Thread: Operation Iraqi Freedom

Originally Posted by Redchupacabra

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...

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?

Originally Posted by Redchupacabra

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...

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.

Originally Posted by Redchupacabra

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...

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 (). But this sentense is not about USA.

Originally Posted by Redchupacabra

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...

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.

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 ) 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.

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

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.

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.

Originally Posted by z80

The USA is no more or less of a terrorist organization that Al quata or what ever the hell they call them selfs.

Thats right. We enjoy beating women, ethnic clensing, and starting holy wars.

1. Check out the domestic abuse statistics for the United States. Those numbers ain't low.
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.

Originally Posted by z80

The UN weponds inspectors where doing there job. The UN was handling it

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh yeah, our media is just full of dissenting opinions.

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?

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

But see your problem is your trying to reason insanity. There is nothing logical about terrorism or religious finaticisim.

I would say there's nothing logical about religion in general, but that's just me.

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.

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.

Isn't it wonderful that some of the countries you mentioned are Democratic governments that comply and work to lower nuclear arms.

Like the US, which pulled out of the anti-proliferation treaty and is creating new types of weapons as we speak?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by redchupacabra

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 ) People kill people.

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.

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 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."

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."

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.

Yeah, real shame.

Originally Posted by solanum

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)

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.

and: when japan joined WWII the government of the usa had citizens of japanese origin put in camps?

Yes, internment camps. It was mostly Asians in general.

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.

Originally Posted by scotcher

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Rahul

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.

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.

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.

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.

What is that supposed to mean? Am I making you feel like ramming a jet into a building?

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.

Originally Posted by Rahul

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.

I think we have found the problem here, some of us to put it politly have a "Different" way of thinking.

Here is the reason I believe in the war: RESOLUTION 687 (1991)
gopher://gopher.undp.org/00/undocs/scd/scouncil/s91/4

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;

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.

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?

See above.

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 . 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.
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.

Originally Posted by Rahul

What is that supposed to mean? Am I making you feel like ramming a jet into a building?

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.

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us - Robert Burns, 1789