that is war. Innocent people always die in wars. And that is where we are different. The US goes out of its way to not let civilians die. Saddam intentionally targeted them.

The US has something just as bad going on: a mature and sophisticated nuclear weapons program. And it continues to this day.

Um, yea. And that is what keeps America alive. See, we use our weapons as a deterrence. Not a offensive weapon. Common, how many countries in this world would push us around and maybe try to attack us if there was not threat of a nuclear reprisal. We don't gas our own people. Once again, we go out of our way to make sure our weapons are safe on not used to harm our own civilians.

The US Government oppresses many of its people and I'm sure many would call its rule brutal. So by your same criteria, we should bomb ourselves as well.

Um...please show me where we are oppressed? Where are we being brutalized? We are allowed to vote for who we want to lead our country. We have more freedoms then any other country in the world. Iraqi's have none of this. Let's try to have a election over there and see what happens.

Great, let's bomb the crap out of them because of a rumor that they were consorting with TERRORISTS. (Read: People the US doesn't like)

I didn't say that. I brought up that point to show that there was even more of a reason to LOOK into going after Saddam. He might have had a part is September 11th. Therefore, we should look into this and see what truth comes out if it.

[krossfyter]

alex ant the united states does not intentionally attack civilians....why must people continue to use the "well america kills civilians too" argument?? i dont understand.

once again the difference...

america: does not intentionally kill civilians
sadam: does intentionally kill civilians

[Ifeelbloated]

There seems to be a neverending problem with the whole middle eastern region. It's a political tar-baby. We as Americans have thought it was just THEIR problem way over THERE. I guess it was just a matter of time until it happened. We never could have imagined it on such a spectacular scale though. If we take out Saddam there will just be more like him ready to step forward and take his place.
We're in a catch-22. If we don't do something we'll definitely have to wrestle with a bigger beast down the road. If we do invade Iraq, we'll most likely be seen as the bellicose imperial zionists as the extreme fundamentalists make us out to be. We can't win either way. Damn, it makes me sad to think it but I think we're headed for another world war.
Until there is a Palestinian state, there will never ever be peace in the middle east. I don't see the Israelis or the Palestinians backing down either. I've heard time and time again about what do people on the street in the middle east think about America? They say they like the American people but they hate our government and it's foreign policies.
I think we as Americans are letting our ignorance and apathy about the whole region burn us in the long run. I don't want to get into our dependance on foreign oil, even though that's the base issue.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by Ifeelbloated
If we do invade Iraq, we'll most likely be seen as the bellicose imperial zionists as the extreme fundamentalists make us out to be.


hey they alread do see as such!


bomb the sh*t out of them.:D

[Durandal7]

I don't think he will attack America with nuclear/chemical/biological weapons but I do think that he wouldn't hesitate to use them on Isreal and possibly other neighboring countries.

The biggest problem is that if Saddam gets nukes and attacks Isreal then Isreal will most likely retaliate with Nuclear weaponry. Then the Palestinians would rise up and other Arab countries would support them and then America and the UN would stick their nose into it. This scenario could easily turn into WWIII no matter what we do.

We can either remove him from power and take away any nuclear capability or research or we can wait for the entire Middle East to nuke each other to oblivion.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Nick Hammer
Um...The US does not intentionally target civilians. Civilians have been killed before by us but that is war. Innocent people always die in wars. And that is where we are different. The US goes out of its way to not let civilians die. Saddam intentionally targeted them.
So murdering people is a reprehensible crime if it's done intentionally, but if it's done unintentionally, welp, that's war for ya?
Um, yea. And that is what keeps America alive. See, we use our weapons as a deterrence. Not a offensive weapon.
And what is keeping Iraq alive? Weapons as a deterrence and not an offensive weapon. Their invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was the result of a long-standing border squabble that had been in effect since the British Mandate. They invaded because they felt they had a right to that land. Did they really have a "right" to it? Who is the US to say? Would the US still hate Iraq if Iraq had been more considerate of the US's petroleum interests?
Common, how many countries in this world would push us around and maybe try to attack us if there was not threat of a nuclear reprisal.
So basically, if the US uses nuclear reprisal as a deterrence, that's okay, because we're Right and they're Wrong.
We don't gas our own people. Once again, we go out of our way to make sure our weapons are safe on not used to harm our own civilians.
The U.S. Government has committed atrocities against its own people, but this is beside my point. The Kurds were gassed because they wanted a piece of Iraqi land for their own. That is, they wanted to carve out a piece and secede. What would happen if thousands of armed Americans rose up and demanded they be given a chunk of U.S. land in order to form their own country? ... They'd probably be gassed, too. If not gassed, then shot or bombed.

It is very important to understand that I'm not trying to justify this. I'm only trying to undermine the arrogant notion that US = good and Iraq = evil. Both countries are good and both countries are evil. The rest is all bias, agenda, and zeal.
Um...please show me where we are oppressed? Where are we being brutalized?
Again my point is not to justify the Iraqi government's continuing to go on about its business. It's to make a point that, hey, the picture in the U.S. isn't all that rosy either. We have no right to say that Iraq is evil and we are good. Of course oppression exists in the U.S. Ask any one of the millions who has to choose between paying rent and eating, and whose children are forced to deal with the repercussions of that decision. People starve in both the U.S. and Iraq. There are homeless in both the U.S. and Iraq. There are the politically castrated in both the U.S. and Iraq. There are filth-ridden ****holes in both the U.S. and Iraq. There are the terminally poor, unable to pay basic health care or education in both the U.S. and Iraq. How can you argue that Iraq's government should be toppled because it is a bastion of oppression and brutalization when the U.S. is just as well?
We are allowed to vote for who we want to lead our country.
OK, this is true. Then it follows that if non-democratic forms of government are not "right," then in addition to attacking Iraq, we must also attack:

- Syria
- Libya
- North Korea
- China
- Zimbabwe
- Rwanda
- Somalia
- Pakistan
- Cuba

Among others. Otherwise we're being quite selective. There are many better examples of tyranny and fascism than Iraq. So why are we clamoring to attack Iraq, and not, say, Cuba? C'mon, Fidel has been around a lot longer than Saddam.

Could oil have anything to do with it?

If committing atrocities against your own people is what you have a problem with, why don't we attack Rwanda instead of Iraq? You are aware of the 100-day 1994 genocide in which 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered with machetes, guns, and garden tools by their government? Sounds terrible, huh? And the U.S. did nothing. So, like I said, if a government slaughtering its own civilians is what you're against, I don't understand why you're all for a war in Iraq, of all places.
We have more freedoms then any other country in the world. Iraqi's have none of this. Let's try to have a election over there and see what happens.
Why Iraq and nowhere else?
I didn't say that. I brought up that point to show that there was even more of a reason to LOOK into going after Saddam. He might have had a part is September 11th. Therefore, we should look into this and see what truth comes out if it.
Alright, sorry then, I must have mis-interpreted you.

Alex

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by krossfyter
alex ant the united states does not intentionally attack civilians....why must people continue to use the "well america kills civilians too" argument?? i dont understand.

once again the difference...

america: does not intentionally kill civilians
sadam: does intentionally kill civilians
A correction:

America: Has intentionally killed civilians including its own
Iraq: Has intentionally killed civilians including its own

Read up on My Lai, No Gun Ri, the Panama invasion, the Tuskeegee Experiment and the plutonium experiments of WWII, for starters.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by krossfyter
bomb the sh*t out of them.:D
Hey, that's great. Why don't you go crawl under a rock or something? Dickhead.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by Nick Hammer

Um...The US does not intentionally target civilians. Civilians have been killed before by us but that is war. Innocent people always die in wars. And that is where we are different. The US goes out of its way to not let civilians die. Saddam intentionally targeted them.


Hiroshima ring a bell?........Nagasaki?.....

everyone believes what they are doing is right...hitler, saddam, truman, churchill, stalin, johnson, castro, clinton, bush.........some of them are easier to classify than others but how/where do you draw the line. the US can't be right ALL the time...and why aren't the rest of the world's leaders calling for saddam's ouster?

lets be brutally honest here: the US leaders don't give a rat's azz about the living conditions( freedom, nutrition, economy, safety... whatever the excuse of the week is) of the world's populace...if it was a priority, don't you think they'd solve the problems HERE first? we could end US starvation...we could provide health care for every person in this country. we could insure good education for all income brackets...what stops this from happening? no one wants to have less so that others can have a little more...corporate/political power thrives on greed...somewhere along the way, humanity was taken out of the equation...and THAT belief also controls our foreign policy.

so lets just be blunt--we want to kill saddam for what he has and what we want. and that is oil.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Hey, that's great. Why don't you go crawl under a rock or something? Dickhead.


chill out man i was joking around. dont take it so personal i was even attacking you.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by alex_ant

A correction:

America: Has intentionally killed civilians including its own
Iraq: Has intentionally killed civilians including its own

Read up on My Lai, No Gun Ri, the Panama invasion, the Tuskeegee Experiment and the plutonium experiments of WWII, for starters.


yep.. true dat. however its a very small part. we are not in that business any more. i hope. ;)

[Durandal7]

This whole debate is pointless.

We don't know when Iraq will be attacked or how the US will go about it. All that this debate is boiling down to is whether or not you agree with Bush's policies, not if there is any merit to Iraq being a threat. In fact that is what all the political debates on these forums are lately and that is why I've been staying out of them. After 10 or 15 more posts this will have degenerated into comparing Bush to Hitler or blaming him for 9/11 or the economy. Face the facts, the recession was imminent before Bush was sworn in and so was 9/11 (U.S.S. Cole bombing) and there was nothing either administration could do.

Just wait until we do something to get worked up.

[Nick Hammer]

So murdering people is a reprehensible crime if it's done intentionally, but if it's done unintentionally, well, that's war for ya?

I didn't say that. I said that civilian death does happen in war. There is almost no way to prevent this when the enemy digs in with the surrounding population. What I am trying to say is that Iraq INTENTIONAL targeted Israeli civilians and that when we attack someone, we try to stay away from the civilians dying. Our culture values life and we try to protect it.

And what is keeping Iraq alive? Weapons as a deterrence and not an offensive weapon. Their invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was the result of a long-standing border squabble that had been in effect since the British Mandate. They invaded because they felt they had a right to that land. Did they really have a "right" to it? Who is the US to say? Would the US still hate Iraq if Iraq had been more considerate of the US's petroleum interests?

You are right, we singled out Iraq because of the oil. But you must remember that they did invade another country and committed atrocities against is population. The US told Iraq to pull out and the refused. So we took them out. Plus, the region Iraq took control over was a significant portion of the oil from the region. You cant have a person like Saddam controlling most of the oil in the region, specially since it was not his.

So basically, if the US uses nuclear reprisal as a deterrence, that's okay, because we're Right and they're Wrong.

Another thing I did not say. I just said that we used our weapons as a deterrence. We don't threaten people with them or use them in a warlike manner. They are kept well hidden, ad out of the way for a deterrence to any type of attack against us. It might not be right, but without them, the US would not be where it is today. What stopped the USSR from taking over all of Europe and Asia? US nukes.

The U.S. Government has committed atrocities against its own people, but this is beside my point. The Kurds were gassed because they wanted a piece of Iraqi land for their own. That is, they wanted to carve out a piece and secede. What would happen if thousands of armed Americans rose up and demanded they be given a chunk of U.S. land in order to form their own country? ... They'd probably be gassed, too. If not gassed, then shot or bombed. It is very important to understand that I'm not trying to justify this. I'm only trying to undermine the arrogant notion that US = good and Iraq = evil. Both countries are good and both countries are evil. The rest is all bias, agenda, and zeal.

I can tell you that the US would not as its own people because we are dismantling our chemical/bioweapons programs. We have realized that these are not sane weapons to use in war. We have laws against breaking away from our country. Remember the Civil War? Some states decided to break away. So what happened? We went to war fighting each other. BUT, we didn't start wiping out large chunks of civilians. Armies fought....not army against civilians.

Again my point is not to justify the Iraqi government's continuing to go on about its business. It's to make a point that, hey, the picture in the U.S. isn't all that rosy either. We have no right to say that Iraq is evil and we are good. Of course oppression exists in the U.S. Ask any one of the millions who has to choose between paying rent and eating, and whose children are forced to deal with the repercussions of that decision. People starve in both the U.S. and Iraq. There are homeless in both the U.S. and Iraq. There are the politically castrated in both the U.S. and Iraq. There are filth-ridden ****holes in both the U.S. and Iraq. There are the terminally poor, unable to pay basic health care or education in both the U.S. and Iraq. How can you argue that Iraq's government should be toppled because it is a bastion of oppression and brutalization when the U.S. is just as well?

I would agree with you on that one. We are not perfect. The US has done some pretty terrible stuff in its past. But we don't glorify it or be proud of it. I argue that Saddam should be toppled because of the fact that their citizens have NO rights. The only people over there with money are the people loyal to Saddam. Lets go ask someone over there what happens when you voice your descent with Saddam or vote against him. You wont see that person ever again. Your right, the only reason we are concerned about Iraq is because of the oil. But does that mean we should do nothing? When we can gain something by helping a oppressed people become free? You are right about Rwanda. We didn't care at all about it. And do you know why? Because we had nothing to gain. Does that make it right? No, but we cant help the whole world. We are the world's only Superpower and we have a obligation to help out others. But not the WHOLE planet.

It seems to me that you think that since the US has committed bad things in its past, we can no longer stop/punish someone else from doing the same thing or something much worse? People love to find problems with America but that is understandable since we are the richest nation in the world. You did bring up some good points. But look at history. During W.W.II, what would we have done if we hadn't gone to war with Hitler because the US, during the 1880's had done the same thing Hitler did in the 1930's by taking over land. In our case the Indians. Did it make it right? No, but we must move on. Does that mean that now and forever, we have no right to tell aggressive countries to stop taking over other countries? NO....

[rainman::|:|]

If the US doesn't wage war on Saddam, there won't be a justification for spending hundreds of millions of dollars on improving an army (and arsenal) that could already destroy virtually any country on Earth. The US needs to convince it's citizens that there is some "unknown threat" AKA bogeyman AKA terrorists hiding everywhere to scare them into taking out anyone that's convenient.

I know the CIA has been watching Saddam like a *hawk* for several years, and if they have proof that he's involved with terrorism against the US, I'd like to see it. Making weapons is something that other countries are allowed to do, especially if we're going to make 'em as well. Otherwise the USA becomes far too powerful in the world, and let's face it, the US is not infallable.

I completely agree with alex_ant and 3rdpath on this one. And let me add something further: If it weren't for 9/11, we would never have randomly decided to institute a "regime change" in a foreign country. Saddam's past be damned. The time to kill him was a decade ago, not right now.

:)
pnw

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by Nick Hammer
I argue that Saddam should be toppled because of the fact that their citizens have NO rights.

Since when has our constitution allowed for us to control the governments of other countries? If he wants to be a dictator, that's his problem. NOT OURS. All we can do is hope that the country will evolve past him, and right itself. The USA does not go to war with a country because of how it's treating it's people, it's just that simple. Maybe it seems like a great idea at the time, to prevent these atrocities, but what's the long-term impact? The USA has directly controlled yet *another* country. Other countries of the world have a thing called "sovereignty", which allows them to rule as they see fit (presumably as long as they keep it in their own borders). And suffering the regime of Saddam will make the Iraqi people that much smarter when it comes to change their government. It's called sociological development/evolution. Not pretty, not fun to think about, and certainly not going to make me popular here, but that's the way the world works.

:)
pnw

[galstaph]

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that I support Sadam, just saying what I know.

Iraq contains one of if not "the" largest oil reserves in the world. During the Iraq - Iran war (circa 1980-1990), Iraq (~25 Million people) was defending itself against Iran (~150 million people). During this period, the UN (which iraq has been a member of since 21 Dec. 1945) and the United States applauded and supported Sadam (without intervention, [Russia was supplying weaponry and military vehicles to Iraq, as the U.S. will only sell it's aircraft/weapons (including nuclear weapons)/vehicles to Israel]), at how well he was doing at defending Iraq. During the war with Iran, Kuwait, taking advantage of the distraction, moved it's borders into the Iraqi oilfields. Sadam vowed that he would retaliate in due course to Kuwait. After the war with Iran was over, Sadam did as he stated and walked into Kuwait. The UN was aware of what was going on and allowed it to occur. The U.S. felt that the invasion was a crime against humanity, and suddenly the guy they praised became the enemy. It's all about the oil.
Desert storm was mostly about field testing. The US had been amassing weapons of distruction and perfecting the art, a war was a good place to put in some live fire exercises.

After the war, UN weapons inspectors (oddly enough all US citizens) were put in place. In 1998 the inspectors left, one day before a mass bombing raid of factories and other such facillities.

Fot 12 years the people of Iraq have been under sanctions which do not permit the country to survive. People are dying because there is no food, money or relief efforts. if the US were to attack again the people would fold, giving up because they have nothing.

Sadam is a smart man, he may rule with an iron fist and not always in his people's interest, but he does know that a dead country with hopeless people will leave him powerless. That is why he is trying in vain to get UN (multiple nationals not just US citizens) inspectors to come back into the country. In June/July of this year Iraq sent a 3 page questionarre to the head of the UN. the questions were reguarding sanctions and inspections. The conditions set forth on the questionare were that once answered Iraq would allow unlimited access to the country to the UN. These questions have not been replied to.
The US has been trying to set forth it's plans to upset Sadam with or without approval from the UN. So far Russia, Germany, and the Arab League have stated that they will not support US action against Iraq at this time.

I think that Mr. Bush is war happy and wants to keep the war on terrorism movement going. It is a great boost for the economy and makes him look good to (most) people in the US.

I feel that we should be trying to find a way to work to help the people of Iraq to have a life again, not just roll in and destroy what little they have left.

Just my thoughts

[galstaph]

Forgot to mention,
Sadam attacked the Kurds with some legitimate reasoning. Kurds are killed (yes killed) in Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia.. etc. because of their beliefs. Sadam saw their persecution and made them a deal. They were GIVEN 3 of the 18 provences of Iraq. They were allowed their OWN government, laws, taxes etc. in other words in essence their own country withing Iraq's borders. The only thing was that they were to remain within thouse provinces set forth in the agreement and ultamatley be subject to decisions from Bagdad. The Kurds disregarded the agreement and invaded some of the other provinces. Sadam therefore attacked them. hence, even though it seems bad, he was justifyed in his attack, as the Kurds were in violation of the agreement they agreed to.

Anyway, please don't flame me, I'm not an apologist. I just feel that we here in North America tend to see things from a selective media perspective, (ie. they tell us what they want us to know).

I just thank God for the internet. the Jordanian times is a good place to learn real middle eastern news.

For thouse that don't know Jordan is the only TRULY peaceful nation in the middle east, and has close business relations to the UN and the USA.

[krossfyter]

well why cant one equate sadam on the same dangerous level as hitler (or near it)??

granted hitler is far worse.

[Durandal7]

I can see where this is all going ;)

[topicolo]

Originally posted by galstaph
Forgot to mention,
Sadam attacked the Kurds with some legitimate reasoning. Kurds are killed (yes killed) in Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia.. etc. because of their beliefs. Sadam saw their persecution and made them a deal. They were GIVEN 3 of the 18 provences of Iraq. They were allowed their OWN government, laws, taxes etc. in other words in essence their own country withing Iraq's borders. The only thing was that they were to remain within thouse provinces set forth in the agreement and ultamatley be subject to decisions from Bagdad. The Kurds disregarded the agreement and invaded some of the other provinces. Sadam therefore attacked them. hence, even though it seems bad, he was justifyed in his attack, as the Kurds were in violation of the agreement they agreed to.

Anyway, please don't flame me, I'm not an apologist. I just feel that we here in North America tend to see things from a selective media perspective, (ie. they tell us what they want us to know).

I just thank God for the internet. the Jordanian times is a good place to learn real middle eastern news.

For thouse that don't know Jordan is the only TRULY peaceful nation in the middle east, and has close business relations to the UN and the USA.

Don't forget that papa Bush promised support for the Kurds in toppling Saddam. That was the catalyst that gave the Kurds the incentive to expand their reach, but the US abandoned them when the retaliation occured. The US promised to help the Kurds, but did NOTHING as Saddam gassed them. Talk about heroic nobility.

I believe that the US should stop acting as international police and leave that job to the UN. If they don't, they'll just keep making more enemies until they fall beneath their small but collective heels.

BTW Nick hammer, Russia would not have taken over Asia, even if the US didn't have nukes. Don't forget taht China and North Korea were communists by that time and they would never have attacked their allies.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Nick Hammer
I didn't say that. I said that civilian death does happen in war. There is almost no way to prevent this when the enemy digs in with the surrounding population. What I am trying to say is that Iraq INTENTIONAL targeted Israeli civilians and that when we attack someone, we try to stay away from the civilians dying. Our culture values life and we try to protect it.
Which is of course a fallacy, taking into consideration all the times the US has intentionally targeted civilians. The US has killed many, many more civilians both intentionally and unintentionally than Iraq has. And this is not only taking into account Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Again I will bring up My Lai, No Gun Ri, and the invasion of Panama.
You are right, we singled out Iraq because of the oil. But you must remember that they did invade another country and committed atrocities against is population. The US told Iraq to pull out and the refused.
The US told the Hutus to pull out of Rwanda and they refused. Because Rwanda has few natural resources, the US did nothing. 800k people were massacred, many more than Saddam has ever killed. The largest slaughter of civilians of the 20th century, in fact. This is not to justify Saddam's actions, but I'm curious to see what equation of yours is used to decide whether or not US military invention is justified in a particular situation. It wasn't in Rwanda, apparently. It wasn't in East Timor, either.

Incidents like this make it clear to me that the US cares little about the well-being of civilians elsewhere in the world. I remember when the Rwandan slaughter happened, I heard of it in a little one-column report on the third page of my local paper. "100,000 Rwandans massacred." And that was in a period of days. Whereas Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was in massive letters on the front page, even though it involved casualties nowhere near as high. So when something such as the "liberation" of Kuwait happens, I no longer fool myself into believing that it happened for any other reason than opening up a channel of natural resources needed by the US. So I suppose that if you can justify killing civilians whether intentionally or not merely to back up your petrol supply, where all other justifications for an attack are purely peripheral, well then I hope you can sleep at night.
So we took them out. Plus, the region Iraq took control over was a significant portion of the oil from the region. You cant have a person like Saddam controlling most of the oil in the region, specially since it was not his.
But we can have a person like Bush controlling most of the oil in the region? Again, I'm not saying Bush = bad and Saddam = good. I'm just questioning what gives you the moral authority to say who should be able to control a natural resource and who shouldn't.
Another thing I did not say. I just said that we used our weapons as a deterrence. We don't threaten people with them or use them in a warlike manner. They are kept well hidden, ad out of the way for a deterrence to any type of attack against us. It might not be right, but without them, the US would not be where it is today. What stopped the USSR from taking over all of Europe and Asia? US nukes.
I agree with this, but the same could be said for every country in the world. EVERY country has weapons and uses them as a deterrence to invasion - that's just how it works. The US has weapons, and Iraq has weapons. Of course it's not true that the US doesn't threaten other countries with its weapons, as it sure does threaten countries it doesn't like (like Iraq). Just as Iraq threatens countries it doesn't like. So what gives you the moral authority to say who is right and who is wrong when it comes to which countries in particular two countries threaten?
I can tell you that the US would not as its own people because we are dismantling our chemical/bioweapons programs. We have realized that these are not sane weapons to use in war.
Yes, the US has the luxury of resorting to other, more "civilized" methods of killing because it is fortunate enough to have the technology to do so. When you've got an obsolete and dated army like Iraq does, you take what you can get, and fight any way you can.

That said, there is still no proof Iraq even has a chemical/bioweapons program. I do think it's likely that they do, however, until there is proof of this and proof that they plan to use these weapons against their neighbors, I don't believe we are justified in going in and toppling their government.
We have laws against breaking away from our country. Remember the Civil War? Some states decided to break away. So what happened? We went to war fighting each other. BUT, we didn't start wiping out large chunks of civilians. Armies fought....not army against civilians.
The gassing of the Kurds was not a civil war. It was a case of a few thousand people rising up against their government. I guarantee you that if a few thousand armed US civilians rose up against the US government and refused to back down, they would be annihilated. There are Iraqi laws against breaking away from Iraq, too.
I would agree with you on that one. We are not perfect. The US has done some pretty terrible stuff in its past. But we don't glorify it or be proud of it.
I'm sure Iraq doesn't glorify or take pride in its squalid conditions, either... they want prosperity and happiness just as the US does. Yeah, Saddam gets his gourmet meals for dinner while many of his citizens starve, but, if you look at it that way, so does the President of the US.
I argue that Saddam should be toppled because of the fact that their citizens have NO rights. The only people over there with money are the people loyal to Saddam. Lets go ask someone over there what happens when you voice your descent with Saddam or vote against him. You wont see that person ever again. Your right, the only reason we are concerned about Iraq is because of the oil. But does that mean we should do nothing? When we can gain something by helping a oppressed people become free? You are right about Rwanda. We didn't care at all about it. And do you know why? Because we had nothing to gain. Does that make it right? No, but we cant help the whole world. We are the world's only Superpower and we have a obligation to help out others. But not the WHOLE planet.
So in other words, we should help other countries only if we have something to gain by doing so... I suppose it's better than not doing anything at all, but it still sounds like kind of a sick situation to me.
It seems to me that you think that since the US has committed bad things in its past, we can no longer stop/punish someone else from doing the same thing or something much worse? People love to find problems with America but that is understandable since we are the richest nation in the world. You did bring up some good points. But look at history. During W.W.II, what would we have done if we hadn't gone to war with Hitler because the US, during the 1880's had done the same thing Hitler did in the 1930's by taking over land. In our case the Indians. Did it make it right? No, but we must move on. Does that mean that now and forever, we have no right to tell aggressive countries to stop taking over other countries? NO....
I never said the US has no right to tell aggressive countries to not invade other countries because it had done so in its past. I said that the US has no moral authority to say which countries are right and which are wrong in doing what they do. As an aside, I offered that the US was hardly an example of impeccable behavior.

The fact is that Iraq is not taking over any other countries. It's just sitting there. Yes it would take Kuwait if it knew it could get it, but then again, Kuwait would take Iraq if it knew it could get it. Until Iraq begins invasion plans against its neighbors, there is no justification for the US to do anything. I'm all for stopping Nazi Germany-esque regimes before they spread, but Iraq is hardly one of those, and at the moment it shows no signs of preparing to grow its borders.

I might also add that I'd like whatever the US decides to do to be authorized by the UN, but that's just my opinion. :)

Alex

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by galstaph
Anyway, please don't flame me, I'm not an apologist. I just feel that we here in North America tend to see things from a selective media perspective, (ie. they tell us what they want us to know).
I would like to second this. It's really a tragedy how many people base their understanding of world events off what they watch on CNN. To my great dismay, it's nearly impossible to find unbiased news anywhere.

[748s]

mid term elections in november.
war on iraq early october?
or am i just too cynical?

[Backtothemac]

Ok, here comes a rant.

1st) If you say that Poppa left Saddam there and now JR. is on a quest to avenge his daddy. Go lock yourself in a friggin room. I would suggest one with padded walls and a nice white jacket for you to wear. That was not the mission in the gulf war. The mission was to remove Saddam from Kuwait. The international community would have come unglued if we would have removed him.

2nd) If you don't think that a) he is developing NBC weapons, and b) would use them against us and our allies, then you are again in need of a trip to that padded room. He has BC weapons. He is trying to develop nuclear weapons. He will use them period. He doesn't care. As soon as he has a stockpile that he thinks is enough to fight a real war, then he will use them.

3rd) Um, yes, he has attacked the US. There was direct evidence that linked the original bombers of the WTC in 93 to Saddam, and there was nothing done about it. I will bet that there is evidence to the same with regard to 9/11. He promotes terror, murders his own people, oppresses his own people.

Don't tell me that the US oppresses its people. If you don't have a life in this country, it is because you are lazy, and have no desire to be anything in live, but a wart on the society. This man, will send his police out to shoot his opposition in the head in the middle of the night. Although I am sure that Bush would love to get rid of Tommy boy, that is not the way that it works in this country.

So, please don't compare this country to a 3rd world, 2nd tier, dictatorship that is run by a friggin madman. Don't tell me that we target civilians. Don't tell me that we are planning to USE our nuclear stockpile to attack other countries. I have heard some stupid things here before, but some of the the ones in this thread have to be by far most rediculous I have ever hear. It makes me wonder how some people consider themselves to be Americans.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
1st) If you say that Poppa left Saddam there and now JR. is on a quest to avenge his daddy. Go lock yourself in a friggin room. I would suggest one with padded walls and a nice white jacket for you to wear. That was not the mission in the gulf war. The mission was to remove Saddam from Kuwait. The international community would have come unglued if we would have removed him.
The notion that GWB is on a quest to "avenge his daddy" is a popular one in the leftist community, but I don't really buy that any more than you do.
2nd) If you don't think that a) he is developing NBC weapons, and b) would use them against us and our allies, then you are again in need of a trip to that padded room.
Of course he would use them against us and our allies if that's what it came down to, just as we would obliterate Iraq if that's what it came down to. Whether by chemical weapons or by good ol' conventional explosives, killing people is killing people.
He has BC weapons.
Proof please. "If you think this then you belong in a padded room" is not sufficient.
He is trying to develop nuclear weapons. He will use them period. He doesn't care. As soon as he has a stockpile that he thinks is enough to fight a real war, then he will use them.
I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case, but again, we need proof of this. We can't just launch a war based upon what Saddam is rumored to be up to. Paulwhannel mentioned the concept of sovreignty, which is what Iraq has a right to until it can be proven that it is threatening the soverignty of other countries. "It would do this" and "it will do that" with no or selective facts to back up such arguments do not cut it.
3rd) Um, yes, he has attacked the US. There was direct evidence that linked the original bombers of the WTC in 93 to Saddam, and there was nothing done about it.
Please produce this evidence. I'm guessing it's something you heard on Rush Limbaugh... or maybe Fox News or CNN.

I will bet that there is evidence to the same with regard to 9/11.
Great, let's blow him away then because somebody bets this.

He promotes terror, murders his own people, oppresses his own people.
What is terror?

To the US, Iraq promotes terror.
To Iraq, the US promotes terror.

You're living in a John Wayne movie if you think that Saddam Hussein is sitting in a bunker somewhere revelling in how gloriously evil he is. Guess what: He thinks he's good and we are terror-promoting tyrants. What makes you right and him wrong?

Again, this is not to say that the US is evil. It's just to establish the fact that good and evil are arbitrary concepts we assign subjectively to our friends and enemies.
Don't tell me that the US oppresses its people. If you don't have a life in this country, it is because you are lazy, and have no desire to be anything in live, but a wart on the society.
Ah, the glory of the Republican view on poverty.
This man, will send his police out to shoot his opposition in the head in the middle of the night. Although I am sure that Bush would love to get rid of Tommy boy, that is not the way that it works in this country.
The question is not "Is Saddam Hussein bad?" The question is "What gives the US the right to blow him away?"

So, please don't compare this country to a 3rd world, 2nd tier, dictatorship that is run by a friggin madman.
Okey-dokey. I'll compare it to Libya instead, which is run by a man who makes Saddam Hussein look like the dictionary definition of sanity, who is much worse to his people than Saddam ever has been and ever will be. Why advocate attacking Iraq when we could attack Libya instead?
Don't tell me that we target civilians.
You'd rather be oblivious to the fact that we do?
Don't tell me that we are planning to USE our nuclear stockpile to attack other countries.
We're not. ... Yet, somehow, Iraq is planning to use its nuclear stockpile to attack other countries, when you can't even prove it has one... oooookay.
I have heard some stupid things here before, but some of the the ones in this thread have to be by far most rediculous I have ever hear.
I concur.
It makes me wonder how some people consider themselves to be Americans.
I knew it was coming sooner or later... "If you don't support ____, you're un-American."

Alex

[buffsldr]

To all would be second-guessers (including me):

Your judgements are only as good as your information.


It is fun to be intellectually stimulated and debate policies, but do any of us have sufficient credible information on the situation to have a opinion worth reading ?

[Megaquad]

It makes me wonder how some people consider themselves to be Americans.
This is why whole world hates you.
Your ego is disgusting damnit! I had friend who lived in Chicago for a while and people were constantly pointing out that he is not American,you should be ashamed for saying that! You are all composed of British,Spanish,African and many other people.. What makes you think you are superior? We are all humans,remember?
Looks like some of your people's principles aren't too different from nazi ones..

[job]

Originally posted by 3rdpath
how come there aren't any TV ads that say" if you drive a fat-butted SUV, you're financing terrorists" instead of lamely trying to tie it into the "war" on drugs...

:rolleyes:

hahahahahaha...

[job]

if we were to invade and "institute a regime change" and if the new regime was smart enough to modernise iraq's oil production capabilities, iraq would be able to produce almost 3 million more barrels of oil per day.

not only would this flood the market with cheap fuel, it would also drive the prices of available oil down. is it any wonder why the members of opec resist any change in the iraqi government. :rolleyes: vultures.

my main point is that since we do not know enough about saddam's intents, we must base our actions off of what we do know.

saddam has defied a UN sanctioned order to allow weapons inspectors into his country. much like hitler's actions in the 30s which also flew in the face of the league of nations (sudetenland, anschluss, etc) these actions have gone unchecked, which in turn showed hitler that the western allies were spineless; scared to take action against his belligerant actions.

if we don't take a stand, who will?


in other words, do we stop the skit before it hits the fan, or do we clean the skit up after it has been sprayed all over? :rolleyes: :D

[Backtothemac]

Alex,
I came from nothing. I grew up in a trailor park in Florida. I put myself, and my wife through college, so yes, if you want to make something of yourself in this country you can. As far as evidence of Saddam. We have in this country people who defected during the gulf war who have said that he has Boculism, and many other forms of C and B weapons. He has used them and will use them again. We know that he has attempted to obtain the detonators to cause a nuclear reation with Tridium and uranium. It is a fact. There was evidence presented to the CIA and there has been a book written about the evidence linking Saddam to the first WTC attack.

In addition to that, we know that Atta met with Iraqi intel prior to 9/11. I wonder why?

Mega, I don't hate other countries. I don't hate yours. I don't hate any group of people. However, I do hate some government. Specifically the ones that want to wipe our allies off the face of the plant. Also those that target our civilians. Those that would kill everyone without regard for life at all.
I think that my country is the best country because of a little thing called nationalism. Just like I am sure that your heart is bound to Croatia. And if so, I applaud you for that. I cannot be bound to all peopple of the world, because some of them would kill me just because of where I live.

Alex, you know what made me a republican? I watched the democrats in our commnity as a child try to "help" my family by putting us on government programs that would do nothing except keep us on those programs, and thus keep us dependent on those who would support them. Empowering people to thing and teaching them is far more helpful and powerful.

[Backtothemac]

Alex,
Having served in our Military, and worked at the CIA, no, we do not target civilians. You are vastly mistaken if you think we do. We spend millions of dollars on weapons that will remove "colateral damage" from the equation. Sometimes there are mistakes and that is horrible, but to say that we target them is just ignorant.

Oh, and one other thing, if Osama, or Saddam would have had a suitcase nuke on 9/11 do you really think that they would not have used them? Do you really think that if they could obtain that type of weapon that they would not use it, or at least hold the world ransom? You are very nieve if you cannot see the reason for going after Iraq, and the terror groups.

[Backtothemac]

Hey Mega,

Let me tell you a little story about a man named Slobodan Milosevic. Now there is a guy with the values of Hitler. Oh, wait, he was killing muslims. Wait, didn't we send our boys over there to stop it. Yep.

Not trying to start a flame war with you, but to say that this country has the same ideals as Hitler....

Dude that exposes your level of intelligence with regards to the United States of America.

Man, I can't wait till mcrain gets in on this one.

[Durandal7]

The real reason we are invading Iraq is because we don't control them.

Take a while and think about the other countries of the world and how dependant they are on America. The Middle East relies on us to buy their oil and give military aid, Africa relies on us for humanitarian aid. China depends on us for their manufacuring industry, Russia needs us to help their oil industry. Whenever one of presidents holds a conference then leaders from around the world come stumbling to meet with him. Not to mention the nations that we have direct military control over or have large amounts of troops stationed in.

America has huge amounts of influence around the world and Iraq continues to ignore us. Hence it is time to place a puppet in charge of their government.

Just some food for thought.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Alex,
I came from nothing. I grew up in a trailor park in Florida. I put myself, and my wife through college, so yes, if you want to make something of yourself in this country you can.
You != everyone else

It's great that you were able to make something of yourself. But there are only so many resources to go around, and many with even more drive and determination than you have not been so fortunate. Of course hard work is a necessity to make something of oneself, but hard work alone is not necessarily enough.
As far as evidence of Saddam. We have in this country people who defected during the gulf war who have said that he has Boculism, and many other forms of C and B weapons. He has used them and will use them again. We know that he has attempted to obtain the detonators to cause a nuclear reation with Tridium and uranium. It is a fact.
Yeah, I agree that he probably has something up his sleeve. I'm sure there's plenty of evidence lying about, but I want proof - not only proof that he is amassing various weapons but proof - not just any old evidence, which can be collected and interpreted to fit anyone's agenda - that he is planning an attack on another country of such magnitude that it would require the US to defy UN law and unilaterally invade.
There was evidence presented to the CIA and there has been a book written about the evidence linking Saddam to the first WTC attack.
There has also been a book written about the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon being a hoax, which just goes to show that a book written about something != proof that it happened.
In addition to that, we know that Atta met with Iraqi intel prior to 9/11. I wonder why?
I'm sure whatever reason it was, it couldn't have been good, but it hardly makes sense to start a war based even in the tiniest way upon pure speculation as to the exchange between Atta and the Iraqi government.
Mega, I don't hate other countries. I don't hate yours. I don't hate any group of people. However, I do hate some government. Specifically the ones that want to wipe our allies off the face of the plant. Also those that target our civilians. Those that would kill everyone without regard for life at all.
I think that my country is the best country because of a little thing called nationalism. Just like I am sure that your heart is bound to Croatia. And if so, I applaud you for that. I cannot be bound to all peopple of the world, because some of them would kill me just because of where I live.
Nationalism can be a very dangerous thing. Loving one's country is great. I love the U.S. as well, and I will always have a place for it in my heart as it is where I was born and have always lived. But I realize that although I may think my country is "the best," that does not make it the best - there are other people from other countries who love their respective countries just as much as I love mine. I respect this, which is why I encourage looking at this situation from different viewpoints - those of America, those of Europe, even those of Iraq. We're all human after all - it doesn't make sense to have such unwavering faith in our own government that we are blind to those with the same faith in their own government. Such zeal has been the basis for countless wars and periods of human misery in the past thousands of years. It is counterproductive and unreasonable.

Much of the Middle East hates us. I mean, hates us. Iraq hates us, Iran hates us, Syria hates us, the Palestinians hate us. They bomb us and burn our flag and pray for our downfall because they hate us, because they are powerless to stop us and fearful that our next action will be the one that annihilates them and their way of life. They view us as a tyrant, a fat and proud glutton that prances around the world invading who it wants without being able to see whose toes are being stepped on because its massive gut is in the way of the view of its own feet. Now, as a Republican, I'm sure by now you're fuming with anger at how wrong that description is and how these people are utter idiots and so on, but hear me out...

These people seem so different, so alien, so uncivilized and barbaric, don't they? THEY ARE JUST LIKE US. They are exactly the same. They have children and husbands and wives who they love just as much as we love ours. They go to work and try to make ends meet, they send their kids off to school in order to give them a better life, and just as many LOVE THEIR GOVERNMENT as much as Americans love theirs. They want to see Saddam live forever. They want to see the US go down in flames because they view the US as a scourge, a spreading planetary infection. These are the same people who tuck their kids in at night and say hi to their neighbors. They hate us like we hate Microsoft.

Of course there are radicals in all countries clamoring for the replacement of their own government with something more to their liking, but these people are the exception, not the rule. Of course many Iraqis are miserable. So are many Americans. (Although Americans have the advantage of not being crippled by US sanctions.)
Alex, you know what made me a republican? I watched the democrats in our commnity as a child try to "help" my family by putting us on government programs that would do nothing except keep us on those programs, and thus keep us dependent on those who would support them. Empowering people to thing and teaching them is far more helpful and powerful.
Personally I am an independent, and despise both the Democratic and Republican parties as they are, although well-meaning, ineffectual and corrupt to the bone, not to mention that I view political parties in general as a method of political and ideological subjugation. No offense or anything. :)
Having served in our Military, and worked at the CIA, no, we do not target civilians. You are vastly mistaken if you think we do. We spend millions of dollars on weapons that will remove "colateral damage" from the equation. Sometimes there are mistakes and that is horrible, but to say that we target them is just ignorant.
We've certainly targeted civilians in the past, Hiroshima and Nagasaki of course being the two big examples. I'm not so cynical to think that the US Military makes civilian annihilation a point of pride, but it still does happen, and most of it is covered up, classified, and goes unreported. The way war against third-world countries is fought, sometimes bombing a few civilians' huts is the only way to get the job done. There were also the incidents in which civilian massacres happened without official orders, carried our by vigilantes and criminals in our own military. What I don't understand is why you are portraying Iraq as some kind of civilian murder machine when the gassing you refer to took place against rebel Kurds who were, it could be seen, invading Iraq. The US would have done the exact same thing if a similar situation had happened here, although perhaps using Apache helicopters and M16 tanks instead of gas.

Alex

[krossfyter]

yeah its true that the american govertment has or is killing innocents intentionally.... however now if it happens i think its so small that it easily gets covered up. the point is that america does not hold in its military creed to attack innocents but we all know that other countries or groups obviously intentionally attack innocents and take pride in it. for example ...the muslim militants would say that all that died in the trade center are infidels and deserved to die.

when are military acidently strikes a civilian home or building and civilians die i hope our military is as ashamed and sorry as they say they are. tis true though that in the heat of battle and war innocents lives lost is inevitable. its a part of war yadda yadda yadda... you know the rest.



dont flame me man. im not attacking anyone.... once again. so dont be offended those that get easily offended. i relize that everyone has seperate views and they are justified and have the right to have them and express them just as i do. respecting each other on here should be practiced more often as opposed to flaming each other and calling one or another a "dick head" or what not.

[Megaquad]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Hey Mega,

Let me tell you a little story about a man named Slobodan Milosevic. Now there is a guy with the values of Hitler. Oh, wait, he was killing muslims. Wait, didn't we send our boys over there to stop it. Yep.

Not trying to start a flame war with you, but to say that this country has the same ideals as Hitler....

Dude that exposes your level of intelligence with regards to the United States of America.

Man, I can't wait till mcrain gets in on this one.
It's nice you helped stoping Milosevic,but I was not talking about your government.
I was talking about ego and principles of your society. Black people were slaves in your country for years,and were tortured by society until M.L. King assured freedom for them.
Ku Klux Klan? Now tell me that ain't nazi way of thinking?
And again..who the hell was talking about your government? All I am telling you your society has bad way about treating others.. non-americans.
Thats primitive,you know?

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by Megaquad

It's nice you helped stoping Milosevic,but I was not talking about your government.
I was talking about ego and principles of your society. Black people were slaves in your country for years,and were tortured by society until M.L. King assured freedom for them.
Ku Klux Klan? Now tell me that ain't nazi way of thinking?
And again..who the hell was talking about your government? All I am telling you your society has bad way about treating others.. non-americans.
Thats primitive,you know?

It may be important to consider that we did not enslave black people, they were and still are enslaved by other black people. My people were murdered and stolen from for this country to come into existance, but it doesn't define my attitude towards this country or the "egos" of the people here. The KKK makes up about 1/10000th of the population here. Much like the Nazi party still does in Germany. On what basis are you judging the attitudes of the American people? They are most giving people in the world! Don't let the propagand of the world media distort you view. Come visit, and you will see the truth for yourself.

[Eres the Elessa]

I am totaly with megaquad.YOu are so ****ing egoistic-I mean if you wana be world`s cop so ack like one-don`t blame people for what you do-You think you are the strongest and the smartest-Do you know that USA has the most unaducated people-do you know that you have the most fat people in the world and also have tho most of these comercials with loosing weithg-you are ****ing funy and ironic-you will see-acctualy you won`t live long enought to see how USA falls apart

[Megaquad]

My friend was there and as I said he was not treated fine..
I see your US attitude just by looking at this forums.. when I see things like "you are not real american". Well,that just pisses me off..then what is rest of the world? Worthless scum?
I understand most of you do not look like that on developed countries like UK,France etc. but I cannot imagine what kinds of terrible things would experience people from Iraq,Afghanistan..
You just need to keep something for only yourself.

[Eres the Elessa]

I beg you to come to irc chat-connect to this server irc.carnet.hr and go to channel #st-trek

[Megaquad]

I must say that I am not against american people in way ellessar is. I respect all people,no matter how weird they are,I just dont like your people underestimate others..

[alex_ant]

It may be important to consider that we did not enslave black people, they were and still are enslaved by other black people.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow.

(That's all I have to say about that.)

[Megaquad]

Sweet dreams everyone,I am going to bed....
Flame ya tommorow :p

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by krossfyter
yeah its true that the american govertment has or is killing innocents intentionally.... however now if it happens i think its so small that it easily gets covered up. the point is that america does not hold in its military creed to attack innocents but we all know that other countries or groups obviously intentionally attack innocents and take pride in it. for example ...the muslim militants would say that all that died in the trade center are infidels and deserved to die.
Iraq is not one of these countries or groups that takes pride in attacking innocents. It has attacked (and killed) many civilians before, mostly unintentionally, and so have a lot of countries including the U.S. I'm not sure how this justifies the U.S. declaring war on them, especially since there are other countries whose human rights violations are much more egregious.
dont flame me man. im not attacking anyone.... once again. so dont be offended those that get easily offended. i relize that everyone has seperate views and they are justified and have the right to have them and express them just as i do. respecting each other on here should be practiced more often as opposed to flaming each other and calling one or another a "dick head" or what not.
Are you sure you're not attacking anyone, Mr. Let's-bomb-the-****-out-of-them? That to me shows a tremendous lack of respect on your part. I realize it was a joke, but I don't know, I guess it kind of pushes the limits of humor to me. I'm sorry I called you a dickhead, as that was uncalled for as well. I hope you're not taking anything personally in this flamewar, though. :)

Alex

[Eres the Elessa]

Let me describe the perfect human world whre you american woud never fit in.First all people shut be frobiden to born new people-so we can low the nubbmer of induviduals-then we should try to repear the damage which we made to earth.Then we shoudl organise citys-but not like today`s ones-we should make a litle groups with everything on solar sistem-ofcrouse there woud no be money -everbody woudl work and everybody would have everything-I mean and you americans-you think you are so fucnikg smart-you are stupid,fat,and destroying people and bounds between people-you are even not one nacion you are mad eof hundreds of nations-even from people from croatia,russia,bosnia and Herzegovina,germany(yes you have nacis in USA) and you hate them-so with that on top you hate your selves-you are ****ing losers!!!!

[JURE]

I am also totaly with my dear friend Megaquad! US Navy has visited my town many times and I have nothing good to say about them! I must say that your sailors have a serious weight problem! Specialy the female part of your Navy! You should work on that!
:D :D

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by Eres the Elessa
I am totaly with megaquad.YOu are so ****ing egoistic-I mean if you wana be world`s cop so ack like one-don`t blame people for what you do-You think you are the strongest and the smartest-Do you know that USA has the most unaducated people-do you know that you have the most fat people in the world and also have tho most of these comercials with loosing weithg-you are ****ing funy and ironic-you will see-acctualy you won`t live long enought to see how USA falls apart

How can you judge me or any other American? From the media? Yea, that is fair. That is like me thinking that all arabs burn our flag in the street. It is just not true. Don't be that narrow minded. Yes, we are the fattest society, because we are gluttons. I don't deny that. But we are not inhumane. We don't want others to suffer. Please, open your minds somewhat, come here, and then pass judgement. Also, not all areas of the country are the same.

Oh, and the one thing that we have is togetherness. Seriously. We will disagree on everything, but let a foriegn country come in and start things with us, and we will unite. Your country is the same way.

There is not a "best country". There is not a "best government" but I don't understand why you attack my country and our people, when none of us are attacking you or your people!

Mega, my comment about being a real American was not meant the way you took it. It was meant to say that I am an American first. My country is my life, because it protects the rights that I have been given. I have been a member of our military, and I am involved in helping people in our society. I believe in giving people education in order for them to be: 1) accepting of others because differences are what make us great 2) knowledgeable of other societys and people so that they do not believe stereotypes, and 3) So that they may empower themselves to be a better human, and American.

I am actually the majority in this country. The majority of people feel the way that I do here, they really do. We are portrait just as unfairly in the world media as the Palistinians are.

Eres, I don't know where you are from, or why you hate America so much, but please open your mind. We really are a great diverse people. So are all of those on the rest of the planet as well. I would love to travel to the middle east and learn about other cultures, but I am affraid to do so because I am an American. David Pearl was just a report and look at what happened.

I would prefer the little people of the world to break down barriers of unreal beliefs about one another that are perpatrated by our governments and the media. If we do that and learn that we are all on the same page, then we as a species could force change in our governments. That is real.

So I say, lets be friends, lets learn from one another. Lets open our minds instead of closing or futures.

[Eres the Elessa]

Originally posted by krossfyter
when are military acidently strikes a civilian home or building and civilians die i hope our military is as ashamed and sorry as they say they are. tis true though that in the heat of battle and war innocents lives lost is inevitable. its a part of war yadda yadda yadda... you know the rest.


Listen if people die in wars why there should be wars?
Do you know about omega agency?Now that is a work of a sick mind!

[Eres the Elessa]

Originally posted by Backtothemac




So that they may empower themselves to be a better human, and American.



You see you are acctualy saing a better american
But one thing I don`t hate americans at all-I eve say that there are some realy good people but you see once I saw oprah after the WTC-and there was one women and she was crying beacuse the one of pople who was responsible for WTC was living next to her house-and on the question what would she do to him-she said-not straight but I was so obivus-she would like to kill them-you see I don`t hate anybody-acctualy I love everybody and we can`t have perferct world...let me ask you something-if you would live in ethernal paradise how would you know that?-the answer is you wouldn`t because with black you learn to see white-and one thing when you said let`s learn from each other-that is sutpid-it is sutpid to lear-it is better to taste-that`s why me make the same old mistakes-because we want to taste bad as the good-life is relative...think...you will die,I will die,USA will fall apart,hole world will fall apart-and we will reborn again...you see it is a cricle of tasting our selves...think please

And I like some americans-like people from linkin park ;)

P.S. My name is Elessar not eres-eres is a title and it means-it comes form initals R.S.-it menas ratnik svjetlosti what on croatina means warrior of light and on latin when you try to say each letter for it selves it is heard like ERES ;)

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by alex_ant

Iraq is not one of these countries or groups that takes pride in attacking innocents. It has attacked (and killed) many civilians before, mostly unintentionally, and so have a lot of countries including the U.S. I'm not sure how this justifies the U.S. declaring war on them, especially since there are other countries whose human rights violations are much more egregious.

Are you sure you're not attacking anyone, Mr. Let's-bomb-the-****-out-of-them? That to me shows a tremendous lack of respect on your part. I realize it was a joke, but I don't know, I guess it kind of pushes the limits of humor to me. I'm sorry I called you a dickhead, as that was uncalled for as well. I hope you're not taking anything personally in this flamewar, though. :)

Alex [/B]


Cool man. Rock it.

Personal I believe sadam hussien is on the same par as the militant muslims. Being that he doesnt care if innocent americans or anyone for that matter dies so as long as he reigns his little empire. But thats my opinion. I relize you have a different view and i respect that.

As for all these amercian haters in here.....

america invented rock n roll you all loose.

hehe:D

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by Eres the Elessa

you see once I saw oprah after the WTC-and there was one women and she was crying beacuse the one of pople who was responsible for WTC was living next to her house-and on the question what would she do to him-she said-not straight but I was so obivus-she would like to kill them-

See, if someone murdered thousands of your citizens with no justification, would you not wish to seek revenge on them? Would you not stand up for your country? See, as citizens we do not see everything that our government does. The majority of us work and make lives for our family. We wish to protect those that we love and those that live in peace.

The people that were murdered in 9/11 were not guilty of anything except living. That is why I would murder those that attacked us.

If someone murdered your child would you not want to kill that person?

See I understand what you are saying, but to learn is to empower. To learn is to break down all walls and injustices. To learn is the greatest gift that has been given to us as a species.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Megaquad
It's nice you helped stoping Milosevic,but I was not talking about your government.
I was talking about ego and principles of your society. Black people were slaves in your country for years,and were tortured by society until M.L. King assured freedom for them.
Ku Klux Klan? Now tell me that ain't nazi way of thinking?
And again..who the hell was talking about your government? All I am telling you your society has bad way about treating others.. non-americans.
Thats primitive,you know?

while you are totally right about there being plenty of hating people in america. there are plenty of hating people everywhere. that's how people are. we have em, you have em, etc.

just like there are plenty of dumb mac users, and plenty of dumb pc users.

in any group of peopleyou can find liars, hypocrites, racists, etc.

for instance, black people were slaves in a lot of places (africa, and here, and elsewhere). also, non blacks have been slaves.

i agree, our country is way too egotistical and self centered in the way it conducts itself. that said, some of us do care and are trying to change things in whatever little ways we can. so try not to lump us all together

as for elessar- you do seem to have hate in you. calling all americans stupid and fat and selfish etc. surely you have overweight, dumb, selfish people in croatia (and all over). just as the us has a slanted view of how other countries (especially the middle east) sees it, so does the outside world have a slanted view of the us. because of our political system, without a true revolution, we will not see any great improvements in our country. so rather than badmouth us, maybe try to help us.

i for one can see a ton of ways that the us could use other countries'/peoples' help.

[Backtothemac]

Here here brother jello, here here.

[Eres the Elessa]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


would you not wish to seek revenge on them? Would you not stand up for your country?


To learn is to break down all walls and injustices. To learn is the greatest gift that has been given to us as a species.

LIsten why woudl I seek revenge-there is no reason for that-listen-you think that after death there is no life only beacuse you fee lo alive right now
And second-if I would describe you the taste of Big mac-every part of it and the things that makes it you would still get more if you would taste it by your self-the words are not enought because the words have many meanings and every ind is difrent

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by Eres the Elessa


LIsten why woudl I seek revenge-there is no reason for that-listen-you think that after death there is no life only beacuse you fee lo alive right now
And second-if I would describe you the taste of Big mac-every part of it and the things that makes it you would still get more if you would taste it by your self-the words are not enought because the words have many meanings and every ind is difrent

Actually, I think that after death there is a perfect life. I believe in God, and know what awaits me. I agree, taste is key. We must taste life. Taste is part of learning. Learning is the result of the action taste. You see my point?

[Megaquad]

I apologize for JURE and Ellessar,they are just 15 year old idiots,and they weren't treated fine by their parents.

Now I see you are apsolutely right when you say that every country has idiots.
I assure you there are many intelligent people in my country and aren't in anti-US mood.

[sinbushar]

so guys..this is the problem...other countries, mainly middle eastern countries, are getting pissed at the US...we preach democracy and freedom and what not, but then we also act as *THE* world power, the things the US does abroad, is all for what may help the US in the long run...

The US, is the most dominant nation in the world...and we know it...but instead of being portrayed as the wealthy benefactor, we are considered the evil big brother...the US needs to work on a smaller international image....we need to concentrate how to improve lives of the thousands of impovershed citizens, our own rising unemployment...just think about it

i'm not here to take **** from anyone, so don't try it....

i'd love to discuss this farther, but i don't have the time to check the board everyday...so if ya have a comment, hit me up at pakipina786@yahoo.com...

take care guys

adel

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by sinbushar
so guys..this is the problem...other countries, mainly middle eastern countries, are getting pissed at the US...we preach democracy and freedom and what not, but then we also act as *THE* world power, the things the US does abroad, is all for what may help the US in the long run...

The US, is the most dominant nation in the world...and we know it...but instead of being portrayed as the wealthy benefactor, we are considered the evil big brother...the US needs to work on a smaller international image....we need to concentrate how to improve lives of the thousands of impovershed citizens, our own rising unemployment...just think about it


true dat.

as i said, i disagree with nearly everything the us government does abroad, and a lot of what it does at home. and i really think that what outside folks don't understand is that while yes, americans are egotistical, selfish, fat, etc, so are a lot of people everywhere, and in america at least, there is little being done to change it. now in the long run this is the result of the people, as they don't see themselves in sucha light, and thus, do nothing to change things. however, as of right now, our political system and government pretty much keeps us all in check. our 2 party system is a damn joke and needs a serious revolution to make real progress. the democrats and the republicans may as well be the same party.. they are both fed by big companies and special interests. they don't speak for themselves, or for the people, they speak for those with the biggest wallets. which just happens to be a tiny tiny % of the people.

so while i agree in what a lot of you folks (non americans) say, i think your attitude would be much better in the form of "hey, you guys need help, you need to get things changed, etc" not "you are all fat idiots who think you're great blah blah blah". because at that point, you're only making the situation worse by getting people fired up. offer constructive criticism. show us americans what we cannot see. "it's like when you get close to something that big, you can't see anything at all." when you are within something, you often cannot see it for what it truly is. so inform us, but be respectful about it, and you are much more likely to get somewhere


mega- i didn't mean to say that anti-americanism is bad per se... just that while we have fat, selfish, egotistical people, so do all countries... there are nazi racists here, there are nazi racists everywhere... etc. and as alex said, we're all the same. we all have families. we all are trying to get by. and even when there are those rich people who might not struggle to live monetarily, a ton of them are very emotionally poor... and that is not something that they should be kicked for while they're down, but rather helped up...



blah blah blah. what do i know. i can't even drink legally in this place!!!

[Megaquad]

Not exactly in all non-US country's is present such ego like in US..
If someone from Egypt,Turkey etc. comes to Croatia,noone would make fun of him,I believe thats same in all other european,australian etc. country's.
I hate when your little soldiers come over here in Split and act like all girls are their possesion..their bitches,and they drink a lot,cause you can drink here with 18..

[jelloshotsrule]

well i don't laugh at foreigners. and i don't drink. and i don't treat girls like objects.

but i guarantee that there are people from other countries who do all those things.

you are saying that if an american goes to places in the middle east or even parts of europe/asia that they wouldn't be laughed at? i doubt that

my point is not that americans don't do those things, yes, of course they do. and they are dumb for it. my point is that PEOPLE do those things. perhaps americans moreso. but the fact is, if you had troops from any random country there in split, they'd be doing the same.

and by the same token, there are a lot of good charitable organizations from america in other countries, just as their are many countries that have charitiable organizations everywhere. so the us has the bad, as well as the good. which you seem to just constantly overlook.

most people here overlook the bad. you are not much better by overlooking any good that exists.

as for the ego. of course it's the worst in the US. the us is the most powerful nation, for better or worse. not the best nation, no way. but the most influential. with that power comes greed and ego. it's a human nature thing, its' not a purely american thing...

[krossfyter]

well said jello man. i agree with you.

megaquad.... i respect you man but i think you are over looking the good of america like jello said. its understandable that you do that seeing that you only hear bad about america for whatever reason but understand there is good too.

[SoarEyes]

here here....
there’s knuckelheads everywhere.

[diorio]

Saddam Hussein sucks, and needs to crawl under a rock.

[rainman::|:|]

Originally posted by diorio
Saddam Hussein sucks, and needs to crawl under a rock.

Oh yes, very well-thought reasoning. I like that you support your theory with facts. Too often people with nothing to contribute post in these discussions, and then act surprised when they're ignored.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

pnw

[oldMac]

But let's get to the root of the question...

Do you think Saddam uses a Mac or a PC?

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by oldMac
But let's get to the root of the question...

Do you think Saddam uses a Mac or a PC?

I bet he's still using Windows 95. :D

[Mr. Anderson]

Most likey Windows 95 - it would be interesting to know, wouldn't it? And the mac would be a super computer, so technically he wouldn't be able to have one.......

D

[Durandal7]

Well, all Macintoshes have had an embargo on them for a while. It wouldn't surprise me if most modern PCs and OSes have the same rules in effect. Of course since he is the dictator of the country he can probably arrange for a computer to get smuggled out of Europe.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by dukestreet
And the mac would be a super computer, so technically he wouldn't be able to have one.......

D


hah ha! yes. that was a good one man! :D

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by asurace
Well, all Macintoshes have had an embargo on them for a while. It wouldn't surprise me if most modern PCs and OSes have the same rules in effect. Of course since he is the dictator of the country he can probably arrange for a computer to get smuggled out of Europe.

of course, I don't think Sadam would let something so mundane get in the way of him having one.


So to follow that logic, since he can't 'have' one, he's probably got several - who knows, he might even be on MacRumors?

I would love to see Sadam in a switch ad........:D

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by dukestreet

I would love to see Sadam in a switch ad........:D

My PC kept crashing when I processed atomic formulas. It would just sit there and make this beep-beep-beep-beep noise. I lost a whole years worth of nuclear research, it was kind of a bummer. My Mac hasn't crashed once and I can finally make weapons of mass destruction. ;)

[Mr. Anderson]

Oh that's just for a start - the potential for spoofs are amazing - imagine iChat with Sadam, Kadafi, Bin Laden, Bill Gates, etc., unfortunately this is way off color, but oh, the potential. I don't think it would be something Apple would endorse, you know?

But seriously, it would be sad if he was using macs to create chemical/bio/nuke weapons. I'm just assuming that he's working on it, its bad regardless what machine he's got his researchers using - but if its windows they might be delayed a bit due to the blue screen......

I'm almost to the point though, with the whole thing, to see George W. call for volunteers to go over and solve the problem. How many people do you think would step forward and sacrifice themselves to put an end to it? Probably quite a few more than anyone would imagine.

I was sitting a lunch the other day with someone who is a little strong in his beliefs - he was calm and collected as he said we (America) should just take over the world except for one little section, and anyone who didn't like it could go live there. I just laughed and immediately changed the subject, not really wanting to delve deeper into his ideals - no telling where that would lead. :rolleyes:

Sometimes it can get really scary in your own little part of life,

D

[galstaph]

LOL,
that is funny asurace. That made my day! I can see him (saddam) there talking and everything.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by dukestreet

I was sitting a lunch the other day with someone who is a little strong in his beliefs - he was calm and collected as he said we (America) should just take over the world except for one little section, and anyone who didn't like it could go live there. I just laughed and immediately changed the subject, not really wanting to delve deeper into his ideals - no telling where that would lead. :rolleyes:


Aside from the obvious problems, no one government will ever be able to rule the entire planet. I believe that World Peace can be achieved to some degree but World Unification can not. People hate conformity.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by asurace


Aside from the obvious problems, no one government will ever be able to rule the entire planet. I believe that World Peace can be achieved to some degree but World Unification can not. People hate conformity.

I totally agree. Keep social/cultural differences - that's one thing that should never disappear. There never should be world domination - but the problem this past 100 years or so has been the domination of western culture. That needs to be stopped - but in saying that I know that there is no easy solution.

D

[sinbushar]

Originally posted by asurace


Aside from the obvious problems, no one government will ever be able to rule the entire planet. I believe that World Peace can be achieved to some degree but World Unification can not. People hate conformity.

correction...i believe that there is a 'perfect' system of government that is beneficial for everyone....its my senior project...ask me about it in june, when i'll be cramming to get it done and i'll share more...but i bliever there has to be away to combine democracy, capitalism, and communism (don't laugh unless you really understand the theory)...well ya..just my 2 cents...hehe...possibly just hoping on young romantic ideals?

lemme kno your thoughts

adel

[Durandal7]

The problem is that no matter how "perfect" the government is there will always be someone trying to bring it down from the inside. There is too many types of people for it to work, some people would think that the government should have more control and some would think that there should be less. Aside from that, telling people that you have a perfect form of government would lead to accusations of Nazism among other things. The theory may be good on paper but in reality everyone would see fault in it no matter how beneficial.

[alex_ant]

I can't imagine running nuclear weapons simulations on a Mac OR a PC... if that's what Iraq is up to, then it's a given that they've managed to smuggle a few RS/6000s or something of that caliber in. Not that I would know anything about that kinda stuff *cough*

Originally posted by dukestreet

I was sitting a lunch the other day with someone who is a little strong in his beliefs - he was calm and collected as he said we (America) should just take over the world except for one little section, and anyone who didn't like it could go live there. I just laughed and immediately changed the subject, not really wanting to delve deeper into his ideals - no telling where that would lead. :rolleyes:
He didn't say anything about white people never having enslaved black people in the US as well, did he? You may have been talking to B2tM without even knowing it!

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by alex_ant

He didn't say anything about white people never having enslaved black people in the US as well, did he? You may have been talking to B2tM without even knowing it!

Ha, I don't think so - but I'm not sure I'd want to find out more about his philosophies of life.....:rolleyes: