Well this is related to Russia, since they're against it. I'm surprised nobody has started this topic yet. What's everybody's opinions? Also cast your vote! :lol:
Printable View
Well this is related to Russia, since they're against it. I'm surprised nobody has started this topic yet. What's everybody's opinions? Also cast your vote! :lol:
I don't support this war, I don't support usa.
I hate the fact that the way the world is today, it is difficult to say you're against the war without been accused of being anti-american.
I like America very much, but I am completely behind Russia on this one. This war is a huge mistake. The outcome of this war isn't in doubt, but by starting this war, George Bush has probably started the biggest ever membership drive in Al Qaeda's history.
This is not a happy time....
Phil
It seems the left is only aware of the bad things that the war will result in. The war will result in some really nasty things, but you have to realize this: without a war, we would have a disaster
kinda with you on that one V
First of all, I would like to express a slightly different view, though one that is more common in Australia.
I do not support the USA's school yard bully tactics. What would happen if the rest of the world though that Geroge Bush was bad for his country and a threat to world peace (Which he is) and as such the rest of the world came in and attempted regime change??? I bet he wouldn't like that.
The UN weponds inspectors where doing there job. The UN was handling it (Admit idly the US pressuring Iraq had a lot to do with there co-operation).
Should the UN weponds inspectors feel they where being hampered, and then the US submitted another resolution to the UN saying that Iraq was in breach of the accord, and a vote was then taken on, and passed, then a group of UN backed countries could go in and force Iraq to disarm.
This war is as Illegal as Iraqs invasion of Kuwate, but, will the US, Australia, and the UK be held responsible for there illegal actions? I truly hope so.
This is a sad day for international co-operation, the United Nations, and world stability.
As an Australian I feel discrased that our leader is just as stupied and dumb as Americas, may be even more so because he is just following like a sheep.
Everyone is saying this war is bad but they are not saying what exactly is bad about this. Except for V.
Iraq terrorized Kuwate, so why should they be spared against US's attacks. They are terrorists (not speaking of the average citizens, who are victems). I know this war doesn't directly relate to 9/11, but that day opened Bush's eyes to terrorists in general, like Sadam. Knowone can trust Sadam, he has proven that. Bush is doing his duty as president. He wants the best for his country. War with Iraq brings all nations closer to peace in the long run, and even the people of Iraq. Bush is a strong president, this is what I think, and until someone can convince me otherwize, Im sticking to it.
You are 100% right russkayalove. Besides, I think if the victims of Saddam Hussein, the Kuwaiti people and the Iraqi people both want him gone and approve of US military action against Saddam Hussein, so what right does France and Germany and Russia have to say no? Saddam Hussain has literally killed millions of people, used weapons of mass destruction, caused irreparable environmental damage and broken several UN treaties. I think it is time he is either killed or brought to justice.
And do realize that there are 40 countries supporting this war, so don't refer to this is as "US action" anymore.
I want to see if you will have the same opinions against the war when all those archives are opened up revealing the attrocities committed by this despot.
I for one am getting sick of the word terrorist. It is now a term that the USA uses to describe any one it hates.
The USA is no more or less of a terrorist organization that Al quata or what ever the hell they call them selfs.
The USA does some pretty dam nasty stuff to people around the world where they have no business, the best example is the palistinians suffering at the hands of the jews, and it's the USA in the UN that continually use it's veto to protect israel against UN condemnation and action.
I'm not saying what Osama Bin Lardins mob did was right, What I'm trying to say is that it's not as clear cut as most of the American public are lead to bereave, and if citizen of the USA beleaves that there counties is moral and just, then they are only kidding them selfs.
Well I would agree with you on the Israel-Palestine issue. I am not against Jews or any religion but I feel that there is too much Jewish influence in American politics and this is causing them to turn a blind eye to the Palestineans. I don't want Israelis thrown out of Israel but at the same time, I would like to see the creation of a Palestinian state.Quote:
Originally Posted by z80
Do Russians (as a whole society) have an opinion on this?
So, the war began. Welcome to the age of new colonialism and oppression of poor countries by the rich ones! Back to the 19th century...
I'm not against the war because I support Saddam Hussein, I am against the war because the Bush/ Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Ashcroft/ Perle et al neoconservative new world order movement scares the hell out of me.
it scares me too.
i cannot see any reason, why they started this war. Hussein did not do anything against the us. he did not attack them. of course he is a dictator, but iraquis have to get rid of him themselves. they have to make revolution or something.
the us always think, they are some kind of "world police". they should keep out of other countries businesses.
and by the way: this war is not supposed to be a help for the iraque people - it is about money and oil. it is supposed to make mister bush feel a bit more powerful.
and history teaches us, that the us always started unprovoked, useless wars....
Uh, France Germany and Russia have a right to say whatever they want. That is the purpose of the UN Security Council. It's not called the US Security Council.Quote:
You are 100% right russkayalove. Besides, I think if the victims of Saddam Hussein, the Kuwaiti people and the Iraqi people both want him gone and approve of US military action against Saddam Hussein, so what right does France and Germany and Russia have to say no?
Well, great. Here is a list of people who also should have been preemptively killed or brought to justice by your logic:Quote:
Saddam Hussain has literally killed millions of people, used weapons of mass destruction, caused irreparable environmental damage and broken several UN treaties. I think it is time he is either killed or brought to justice.
Pinochet in Chile
Armas in Guatemala
The Shah of Iran
Mobuto in Zaire
Velasco in Ecuador
Goulart in Brazil
Arosemana in Ecuador
Suharto in Indonesia
Papandreous in Greece
Torres in Bolivia
They executed, tortured, kidnapped, raped, and imprisoned more people than Saddam ever has. Know what the difference is? We put them there. Saddam used to be on that list, but then he bit the hand that fed him.
Yes, countries like Latvia and Poland. It is only the insignificant countries like China, Russia and Germany that are opposed to it. I'm sure Lithuania's contribution of five-dollar gift certificates to the war effort will be greatly appreciated. Why don't you research how many of these countries are going to be getting financial aid from the US as part of next year's budget?Quote:
And do realize that there are 40 countries supporting this war, so don't refer to this is as "US action" anymore.
Who? Saddam or us? The government usually declassifies their atrocities every ten years or so, and this information can be found by the Freedom of Information Act. Except Reagan's White House papers. Bush successfully blocked their release a year or two ago for some reason (probably because of incriminating stuff against his daddy). Why don't you ask someone who had a family member killed by SAVAK or Mossad how much the US cares about installing peace-loving democracies in the Middle East.Quote:
I want to see if you will have the same opinions against the war when all those archives are opened up revealing the attrocities committed by this despot.
Oh, were Bush's eyes closed when the White House blocked an FBI attempt to investigate the bin Laden family in early 2001? How come one month before 9/11 the US failed to secure an oil pipeline contract with the Taleban--a group that knowingly harbored al-Qaeda yet we kept sending billions of dollars to until late 2001?Quote:
Iraq terrorized Kuwate, so why should they be spared against US's attacks. They are terrorists (not speaking of the average citizens, who are victems). I know this war doesn't directly relate to 9/11, but that day opened Bush's eyes to terrorists in general, like Sadam. Knowone can trust Sadam, he has proven that. Bush is doing his duty as president. He wants the best for his country. War with Iraq brings all nations closer to peace in the long run, and even the people of Iraq.
Strong? Give me a break. He can't even eat a pretzel and watch television at the same time.Quote:
Bush is a strong president, this is what I think, and until someone can convince me otherwize, Im sticking to it.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bush.htm
Edit: Wrote Mossadegh, meant Shah.
I support this war. No one in their right minds wants to just have a war. There is a time and place for everything. So the question should be, "Is now the time for war?"
I think the greatest potential enemy for any body(country) are the people who live inside it. Fear and unuinity will bring down a nation much faster than a small group of terrorists armed with a couple of dollars and razor blades. Terrorists know this, how come we don't? Do you know what it means to "be in terror?" They didn't give them the name for fun. Most of the damage of wars this century will come from what and how people chose to do after the fact.
I support the war and I support Russia. I hope people who are against this war will not be bitter about the USA and will keep our relations going strong. If people make stupid comments and their hearts become hardened then the greatest damage was never done by any terrorist cell, regime, or war. Instead, we caused the downfall of the world.
[Quote=Mike]Have you choked on food before? I guess not because that must make you a p**** too. I dont think I will comment anymore on that. I think the foolshness is as evident as the sun is bright.Quote:
Strong? Give me a break. He can't even eat a pretzel and watch television at the same time.
[Quote=z80]Thats right. We enjoy beating women, ethnic clensing, and starting holy wars.Quote:
The USA is no more or less of a terrorist organization that Al quata or what ever the hell they call them selfs.
[Quote=z80]That's right. They were doing their job. They were taken around like lapdogs asked to sniff their noses in playgrounds, people's lunch boxes, and underwear. This is always an interesting comment that usually younger people make who have not been around long enough to have learned Saddam's trustworthiness and his character from history. But if you want to believe that Saddam was "born again" and decided to love his neighbor instead of cutting his tounge out then thats fine. The truth is the whole world knows he has weapons. I don't think this fact was ever in question. The real question to the world was, should we do anything about it? That was and always is the real question! The start of WWII was the same. Germany was told that it was not supposed to go over a certain number of military arms and it did. The world knew it and decided to do nothing about it. The United States as well did nothing and acted much to late. I can't help thinking the same with Iraq, that this was a ticking bomb about to go off. Oh and P.S. I am sure if we had weapons inspectors back then, they would have done just as well as today. :-)Quote:
The UN weponds inspectors where doing there job. The UN was handling it
[Quote=V]My opinion is that everyone was holding their breathe waiting for someone to(in my opinion) make a mistake and open the door to a hell. Instead of building eachother up and coming to rational conclusions we have all inheareted from the media bickering attitudes that will not build us up nor the world.Quote:
Well this is related to Russia, since they're against it. I'm surprised nobody has started this topic yet. What's everybody's opinions? Also cast your vote!
your friend,
Redchupacabra
Rahul, Im glad we can agree on some things :wink: , but you think there is too much Jewish influence in American government, and thats how you draw a conclusion about the Israel-Palestein situation? If there is any religous beleif that influences America's government, its definately not that of Jewish.
It is apparant that many feel as though American people are brainwashed by their government, but where do you get these ideas from, your government? I could just as easily say you are brainwashed as well. Many of us are here to learn about Russia, Right? So we ask questions, many of which are directed toward people who live there, or are from there. Why, because they would know first hand. America is extremely diverse, and we all have an opinion of our own about what our government is doing. People in other countries have a right to their opinion about America as well, but it is suprizing to me to see how many people think they know so much about this countries citizens. Who tells you these things? I honestly don't think anyone can really know better about the citizens of a country than a citizen himself. Some citizens here agree with what Bush is doing, yet many dont, and clearly voice their opion about it, which they have the right to do. The bottom line, the government is not the people, the people are not the government, and one person is not every person.
Here are my thoughts.
In this war USA are only invaders. Those one puprose is to gain access to oil and to take control over asiatic countries such as Saudi arabia, India, China and others. Territory of Iraq is very comfortable to locate arms and weapons of mass destruction (but this one is not needed) and by means of it they will be able to use it as argument while contacting with other countries. But it is not enough just to begin the war. There must be a reason. And USA thought up that reason. They said that it is a citadel of terrorism, that Saddam has weapon of mass destruction, that he kill many people. Because of it they decided to eliminate whole Iraq.
But who they are these terrorists? I suppose that it is little boys that have one "hobby"to kill and explode people. Not for something, just for pleasure. But usually people want just to live and with no having any problems. A man kill a man only if he can get a big advantage. When do terrorists can get any advantages while killing somebody? Only if they recieve money for it (or when they avenge). I doubt that when I would come to USA and explode a building my bank account will grow up. Terrorism is not profitable for Asia. Terrorism was made by USA as argument against any country and only USA pay for it.
Saddam has weapon of mass destruction? And what is the problem? Russia do have it too, China do, England do. Why they do not offer to disarm Russia, China, England? How about USA?
If Saddam killes his citizens it is only internal problem of Iraq. It is not a deal of USA. Problems of any country can be solved only by the whole world (United Nations Organization). They can send there their people and to make control over citizens' security. But USA prefers not to listen to other countries. They begin war with no advices and only because of it I call them invaders.
But it was not a mistake. Bush knows what he wants. He needs country that will belong only to him, not to UN. This war is not only for oil. This war is for whole world power. And after that war there will be others. With North Korea, India, Pakistan, somebody else and then it will be Russia. In the end of 21 century we will see the world with small heap of reach fat people in the US government and big amount of poor muddy beggers working for their profit.
Not only in USA, Rahul :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahul
But see your problem is your trying to reason insanity. There is nothing logical about terrorism or religious finaticisim. They don't share any profits. They are dead. It is all for an idea or cause. (Jihad). They have a belief that good things will happen to them. The problem with the approach is that we still haven't succesully crawled into the shoes of the teorririst himself, or maybe we would just rather not believe that people just like thousands of years ago declare holy wars and do the such. I am unsure though, if we honestly don't understand or we are affraid to come to grips that we may have to fight insanity itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tu-160
Wow, that is a big list. Is that all? The USA bent on world domination? Well if thats how other countries percieve us I am quite scared. Besides if other countries had participated I am sure the USA would have incorporated everyone to the reconstruction plan. Why should we give i.e. France a say so in the reconstruction. They gave nothing towards it why should they recieve any? There are 35 some countries that helped the coalition. You forget UK and Spain will have a say so in this as well. People keep referring to U.S. this, U.S. that but there are 35 other countries that have given their help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tu-160
Isn't it wonderful that some of the countries you mentioned are Democratic governments that comply and work to lower nuclear arms. There is a potential evil for any type of thing you compare. Guns. Guns are great. You can use them for getting your family food, or you can use them for evil. There is always a potential good and evil for everything. Therefore, now you might see why we would be scared about Saddam having a nuclear weapon versus Russia. Infact the inventor of the thompson machine gun realized this as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tu-160
Well, but see you contradicted yourself. If it is only problems of Iraq then neither USA or UN should do anything. And don't forget that if USA didn't want to listen to other countries or do this without respect they would have never went to the U.N. in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tu-160
Here is what I think. I think the U.N. if it can't follow up on its own decrees then its worthless. I believe it's a good humanitarian organization but it needs to be able to act. Infact I think that it needs reform and needs the ability to act. If it passes a law saying if Country A has X and uses X then Course of action B will be followed immediatly. But if they go in and vote on everything all over again just so it can be struck down there is a pointlessness problem.
Your friend,
Redchupacabra
P.S. I am thinking about working for the U.N. after colllege.
"Saddam has weapon of mass destruction? And what is the problem? Russia do have it too, China do, England do. Why they do not offer to disarm Russia, China, England? How about USA?"
To answer your question, Russia, China, and England do not terrorize other innocent countries, or harbor groups which do. Sadam is not innocent and cannot be trusted. People say the American government is the bully, but I always saw a bully as someone with more power who beats on an INNOCENT person whom of which is weaker. Everyone knows that Sadam is not innocent, he deserves whats come to him. I think America knows what a bully is, especially after 9/11 when innocent people were killed by them.
What the religion you are speaking about? Is it islam? But islam is very peaceful religion. A muslim never kill people. I live in islamic region of Russia and have many muslim friends. We do not fight with each other because of religion fanaticism. This insanity you are speaking about is simple banditry. And we can only guess who needed to change this peaceful religion so terribly. Can it be truth that this was made only to link banditry with moslem world? And who have brought up this behaviour?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redchupacabra
Yes, surely, they bent on world domination. They do not participate other countries. USA will be a stupid child if they will share their power with other countries. By the way, country and its government is not the same thing. When a government helps to other country it does not mean that it is profitable for this government and that citizens support this help. It is rather means that some members of this government have their own private profits. At least I use the example of Russia. I just want to say maybe USA incorporates some governments but not whole countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redchupacabra
It will be better that all countries would not have nuclear weapon. These countries work to lower, especially Russia. Within 5-7 years it will have no nuclear weapon (:lol:). But this sentense is not about USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redchupacabra
If idealize, then really, no one may touch internal problems of any country. But UN was created to help people. And if Iraqi people will not resist it have rights to help them. I doubt that Iraqis will begin fight with them. If so then they want to live with Saddam and we can do nothing. UN must go out. In any case Iraqis have much more rights to decide how to live than UN.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redchupacabra
Russkaylove: if you so surely say that 9/11 was made by Saddam then I will surely say that it was made by someone from US government. They got a perfect reason to call terrorists the whole world.
I wont respond to what you posted because I didn't come to those conclusions, did I? Muslim never kill peopole huh? Well unfortunatly there is proof your wrong. I would say go ask the victims of september 11th and maybe your country's moscow theatre crisis(but I could see that you could argue that they killed no one; that the government killed them all.) Religion doesn't kill people(physically speaking :lol: ) People kill people. Now I guess a Christian gone of the deep end could read about a story in the bible about delivering the Jews from the hands of their enemies, decide he was God, and went to kill everyone but the jewsh people. Where as an Muslim could read Surah chapter 9 "go out and lie in wait for the people of the book (jews, paegans, christians) smite them everywhere you see them." Then I guess he could join hizbullah or something and do the same. Oh and yes, I have an islamic friend as well so what? I think you are trying to put words in my mouth to make me look like a religious racist pig.
Well, I dont think so.
And it looks like we are going to prove my theory and just lock this forum.
Anyway, I probably wont be able to post for the next couple of days I will be working pretty much non stop. Best of luck.
Your friend,
Redchupacabra
Lots of comments about stupid American politics, why George Bush sucks, who we should do the same to...but I don't see many arguments against the war on Iraq.
I've never choked on food to the point where I black out for 20 minutes and injured my eye. He must've been really eager to swallow those Rold Golds.Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
1. Check out the domestic abuse statistics for the United States. Those numbers ain't low.Quote:
Originally Posted by z80
2. Ask a Cherokee about this one.
3. Ever hear of Manifest Destiny? How about the fact that when we first started the war on terrorism Bush called it a "crusade?" By the way, you're oversimplifying to say religion is the only reason terrorists attack. There are plenty of political reasons for it as well.
Uh, no. The inspectors were given free access to go anywhere they wanted, and the intelligence communities of the United States (among others) gave plenty of information to the inspectors about suspected sites. Know what happened? None of them turned out to be producing anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by z80
Yes, the world was doing something about it. By the way, in early January Ari Fleischer made a comment that the White House wanted regime change, not disarmament. Disarmament was just the excuse.Quote:
This is always an interesting comment that usually younger people make who have not been around long enough to have learned Saddam's trustworthiness and his character from history. But if you want to believe that Saddam was "born again" and decided to love his neighbor instead of cutting his tounge out then thats fine. The truth is the whole world knows he has weapons. I don't think this fact was ever in question. The real question to the world was, should we do anything about it? That was and always is the real question!
This is the most retarded argument made by people who support the war. Hitler made it perfectly clear in Mein Kampf that he wanted to reclaim all of the areas stolen from him in World War 1. Where is any microscopic strand of evidence Saddam Hussein is planning to conquer the world with these alleged weapons? Hitler also built up a strong army that we clearly knew about but violated the armistice agreement. Hussein's army is a collapsing piece of garbage that posed a minor threat 12 years ago and poses just about no threat today. Oh and P.S. the US not only knew about the weapons but helped build them. Henry Ford was personally responsible for financing and manufacturing illegal tanks and artillery for the Nazis and received Germany's highest civilian honor in the 30s for his service to the Fatherland.Quote:
The start of WWII was the same. Germany was told that it was not supposed to go over a certain number of military arms and it did. The world knew it and decided to do nothing about it. The United States as well did nothing and acted much to late. I can't help thinking the same with Iraq, that this was a ticking bomb about to go off. Oh and P.S. I am sure if we had weapons inspectors back then, they would have done just as well as today. :-)
Oh yeah, our media is just full of dissenting opinions.Quote:
My opinion is that everyone was holding their breathe waiting for someone to(in my opinion) make a mistake and open the door to a hell. Instead of building eachother up and coming to rational conclusions we have all inheareted from the media bickering attitudes that will not build us up nor the world.
Come on! Do you really think we support killing all god damned native Americans? Do you think we killed them? And do you think we give two sh*ts about what the f***ing war is called?
I would say there's nothing logical about religion in general, but that's just me.Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
People declared holy wars less than a thousand years ago. Take a look at the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or the conquest of Africa, South and North America.Quote:
They don't share any profits. They are dead. It is all for an idea or cause. (Jihad). They have a belief that good things will happen to them. The problem with the approach is that we still haven't succesully crawled into the shoes of the teorririst himself, or maybe we would just rather not believe that people just like thousands of years ago declare holy wars and do the such. I am unsure though, if we honestly don't understand or we are affraid to come to grips that we may have to fight insanity itself.
Like the US, which pulled out of the anti-proliferation treaty and is creating new types of weapons as we speak?Quote:
Isn't it wonderful that some of the countries you mentioned are Democratic governments that comply and work to lower nuclear arms.
The problem is, Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons. He has chemical weapons that he can only launch at most 100km. If a terrorist plans to use a nuclear weapon against the US or its allies it isn't going to be in a conventional bomb coming from someone as obvious as Iraq. It's going to be on a suitcase in a bus in downtown Manhattan. But we don't care about stopping those kinds of things. They aren't profitable.Quote:
There is a potential evil for any type of thing you compare. Guns. Guns are great. You can use them for getting your family food, or you can use them for evil. There is always a potential good and evil for everything. Therefore, now you might see why we would be scared about Saddam having a nuclear weapon versus Russia. Infact the inventor of the thompson machine gun realized this as well.
Public relations. The Security Council wouldn't authorize a resolution on Iraq unless it did not automatically authorize force. We agreed and it passed unanimously. Then we don't bother to even get a second resolution authorizing force and just invade.Quote:
Well, but see you contradicted yourself. If it is only problems of Iraq then neither USA or UN should do anything. And don't forget that if USA didn't want to listen to other countries or do this without respect they would have never went to the U.N. in the first place.
Yes, you're right. Unfortunately the most flagrant ignorer of UN conventions right now is the one we live in (with the exception of Israel, which has violated something like 32 resolutions). If the UN really wants to be relevant it will impose sanctions on the United States and bring people like Henry Kissinger and Ariel Sharon (actually it will, but until he is out of power he is immune) to the ICC to stand trial for war crimes. But this won't happen. The United States is above the UN, which is why we didn't bother trying to get a second UN resolution authorizing force and went ahead with our illegal war.Quote:
Here is what I think. I think the U.N. if it can't follow up on its own decrees then its worthless. I believe it's a good humanitarian organization but it needs to be able to act. Infact I think that it needs reform and needs the ability to act. If it passes a law saying if Country A has X and uses X then Course of action B will be followed immediatly. But if they go in and vote on everything all over again just so it can be struck down there is a pointlessness problem.
of course you killed them!
@ mike:
and i agree with you ( in almost every point ).
are you the one who studies history? if yes: did or did not the us support hitler with money and weapons? (wich could be compared to the situation with hussein)
and: when japan joined WWII the government of the usa had citizens of japanese origin put in camps?
It is funny that you used the NRA slogan for it. I guess in that capacity, religion is like a gun. A useful tool for controlling and scaring people. Ironically, many people who have one too often have the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by redchupacabra
Or if the Muslim wanted inspiration for his religious intolerance he could read Exodus 31:14, which says, "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people."Quote:
Now I guess a Christian gone of the deep end could read about a story in the bible about delivering the Jews from the hands of their enemies, decide he was God, and went to kill everyone but the jewsh people. Where as an Muslim could read Surah chapter 9 "go out and lie in wait for the people of the book (jews, paegans, christians) smite them everywhere you see them." Then I guess he could join hizbullah or something and do the same. Oh and yes, I have an islamic friend as well so what? I think you are trying to put words in my mouth to make me look like a religious racist pig.
Or 34:12, "Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves."
Or Leviticus 20:27, "A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them."
Or 24:14, "Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him."
Or 24:16 "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."
Or Numbers 1:51, "And when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down: and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death."
Or Deuteronomy 17:12, "And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel."
Yeah, real shame.Quote:
Well, I dont think so.
And it looks like we are going to prove my theory and just lock this forum.
Anyway, I probably wont be able to post for the next couple of days I will be working pretty much non stop. Best of luck.
I don't believe we sent them money and weapons (excluding privateers like the aforementioned Ford). We sent money and weapons illegally to England while remaining "neutral," though.Quote:
Originally Posted by solanum
Yes, internment camps. It was mostly Asians in general.Quote:
and: when japan joined WWII the government of the usa had citizens of japanese origin put in camps?
By the way, V, why did you remove the poll from this topic? Were you upset at the results?
For a long time the US was indeed thought of fondly by much of the world, for the things that it stood for, for it's actions in the world, for the character of it's people.
People like Mike were the reason for that fondness, and it is a sad indication of how far the US has become removed from it's founding principles (and it's own self-image), that Mike and people like him are now being called UnAmerican.
Mike: you are a credit to your country, and I am sure The Founding Fathers of the USA will take some comfort that there are still Americans like you on the planet, as they turn in their graves at what has become of their country.
Mike I think you are kidding yourself by saying the US is an expansionist and imperialist country. How many democratic countries has the US ever invaded and occupied? How many countries does the US claim as its land?
Manifest Destiny was a policy that the government used over 200 years ago. It doesn't even exist now just as slavery has ceased to exist in the US.
Over forty countries in the coalition iclude United States, UK, Spain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Italy and Poland. These are definitely much bigger and more prominent countries than Lithuania.
And I will repeat what people mentioned earlier, that nobody has yet to say why there is reason to go against this war.
Oh by the way, France, Germany and Russia is not a reason. They all have their own political interests in mind just like the US and are not doing this for "world peace" as they claim.
Oh please, stop with the drama. Mike would repulse the conservative founding fathers with his anarchist extreme left wing views. And I'm not making that up either.Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
Rahul:
Next time you wonder why people are willing to slam commercial airliners into US buildings in order to hurt your country, take a good, hard look in a mirror.
During the USAs occupation of cuba America was considered an expainionist state, so this is not the first time they have done this.
All there actions at the moment seam to point to the fact that they are an expainionist state, and unfortunately being the only world super power, I fear that they will be a reigem that lasts quite awhile.
Now that Australia (John Howard) has allied Australia with the US, I also fear that we will be "gobbled up" by the USA and simply be another state of the US. Elections are due here soon, and I have very little doubt that Mr Howard will not win, as the opposition party have a very strong anit war, pro UN stance.
Also, In this argument, I would like to request that people refrain from personal attacks. People that have to resort to personal attacks are obviously grabing in the air because they don't have enough facts to support there view.
I really only came back because I realized I had made an error in another post, so I'll get to your other comments tomorrow. I just wanted to say the founding fathers, while wealthy landowners, were definitely not conservative--neither for their time or ours. They were not religious (most were deists or agnostics, excluding Washington who was always very silent on the subject), and their economic views were classical liberal (read: relaxed social liberties but heavy emphasis on the importance of property rights). They held a lot of the same beliefs as von Humboldt and Smith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahul
However, I should mention that there is a lot of speculation that Thomas Jefferson would have sided with a more leftist view had such a thing existed in the late 17th/early 18th century. For example, his autobiography explained his fear that corporations have too much power. This obviously conflicts with the ideas of right-wing minarchism.
What is that supposed to mean? Am I making you feel like ramming a jet into a building?Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
Besides, I feel this is completely off topic. Since you guys can't come up with reasons to support all the things you said, I guess you're just resorting to cheap statements.
I think we have found the problem here, some of us to put it politly have a "Different" way of thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahul
Here is the reason I believe in the war: RESOLUTION 687 (1991)
gopher://gopher.undp.org/00/undocs/scd/scouncil/s91/4
Is there anyone who can say that Iraq has complied? It's been 12 years, and there is little evidence that the weapons have been destroyed.Quote:
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction,
removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all
related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and
manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and
related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
See above.Quote:
Saddam has weapon of mass destruction? And what is the problem? Russia do have it too, China do, England do. Why they do not offer to disarm Russia, China, England? How about USA?
Sure the US will gain better access to oil, but I see it childish to call that the sole reason. That alone will not pay for the resources used for this war (well, maybe after a decade or 2).
World domination is definitely US's purpose though. We are the biggest baddest boys on the block, and will own all :roll:. Please...
I feel that UN is sitting back, and is denying support because they don't want anything to do with causing a war, when the line isn't clear, and the evidence isn't blinding. But anyone in the right mind can see that Saddam does have chemical and biological weapons, as well as means of producing them. And now tell me, how can a handfull of inspectors find these? Especially when they can be monitored, and their arrival can be easily prepared for.
Saddam is like that bully that will punch you in the back, and when you turn around will say it was someone else, then just to do it again later. :wall:
Kinda reminds me of the prelude to ww2, and especially Russia initial involvement ("oh but he promised he wouldn't hurt us")
War is bad, but in this case someone needed to step up, and I'm proud to live in a country that will not tolerate being toyed with.
Not at all, but such a thing has happened, and it happened as a result of resentment and hatred built up by many years of short-sighted American foreign policy. Americans who, like you, either deny the resentment and hatred exists, or are happy to live with it, are as responsible as the administration who implements it, because you legitimise their actions. This attack on Iraq, seen from the rest of the world, is just a further escaltion of that same foreign policy that saw the US become so vastly unpopular in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahul
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us - Robert Burns, 1789