News Why is the US/UK at war with Iraq?

[schwarzchildradius]

*We attacked at will, without a significant international coalition.

*We used effective tactics from world war II; massive air strikes with the mother of all bombs coupled with the mother of all panzer columns.

*We destroyed most of the government infrastructure.

*We attacked without a significant threat or beligerance on the part of the enemy.

*George Bush seemed relaxed and carefree, playing with the dog and taking a vacation to camp david.

What the hell is going on here? Is the best case scenario portrayed by the not so free press realistic? In any case the international reputation of the US is deeply at stake. It is not difficult to imagine an Imperialist superpower striding the globe like a collosus. One thing is certain - such an enterprise will not be a democracy.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Coupled with your president having called Saddam a "Tyrant and a Dictator" for his attempt to asassinate George's dad, yet George is out doing the EXACT SAME THING! (on the world stage no less!)

It is a simple principal, called "Moral Equivalence", but, alas, they are not 'equivalent' as your president is quite capable of having that death sentance enforced, hence it actually makes him worse!

There is not one single good reason for what is being done, it is an Evil, nothing less,

It was where I started in all of this, I wanted to know the reason why George wanted to send my family off to there deaths.

Heck, if they had had a good reason, I would have been willing to go in their place, but George is breaking International law, the only difference between a 'freedom fighter' and a 'terrorist' is which side of the law you are really on.

It is the Motto of the Canadian Mounties, "Maintain the right" which is to say, "stay on the proper side of the law" as it is long known in this world that staying on the proper side of the law is the only real difference between criminals and police, respective of the use of force, and is why the Peace officers (police) are allowed to use force...Legally!

Geo-ogre is on the wrong side of the law, laws that YOUR country, America, helped write, signed there names to, and are now, by his actions, in contravention of.

His Saviour, (Geo-ogre's) Jesus Christ, tells us in the Bible that the Devil Himself is characterized as a "Liar and a murderer" so if you are in contravention of the words of your very own personal saviour, well...Do you know what that means?

 

[Laser Eyes]

For those of you who have no problem with this war I would like to put a new born Iraqi baby in your left hand a pistol in your other hand and let you fire the first shot by blowing the baby's brains out. Children will die in this war people, nothing is more certain. Or is it you only want to go to war if someone else does your killing for you?

Laser Eyes

 

[Njorl]

Actually Laser, the one group that will benefit most from this war is new born babies. Currently Iraq has a ridiculously high infant mortality rate due to shortages at hospitals. It is the selling of medicines from the oil-for-food program that is causing this. They smuggle the medicines into Jordan and sell them to get money for Saddam's loyalists.

So, it is if you oppose this war that you should be willing to shoot this baby in the head. But I forget...people who never take any action are blameless for everything, right?

Njorl

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
For those of you who have no problem with this war I would like to put a new born Iraqi baby in your left hand a pistol in your other hand and let you fire the first shot by blowing the baby's brains out. Children will die in this war people, nothing is more certain. Or is it you only want to go to war if someone else does your killing for you?

Laser Eyes

For those of you who are so blind I would like to allow you to become a volunteer conscript for Saddam's army and perhaps you can stand next to his son the next time he goes down the street beheading women in front of their homes and assist him by being the one to hang them on a stick for their children and parents to see?
Or perhaps you would next like to be the one in charge of dragging 3,000 political prisoners out to "the garden" and mowing them down with your little machine gun?
yes, yes, entire families, children, women and men are dying and being tortured daily under Saddams brutal regime, nothing is more certian, Or is it you only are interested in your anger at the big bad Americans?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by kat

For those of you who are so blind I would like to allow you to become a volunteer conscript for Saddam's army and perhaps you can stand next to his son the next time he goes down the street beheading women in front of their homes and assist him by being the one to hang them on a stick for their children and parents to see?
Or perhaps you would next like to be the one in charge of dragging 3,000 political prisoners out to "the garden" and mowing them down with your little machine gun?
yes, yes, entire families, children, women and men are dying and being tortured daily under Saddams brutal regime, nothing is more certian, Or is it you only are interested in your anger at the big bad Americans?

Got any referances to that?

American have been a very trusted part of the worlds Peoples for a long time, longer then most of the People alive today.

For a Country, as powerful as the US is, to demonstrate instigational war hostilities, based upon having 3 (or is it 4) Alleged Ex Oil Company Execs., having usurped the 'body politics' agenda, (the 'Peoples' agenda) directing the execution of a foriegn President, in a country the size of California, sitting upon a pile of oil, sorry, but you are the cause of the breech of trust here, not the rest of us!

Then again, you could always live in a country where criminals use suppression fire tactics, and body armour, to attempt to subdue the police/peace officers called to the scene of the robbery.

I suppose that it is apparently better to execute your criminals, call it capital punishment, sort of along the same chant that says that "gas is bad" (for killing) but "BOMBS are GOOD!" (for killing)

Every countries got there problem, and it would be much better to help that change, but War is not the method as the making of this war is an Illegal action, A Globally Illegal action/activety

Otherwise, just chant "Four legs good, two legs better!"

(and no, I do not agree with 'beheading' anyone, nor starting, aggressing, war!)

 

[schwarzchildradius]

* Millions of people worldwide are fed up with Bush and his rogue nation tactics.

Ironic quote of the day:
"He starves his people to build himself palaces" GWB on Saddam.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

It would be really nice if anyone of you could explain the difference between, lining people up against a wall, and machine gunning them to death, and surrounding a city with tanks and artillery, then bringing in B 52's to saturate bomb that city, when that city no longer has any viable air defences!

What is the difference? (Self evident truth, NONE!, or if you are really heartless, like Geo-Ogre, the co$t!)

Don't be fooled by 'Optics' please, yes you can see anti aircraft fire eminating from the city, but they cannot shoot down a 'stratospheric flier', so they are, in a nutshell, defenceless

This is NOT WAR, this is simply Bloody Murder

 

[Njorl]

Mr. Parsons,
Are you aware that Baghdad is generally on TV? No saturation bombing is happening. This is just another example of your delusional, dishonest, ardently anti-American, hysterical ranting.

Njorl

 

[heumpje]

Originally posted by Njorl
Mr. Parsons,
Are you aware that Baghdad is generally on TV? No saturation bombing is happening. This is just another example of your delusional, dishonest, ardently anti-American, hysterical ranting.

Njorl

Call it whatever you want but 2000+ cruise missiles landing in three cities is a lot of firepower. Even if it would be 100% certain that each missile hits it's designated target, it would be a miracle if this is not going to cost a lot of (normal) Iraqi lives.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Njorl
Mr. Parsons,
Are you aware that Baghdad is generally on TV? No saturation bombing is happening. This is just another example of your delusional, dishonest, ardently anti-American, hysterical ranting.

Njorl

Norjl, I live in an emergency shelters, (Because the tent I normally live in is flooded in the spring melting) I am a homeless person, I have no TV, but I do still get to hear some of the news, and the last I had heard is that Geo-Orge is calling in the B 52's.

Tell me, oh one of dubious insult, what do you think that they are used for??

The only difference between "Shooting fish in a barrel", and what Geo-Ogre is about to do, is, well NOTHING, 'cept this time it is innocent men women and children, in 'the barrel'!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

In case you missed the News Norjl, try this one...

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2430955

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Norjl, I live in an emergency shelters, (Because the tent I normally live in is flooded in the spring melting) I am a homeless person, I have no TV, but I do still get to hear some of the news, and the last I had heard is that Geo-Orge is calling in the B 52's.

Tell me, oh one of dubious insult, what do you think that they are used for??

The only difference between "Shooting fish in a barrel", and what Geo-Ogre is about to do, is, well NOTHING, 'cept this time it is innocent men women and children, in 'the barrel'!

So you admit to speaking without accurate information. The vast majority of Baghdad is untouched. The B-52's are not dropping bombs, they are launching stand-off precision guided cruise missiles. This reduces a B-52's explosive payload by more than an order of magnitude. These missiles are landing almost exclusively in a small part of western Baghdad occupied by government buildings. Most of these have been destroyed, and the bombing, which has dropped off significantly, is now targetted mostly on army barracks on the outskirts of town. This is not saturation bombing.

But you did not know; you were in doubt. Your philosophy seems to be, when in doubt, spout the most insulting thing about the US that you can think of.

Njorl

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

missed it big time Norjl, try this one...

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6174050%255E25777,00.html

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

From the site linked above.. (h**p://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6174050%255E25777,00.html)

This lovely quotation;

"Dozens of missiles and bombs rained down between nine and 10pm. A final wave of attacks by low flying jet fighters at 10.30pm was the ultimate proof of how defenceless Baghdad really is."

So you think that I am somehow wrong for thinking that attacking people, with/by the last standing superpower in the world, DEFENCELESS PEOPLE, is wrong?, anti American? to be pro American you must think that slaughtering defenceless people is, what?? GOOD? (YA NUTS?)

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
missed it big time Norjl, try this one...

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6174050%255E25777,00.html

Did you bother reading this? It is almost an exact description of what I posted. I understand that as a French Canadien English is not your primary language, but perhaps you should restrict your comments to the things you do comprehend.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

I can see from the last bit of history that America has a certain element that promotes a sort of 'cultural imperialism', in which America sets teh rules for everyone else. This 'war' is just one aspect of it...there will likely be much more in teh works.

 

[Alias]

Inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the content of America's "cultural imperialism". What a horror to beset on the world? Good grief!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Alias
Inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the content of America's "cultural imperialism". What a horror to beset on the world? Good grief!

Do other cultures not have the right to self-determination. And how do you deal with the idea that a free, democratic world might tell America to take a hike and keep to its own borders?

It is not the responsibility of the world to agree with the U.S..

 

[russ_watters]

Do other cultures not have the right to self-determination. And how do you deal with the idea that a free, democratic world might tell America to take a hike and keep to its own borders?

No country EVER given the gift of self-determination has EVER chosen tyranny over the principles Alias outlined. EVERY country we have set up a government in has CHOSEN these principles through self-determination.

Furthermore, those principles are the ONLY ones compatible with the concept of self-determination itself.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
No country EVER given self-determination has EVER chosen tyranny over the principles Alias outlined. EVERY country we have set up a government in has CHOSEN these principles through self-determination.

Furthermore, those principles are the ONLY ones compatible with the concept of self-determination itself.

I would disagree with your idea that those principles are somehow the single 'magic bullet' for government, but besides that, do we believe that other nations can be democratic, and yet oppose teh US?

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by russ_watters
No country EVER given the gift of self-determination has EVER chosen tyranny over the principles Alias outlined. EVERY country we have set up a government in has CHOSEN these principles through self-determination.

Furthermore, those principles are the ONLY ones compatible with the concept of self-determination itself.

Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo all reached power via democratic means. Tojo never had to rely on an illegitimate power structure to maintain his power; he was always a democratically supported tyrant. Several years ago, Algeria was conducting its first free and fair elections. They were canceled because the party that was going to win, the Muslim Fundamentalists, had as part of their platform the abolishment of democracy.

Njorl

 

[Alias]

No one suggested anything regarding "magic bullets".

Democratic countries can and do oppose us on many issues. In fact, it's quite the latest fad.

Just to bring this back into perspective...

While all of the facts are not in yet, it appears that coalition troops have captured a 100 acre chemical weapons manufacturing facility.

This is precisely why an invasion was necessary. We couldn't see it from the air and the UN inspectors were totally oblivious. It is also another indicator of the untrustworthiness of Saddam's regime. I hope that this finally puts the debate about whether or not invasion is necessary to rest.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Alias
No one suggested anything regarding "magic bullets".

Democratic countries can and do oppose us on many issues. In fact, it's quite the latest fad.

Just to bring this back into perspective...

While all of the facts are not in yet, it appears that coalition troops have captured a 100 acre chemical weapons manufacturing facility.

This is precisely why an invasion was necessary. We couldn't see it from the air and the UN inspectors were totally oblivious. It is also another indicator of the untrustworthiness of Saddam's regime. I hope that this finally puts the debate about whether or not invasion is necessary to rest.

Are we sure about it being a WEAPON factory? Clinton blew up one of those, once, that turned out to be the source of some 40-50% of all the medicine in Sudan. I'm not buying it until someone outside the U.S. confirms it.

 

[russ_watters]

Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo all reached power via democratic means.

That is misleading (at best) and you know it. Hitler for example murdered the entire government of Germany to gain dictatorial power. It doesn't matter if he won an election once. The German people did NOT choose Hitler to be a dictator. Let me add to clarify, that for something to be a choice it has to be an INFORMED choice. Certainly it could be possible to TRICK someone into voting for a dictator, but that is NOT self-determination.

Algeria was conducting its first free and fair elections. They were canceled because the party that was going to win, the Muslim Fundamentalists, had as part of their platform the abolishment of democracy.

Never head that one. But I suspect there is more to it than that.

...do we believe that other nations can be democratic, and yet oppose teh US?

Certainly. Germany is democratic. I never said that every democratic nation would agree with the US in every occasion.

No one suggested anything regarding "magic bullets".

I would disagree with your idea that those principles are somehow the single 'magic bullet' for government

Though I'm not sure I agree with the term "magic bullet" those principles are inherrent to democracy. Democracy cannot exist (and work) without them. Other types of governments have tried to have those principles without democracy, but success has been limited (at best). I *DO* tend to think that those principles are not possible without democracy.

Trying to apply those principles to most other forms of government only leads to oxymorons like "free dictatorship" or "lassez-faire socialism."

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by russ_watters

Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo all reached power via democratic means.

That is misleading (at best) and you know it. Hitler for example murdered the entire government of Germany to gain dictatorial power. It doesn't matter if he won an election once. The German people did NOT choose Hitler to be a dictator. Let me add to clarify, that for something to be a choice it has to be an INFORMED choice. Certainly it could be possible to TRICK someone into voting for a dictator, but that is NOT self-determination.

It is not misleading. We have sanctified democracy here in the US, but it is more fragile that you might think.

Hitler became chancellor, head of government, by purely democratic means. He did not murder the rest of the government (the reichstag building was empty when it burned down). He used the chancellorship to manipulate the press. In the next general election, the Nazis, with their closely allied Nationalist party formed a majority coalition. They passed the Enabling Act in 1933, making Hitler dictator(legislative and executive only, no military control) for four years. The deal that also gave him the presidency required him to murder his own staunchest followers. On June 30th, 1934 he slaughtered the leadership of his brownshirts, or SA. He made this deal with the military and industrial leaders. With the brownshirts defunct, the military supported him. President von Hindenburg, convinced by the military, named Hitler vice-president. Hindenburg died, leaving Hitler as head of state, military commander-in-chief, and dictator. All of this was done in compliance with the democratic process. Only the next step, declaring himself dictator for life, or Fuhrer, was non-democratic.


Njorl

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Njorl
So you admit to speaking without accurate information. The vast majority of Baghdad is untouched. The B-52's are not dropping bombs, they are launching stand-off precision guided cruise missiles. This reduces a B-52's explosive payload by more than an order of magnitude. These missiles are landing almost exclusively in a small part of western Baghdad occupied by government buildings. Most of these have been destroyed, and the bombing, which has dropped off significantly, is now targetted mostly on army barracks on the outskirts of town. This is not saturation bombing.

But you did not know; you were in doubt. Your philosophy seems to be, when in doubt, spout the most insulting thing about the US that you can think of.

Niether of the sites I linked specified Precision guided cruise missiles as the ONLY means, they both mention that the payloads can be either conventional bombs or precision bombs.

As in, From the "B 52's bombing" link;

Prime Baghdad real estate along the west bank of the River Tigris came under devastating attack with buildings destroyed one after another, missiles and bombs ploughing into them throwing wreckage high into the air.

And from the "B 52's" link

A Reuters eyewitness saw two of the giant bombers, which can carry a massive payload of bombs and cruise missiles, lifting off from the Fairford airbase in Gloucestershire at 6:23 a.m. EST.

So your next posting...

Originally posted by Norjl

Did you bother reading this? It is almost an exact description of what I posted. I understand that as a French Canadien English is not your primary language, but perhaps you should restrict your comments to the things you do comprehend.

This is what you are doing,

Originally stated by Norjl
"So you admit to speaking without accurate information."

And this is my signature at work, as you are the one speaking without accurate information, especially that french Canadian thing, as I was brought up in a household that spoke only english,(learned french in school, and at work!) all my life, so. to quote you again, (as in take your own advice)

Originally stated by Norjl

but perhaps you should restrict your comments to the things you do comprehend.

Follow your own advise Norjl

 

[Ganshauk]

I can hem-haw and get all political, I may cry "Oppression!" and point to diabolical regimes.

I would be quite right in doing so.

However, the personal justification of this war, IMHO, lies elsewhere.

The human race is much like a pack of lemmings. We multiply and consume, it is our nature. Historically, we tend to beat upon our neighbors like a rising tide beats upon a rockbound shore, growing ever more violent as the moon waxes. Finally, there is a bursting point when we all line up in militaristic formation and decimate each other in a supreme act of jumping off the cliff. This tendency is marked by a rise in global population by an order of magnitude. The greater the procrastination for this purge, the more terrible it tends to be.

And, brothers and sisters, we are overdue by almost three decades. This, IMO, is due to the spectre of nuclear war, making the natural progression of war into a total extermination of the species - an anathema no one can countenance - except terrorists.

No matter how nasty it gets (and it is bound to be nasty - whether in this decade or the next) it is better than total extermination. I would rather have an unjustifiable war of attrition, conducted with the preservation of the species in mind, than a righteous extermination any day!

That is why I believe in this war - and the next two to come. We can be perceived as evil, empiristic, war mongering - it doesn't matter. As long as we can vent the valve of social pressure before the world rips itself into minute radioactive granules I am content.

 

[russ_watters]

It is not misleading.

Nice explanation (for the most part). You know the facts better than I do. But where exactly do you see that Hitler was elected "Fuhrer"? You said he was elected "Chancellor." If he wasn't elected "Fuhrer" he was *NOT* an elected dictator.

We have sanctified democracy here in the US, but it is more fragile that you might think.

Every system has weaknesses, but again, that implies that the SYSTEM failed. Unless he was elected to the position of dictator. He was not. Whether he exploited weakensses in the system or just destroyed it, he was still NOT an elected dictator.

Just some nitpicks:

Only the next step, declaring himself dictator for life, or Fuhrer, was non-democratic.

The deal that also gave him the presidency required him to murder his own staunchest followers. On June 30th, 1934 he slaughtered the leadership of his brownshirts, or SA.

So murder is a democratic process? In any case, even if only that final act were undemocratic, that still means he became a dictator undemocratically.

Robin, Njorl erred (but only slightly). We HAVE dropped bombs on Baghdad. HOWEVER, for the first time ever, EVERY bomb dropped on Bhagdad is guided.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters

Robin, Njorl erred (but only slightly). We HAVE dropped bombs on Baghdad. HOWEVER, for the first time ever, EVERY bomb dropped on Bhagdad is guided.

Firstly, I doubt that, the cost is prohibitive, and the forces had just tested a new explosive that was two pallets of explosive pushed out of the back of a transport plane, "biggest yet" (non Nuke) I had heard, but certainly the only 'guidance' was the plane carrying it.

But that is not the mistake Njorl made, that is what I responded to.

Originally posted by Njorl

So you admit to speaking without accurate information.(truncated)

Tell me where I have done that! That is what I object to, the false characterization, based upon assumption on Njorl's part

Please, Njorl, forgive me the misspelling in my last several post, your name, I'll try to get it right. (TX)

 

[russ_watters]

Firstly, I doubt that, the cost is prohibitive, and the forces had just tested a new explosive that was two pallets of explosive pushed out of the back of a transport plane, "biggest yet" (non Nuke) I had heard, but certainly the only 'guidance' was the plane carrying it.

We haven't dropped a moab in Iraq. And our commanders (Bush himself too I think) have stated explicitly that EVERY bomb and missile fired and dropped on Baghdad has been guided. If you don't believe them, then there is nothing to argue - no evidence to contradict it. It is also *NOT* cost prohibitive to have 12 times the bombing efficiency as we did in the first Gulf War. (Bombing efficiency is targets serviced per mission).

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ganshauk
I can hem-haw and get all political, I may cry "Oppression!" and point to diabolical regimes.

I would be quite right in doing so.

However, the personal justification of this war, IMHO, lies elsewhere.

The human race is much like a pack of lemmings. We multiply and consume, it is our nature. Historically, we tend to beat upon our neighbors like a rising tide beats upon a rockbound shore, growing ever more violent as the moon waxes. Finally, there is a bursting point when we all line up in militaristic formation and decimate each other in a supreme act of jumping off the cliff. This tendency is marked by a rise in global population by an order of magnitude. The greater the procrastination for this purge, the more terrible it tends to be.

And, brothers and sisters, we are overdue by almost three decades. This, IMO, is due to the spectre of nuclear war, making the natural progression of war into a total extermination of the species - an anathema no one can countenance - except terrorists.

No matter how nasty it gets (and it is bound to be nasty - whether in this decade or the next) it is better than total extermination. I would rather have an unjustifiable war of attrition, conducted with the preservation of the species in mind, than a righteous extermination any day!

That is why I believe in this war - and the next two to come. We can be perceived as evil, empiristic, war mongering - it doesn't matter. As long as we can vent the valve of social pressure before the world rips itself into minute radioactive granules I am content.

Ummm...ok, thanks for sharing, Ganshauk. That was interesting, if nothing else.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

I think that one reason that so many millions of people oppose this action is the numerous lies of the Bush admin. about Iraqi nuclear weapons.
Seems like they wouldn't have to lie if there were true justification for engagement.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters

We haven't dropped a moab in Iraq. And our commanders (Bush himself too I think) have stated explicitly that EVERY bomb and missile fired and dropped on Baghdad has been guided. If you don't believe them, then there is nothing to argue - no evidence to contradict it. It is also *NOT* cost prohibitive to have 12 times the bombing efficiency as we did in the first Gulf War. (Bombing efficiency is targets serviced per mission).

Firstly Mr. watters, as I asked you before please tell us all who you are quoting, (Heck, the system does it for your!) secondly, I do not really trust your President, don't trust people who have such flagrant disreguard for the rules of law, at these levels of operation.

Yes, is is cost prohibitive to have greater efficiency, as that efficiency has come at a cost of refitting some those weapons with guidance rocket motors (JSAID's?? is that the new acronym??) and your "Bombing efficiency is targets per mission service" try please to recall that there are people there, people who will die as a result of the "increased Bombing efficiency".

It doesn't really matter how efficient you are, you are at war, and wars are NOT really 'efficient' at anything other then killing, and relative to what side of the law you are on, invaded or invader, you are killing in self defence, or murdering in an act of invasive aggression, respectively...the US is, currently, the active, aggressive, Invader.

The Iraqi's are, at this time, the defenders of there own Freedoms, defending their homeland, and peoples, against a hostile and aggressive invasionary force, the United States of America, the ones clearly in violation of the law!

Entropia, really liked that one, Ha! Ha!

 

[damgo]

That whole Onion is fantastic! I loved the Point-Counterpoint...

"This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher"?

It won't.

"It will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western (i.e. U.S.) influence"?

Not really.

"A war against Iraq is not only morally wrong, it will be an unmitigated disaster"?

Sorry, no, I disagree.

"To take over a country and impose one's own system of government without regard for the people of that country is the very antithesis of democracy"?

You are completely wrong.

Trust me, it's all going to work out perfect. Nothing bad is going to happen. It's all under control.

Why do you keep saying these things? I can tell when there's trouble looming, and I really don't sense that right now. We're in control of this situation, and we know what we're doing. So stop being so pessimistic.

Look, you've been proven wrong, so stop talking. You've had your say already.

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
It doesn't really matter how efficient you are, you are at war, and wars are NOT really 'efficient' at anything other then killing, and relative to what side of the law you are on, invaded or invader, you are killing in self defence, or murdering in an act of invasive aggression, respectively...the US is, currently, the active, aggressive, Invader.

And we are going out of our way to only kill those loyal(guilty) to Saddam. Also, believe it or not, all of this is in the defense of the average Iraqi citizen.

The Iraqi's are, at this time, the defenders of there own Freedoms, defending their homeland, and peoples, against a hostile and aggressive...

...dictatorial regime. Please see Basra.

 

[russ_watters]

I do not really trust your President, don't trust people who have such flagrant disreguard for the rules of law, at these levels of operation.

Who then do you trust? Do you implicitly trust Saddam Hussein?

Also, the reason I quote the way I do is a combination of habit, laziness, and utility. If you don't like it, tough. :)

 

[kyleb]

to implicitly trust anyone is to ignore the nature of humanity.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by a lazy russ_watters

Who then do you trust? Do you implicitly trust Saddam Hussein?

What/whom I trust, is the Truth, all the rest is lies, and I do not trust them!

Originally posted by Alias

And we are going out of our way to only kill those loyal(guilty) to Saddam. Also, believe it or not, all of this is in the defense of the average Iraqi citizen.

Biggest piece of propaganda'd BS I have had to listen to all along, when do you admit that that is the MAIN LIE!


And it's selling point...

Originally posted by Alias

...dictatorial regime. Please see Basra.

Lets see, Saddams Country, A Republic BTW, is composed of three divisions of people, the ****es in the south, the Kurds in the North, and the majority of the rest of the citizens, (Sunni's is it, or is it Shi_ah) the ones who support Saddam, and have all along, live in the more central region of that little slice of Allah's Garden.

Those 'Middle dwellers' are the ones that the American media have almost never reported on, when their representation (Saddam) wanted equal time, in the propaganda war that Geo-Ogre ran, Geo-Ogre said 'No', probably out of fear that some of the truth would leak out and people might just have gotten to hear the other side of the story.

Then you might have gotten the notion that his nation has internal division that are what has been played out as if there were cause to topple him, when in fact it would be analogous to the divisions in the US, the North and the South, and someone else financing the South to "Rise again" against the North, attempting to ressurect a civil War, internally, in the US, and useing that as an excuse to INVADE the US, as to liberate those 'Poor Southern peoples from that oh so oppressive government, that is Dictating their every way of life'

Some of you swallow it just a little to quickly, in the name of the "Fatherland" (Patriotism!) no less.

You are being burned by your own devotion to your own ideological beliefs in your nation, your patriotism is being held against you to get you all to feel good about committing a criminal act of Bloody WAR

 

[russ_watters]

to implicitly trust anyone is to ignore the nature of humanity

Thats cute, kyle, but you dodge the question. Do you trust Hussein, (implicitly or otherwise)? WHO do you trust?

Originally posted by a lazy russ_watters

Sue me.

What/whom I trust, is the Truth, all the rest is lies, and I do not trust them!

How do you know what is truth and what is lies? WHO is speaking the truth and who is speaking lies? Most people start with a predetermined assumption of trust or mistrust in a source and then declare everything that comes from that source is absolute truth or absolute lies. Thats backwards. And it would seem that is the line of reasoning here.

Lets see, Saddams Country, A Republic...

If you really believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Are you saying you believe the results of his recent "election?" If you do, you have problems with reality that I can't even begin to help you with.

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
What/whom I trust, is the Truth, all the rest is lies, and I do not trust them!

Oh please, great holder of the truth, enlighten us!

Lets see, Saddams Country, A Republic BTW, ...

Saddam got 99% of the vote in the last election. What conclusions about Iraqs 'Republic' can you draw from that fact?

Those 'Middle dwellers' are the ones that the American media have almost never reported on, when their representation (Saddam) wanted equal time, in the propaganda war that Geo-Ogre ran, Geo-Ogre said 'No', probably out of fear that some of the truth would leak out and people might just have gotten to hear the other side of the story.

So Bush should have accepted the offer to debate Hussein? What a joke!

Let me get this straight...

Saddam is not a dictator.
Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction.
99% of Iraqi people love Saddam.
Saddam doesn't brutalize his people.
Canada is "where it's at". (Oh, brother!)

 

[russ_watters]

Saddam got 99% of the vote in the last election. What conclusions about Iraqs 'Republic' can you draw from that fact?

You sure about that, Alias? Thats not what I remember hearing. I heard he got exactly 100%.

Why yes, as a matter of fact, I AM a professional hairsplitter.

 

[Alias]

Thanks for flushing my credibility down the toilet, Russ. Now, instead of people characterizing me as being a smart-ass and a dickhead, I'm just a dickhead!

Alias <--- off to delete cookies and become born again at PF.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by a sarcastic and lazy russ_watters

How do you know what is truth and what is lies? WHO is speaking the truth and who is speaking lies? Most people start with a predetermined assumption of trust or mistrust in a source and then declare everything that comes from that source is absolute truth or absolute lies. Thats backwards. And it would seem that is the line of reasoning here.

Lets see, I dervive the "truth of it" from as many sources as I can, from what presents itself as the most reasonable and logical representation of the fitting together of the description, with the self evident truths, the facts.

Apparently you, Mr. Watter, do not follow that pathway, as you didn't know how I did it till I told you, and the only other manner that you would know, would be the method that "arises from within you", your statement, that I have quoted above

So your Assumption, in green, is (not unlike you?) False!

Alais, your sarcastic responcivness is, simply put, not worth the effort! as it clearly reveals that you are apathetic to the words of others.

Since clearly you do not care, why do you bother, or is it that you amuse yourself...after all, "small things amuse..."

 

[russ_watters]

Robin, you still dodge the question. There are many instances in which allegations CANNOT be independantly verified. If you see an allegation from Saddam and a counter-allegation from Bush with no confirmation of either from a 3rd party, which are you more likely to believe?

I believe you dodge the question because we both know the answer already.

Lets see, I dervive the "truth of it" from as many sources as I can, from what presents itself as the most reasonable and logical representation of the fitting together of the description, with the self evident truths, the facts.

So is it "reasonable and logical" to consider Iraq a Republic? Or just "self evident"?

 

[N_Quire]

Russ,
Truth is what America is doing. Lies are what the Iraqis present us with. That's how we want to see it. Which of course is a lie, or perhaps the truth. Who knows? But I don't want Saddam to win.

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons

Alais, your sarcastic responcivness is, simply put, not worth the effort! as it clearly reveals that you are apathetic to the words of others.

Since clearly you do not care, why do you bother, or is it that you amuse yourself...after all, "small things amuse..."

It was not all sarcasm. In fact, the revelation is that I am sympathetic in that I did respond to your words. Go look up the word, 'sympathetic'.

I do care. The fact that I am amusing does not discount that.

It seems that you spend too much time deriding the opinions of others. It might benefit us all if you spent more time proposing solutions.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

28/03/2003

Alias, let's try it this way,instead of telling me that Saddam got 99% of the vote, tell me how many people that actually was, minus the ~23,000,000 that live there.

Lets see, the UN authiorized the allotment of 1 Billion dollars/per ninety days from oil revenues, @ 23 Million people, that works out to $43.48/per person/per ninety days, which works out to about $0.43 (cents!)per person/per day/per purchasing of the food/per transportation/per distribution/per person/per day!

Not bad in a country that has 112,000,000,000 barrels of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia.

Lets see, in the last US election ~100 million people voted, out of a possible ~280 million people, less then 40%. Of that, less then half voted for George, as Gore is known to have won the "Popular" vote, just that the Electoral Colleges held "Legal" sway, so George got in on less then 20% of the US's population's expression of self.

Not bad in a country that Consumes ~19 Million barrels of oil, per day.

You should support your boys, get them out off there, and back home, safe, where they belong.

God Bless America! (Please)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Robin, you still dodge the question. There are many instances in which allegations CANNOT be independantly verified. If you see an allegation from Saddam and a counter-allegation from Bush with no confirmation of either from a 3rd party, which are you more likely to believe?

I believe you dodge the question because we both know the answer already.

So is it "reasonable and logical" to consider Iraq a Republic? Or just "self evident"?

Actually Russ, what I tend to do if I do not have enough information to make an ascertation, I don't...it's as simple as that, and, generally speaking (God's Grace in my life) I admit to that.

As for labeling Iraq's Status as a nation, 'we' generally use the appropriate notion, it is a "Republic" (set up and administratively) to the best of anyone’s knowledge. It's internal affairs, and administration, is only our business 'insomuch as' we would, collectively, attempt to have the administration of law prevail, as that is how we ALL find Justice!...simple as that

 

[Alias]

I'm repeating myself for the benefit of Mr. Parsons.

Saddam Hussein is untrustworthy and probably has weapons of mass destruction.

Human Rights Watch says Saddam Hussein is responsible for the murder of over 250,000 people.

Those two reasons should be enough for us to tear his regime down.