UN, US, WTF, ETC...

[DGMacphee]

Now they need the UN's help.
Nope. They want it.

They may say they "want" it, but in reality they need it.

The US budget can't handle the aftermath.

Anyhow, the UN is the biggest P-O-S ever. Why?
Because it doesn't work. It's like a bottle of mineral water that's empty, and has a message inside saying 'just ad water'.

And to quote Jack Nicholson, "People who talk in metaphors ought to shampoo my crotch!"

Also, the idea of having countries represented is pointless if the people aren't represented.

I don't need to say how redundant this comment is -- UN Ambassadors also represent the people.

That's the whole point of having an Ambassador.

I'm not going to say much about WMD, since it doesn't apply much to my reasons for supporting the Iraq war.

And oddly that was the main reason the US went to war.

The coalition did not destroy most of the hospitals and schools. Some were destroyed, but I should think the Iraqi ammunition stacked next to them would have had something to do with it. I'm not going to say that no public services were hit, but likewise its foolish to say all or lots were.

But lots were -- and you're making empty excuses now.

And in Kuwait, your buddy Saddam wasted not only the oilfields, schools and hospitals, but he went around personally smashing up cars with baseball bats. Okay, he didn't, but cars were smashed up. Likewise, the USATCO wasn't directly responsible for all of the decay of all of the schools.

Firstly, don't call him my buddy -- I don't support him and I hold him in the same regard as I hold that deadbeat Bush.

Secondly, are you trying to say that what ever Saddam does is okay for the US military to do, even if not to the same extremity.

I think you're trying to water down the US military's role by comparing them to Saddam.

I'm not comparing them to Saddam at all -- why shoudl I?

I'm saying this -- If you're a gobal superpower (like the US is), then you should set a responsible agenda for keeping control.

And the US's role in the Iraq war was grossly irresponsible in many respects.

And now it's an even poorer country.

Hmm. The USA wasn't exactly doing brilliant economy wise in 1777.

The US isn't doing brilliant economy wise right now either -- so what's your point?

The rioters in the streets of Bagdad are no more likely to become terrorists than the average tax-hating American is to open fire on the IRS lackeys.

I think the loyalists would beg to differ.

I believe that's what happened in Afghanistan... Now, Heroin dealers are out in force, Karzai carries a sidearm, and the 3 different forces in there have to flip a coin in order to decide what to do.

Congrats! Now you've come to the same conclusion I came to before the war -- There's no solution to this problem.

I saw posters, shouting out thousands of reasons that the masses are meant to digest without thought. I met talented spin doctors who used surgical precision. I saw people on TV shows, making fun of the opposition. All of those bore the little green anti-war sign. People appealed to vegitarian, liberal non-intellectuals, just as the Republicans used 'If you didn't like terrorists, you'll HATE these guys' tactics. Both of them are pretty despicable. But is it the politicians fault that people are stupid? Nope.

And my point is that no one should prey upon stupid people.

Especially political figures.

I don't see a resolution to this debate.

Aye.

[taryuu]

Giving water to a tied-up, unarmed POW while another soldier sticks a gun directly at his head counts as a UN violation in my book.

When soldiers have prisoners under their supervision they may appear to treat the POW's rougher than is completely neccesary.  The soldiers have no idea tho whether or not  in the next 5 seconds the POWs will attack and kill the guards  to gain freedom.  Volumes of information can be passed from prisoner to prisoner simply by using facial signals, hand movements, or even  solitary movements of the eye.  Guns are used as a detterent to prisoner insurrection. knowing that there's a gun pointed at your head puts the kibosh on many ideas of escape.  A pow is just that, a PRISONER.  they can expect to be tied up, and under threat of fatal retaliation if they try to escape.  

You miss my point completely -- I'm saying get them the fuck out of there, instead of keeping them in there and paying them (or their widows) a high salary.

I don't think i did miss your point, as earlier you said

But I prefer to pay them less

You're going to have to accept the fact that you will have soldiers in harsh environments for a given amount of time DG.Hazard pay is a standard practice, not only with soldiers, but in countless other professions.
The UN has listed Irq as a place where additional pay is authorized to its staff, so why not soldiers?
http://www.un.org/Depts/OHRM/salaries_allowances/allowances/hazard.htm
If you revoke their extra  pay it will have an adverse effect on soldier morale. which is bad right?

This seems highly inaccurate to the numerous body counts I've read.

Simply because that's your preception doesn't make it untrue.  notice i never yor figures were innacurate, i merely pointed out that the error in those 2  numbers is fairly substantial.  what does that tell you?

But that's the thing -- I don't even think the UN or any any country should get involved in the mess the coalition created.
The coalition "won" the war as Bob said, so let them clean it up on their own!

Are you aware of the purpose of the UN?  

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
  1. To maintain international peace and security

Iraq is one of those places where the UN should go.  They're just waiting for the US to allow for increased foreign control of operations.  

Did anyone else notice that France and Russia haven't said shit about those 30 fighter jets that were found buried in the desert?

[Las Naranjas]

No-one's made anything of them. Even the current administration knows they can't construe them as WMD. They're outdated technology and far from an example of what was being described as Iraq's arsenal although perhaps a technical violation of the sanctions.

I suppose they could launch an attack within 40 days rather than minutes, provided they had a sudden influx of tools to repair them and them and the world decided to look the other way for a month or two.
But one would have to be very optimistic to consider it something that would provide you with a tool to provide a security risk to a neighbour, let alone a country an ocean and a continent away.

[Darth Mandarb]

I should think 30 fighter jets (even in disrepair) could pose a pretty substantial threat to a neighboring country.  They could pose a bigger threat than say ... I don't know ... 3 commercial airliners??

hmmm ....

dm

edit - dammit!!  I argued

[Barcik]

2. USA failed; there is no safety in Iraq now, no democracy, no bloody nothing, just a big vast desert of misery and abuse...they're doing the right thing to ask UN for help, if it's not too late

I'd like to point out that comment. Surprisingly to some of you, I agree. I don't think the failure is a absolute as Andail makes it seem (I do feel safer), but it's still a total mess.
However, I am pretty sure me and Andail will disagree on the reasons the war failed - while he will say that the the whole war was started without proper causes, I will say the war was right, but the US handled things badly (and it still does).
But that's life...

And DGM - it is quite likely that the Iraqi did hide weapons in schools and hospitals. The Palestinians do the same.

[Nacho]

This is a fucking aritmetric problem...

Barcik, Rebel, Bob and Darth think that:

Total number of dead people with war<Total number of dead people without war.

Andail, DG, Butcher and  LasNaranjas think that:

Total number of dead people with war>Total number of dead people without war.

I really agree with Barcik, Rebel, Bob... Let´s remember that Saddam had a family behind him, a son ready to rule the country after his dead. Not only that... there was a whole average size town (Tikrit) with family ties with Saddam, a whole town with people ready to rule the country with iron fist after Saddam.

So, let´s suposse:

How many lives will the war cost?... how, 50,000 deaths (Let´s exagerate, no problem...)

It was proved that in Saddam´s prisons more than 5,000 people died every year. So, in 10 years, 50,000 lives. At year 2014 the war will start "saving lives".

Would Saddam´s regime last more than 10 years? Of course, let´s face it... It was a regime with enough power to least at least during the next 50 years (That Qusay and his brother were quite young...)

All the rest... WMD´s, Al Quaeda... That is not so important. The war is saving lives, in my opinion.

So... I won´t reply any statements about anything else which is not related with my aritmetric formule. I can´t try to convince people that war is "good" in some way. But I really believe that.

Spain was under a fascist regime during 40 years... I would liked that in 1960 EUA came to finish with that Franco.

[taryuu]

Even the current administration knows they can't construe them as WMD.

Well duh, i never said they were WMD.  point is that they were buried in the sand.  you got a hella lot of desert in iraq to hide other shit in.  don't forget that Iraq  had hid SCUD missiles, chemical weapons and biological warheads by burying them in the desert. the UN only found them after detailed information of the exact locations was obtained.

They're outdated technology and far from an example of what was being described as Iraq's arsenal

You must not be familiar with fighter aircraft. MiG-25 Foxbats are the fastest fighter aircracft in the world today, some models reaching speeds of over mach 3.  it is comparable to the F-14 Tomcat, and  F-15 Eagle.  two planes both currently flying for the US.
The first air-to-air kill of the Gulf War is believed to be a US F/A-18C Hornet shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 on January  17, 1991.

the Mig 29 reaches a top speed of 2.3.  and one of the Mig 25's found is of a model never before seen in the west, outfitted with illegal french and russian electronics.

although perhaps a technical violation of the sanctions.

Perhaps? here's the original sanction http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s90/15
and here's the other
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/4

so let's review.

30 fighters (10 % of the estimated prewar fleet of 300) were found buried in the desert under 10 feet of sand.  

What else is 10 feet under the desert in a nation the size of california?

i'll tell you. 2000 corpses.  

Al-Janabi said that he and three other officers were assigned to Abu Ghraib prison on March 20. According to his testimony, President Saddam Hussein's son Qusay toured the prison on April 26 and issued an order for the execution of an estimated 2,000 inmates held in one section. "At six the following morning, the executions began. By nine that evening, 2,000 Iraqis had been executed. Most of them were from the South, accused of joining parties and taking part in [opposition] activities some were hanged, while others were shot. Each victim was shot once in the head." Al-Janabi said many of the bodies were then buried in the nearby al-Karkh cemetery

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq031103.htm#3

and talk about the US violating poor iraqi prisoners rights.  this is a country where the death penalty was MANDATORY for

the Smuggling of cars, trucks, and certain construction machinery outside Iraq or to a hostile party (Decree 95 of July 27, 1994)

Iraq will be a better place for Iraqis to live now that Saddam is gone.  the UN should help in order to reconstruct it properly.

But that's the thing -- I don't even think the UN or any any country should get involved in the mess the coalition created.

The coalition "won" the war as Bob said, so let them clean it up on their own!

DG, turning your back on iraq won't make it go away.  it'll still be there, and it will still be a world problem.  not an american or british problem, but a world problem.  which needs a solution from the whole world.  hopefully we'll see a resolution that all of the sides can agree to soon, and then we can get to the future of iraq.

[DGMacphee]

A pow is just that, a PRISONER.  they can expect to be tied up, and under threat of fatal retaliation if they try to escape.  

A POW is a human being that deserves dignity as much as you or I.

And I doubt they can get very far with hands tied behind their backs.

A gun pointed at their heads while feeding water is unnecessary.

I don't think i did miss your point, as earlier you said

But I prefer to pay them less

You're going to have to accept the fact that you will have soldiers in harsh environments for a given amount of time DG.Hazard pay is a standard practice, not only with soldiers, but in countless other professions.
The UN has listed Irq as a place where additional pay is authorized to its staff, so why not soldiers?
http://www.un.org/Depts/OHRM/salaries_allowances/allowances/hazard.htm
If you revoke their extra  pay it will have an adverse effect on soldier morale. which is bad right?

First, use my full quote, dickhead -- I hate people who only partially use my quotes and thus take my comment out of context.

Second, I do not wish to risk any person in a hazard area -- Therefore, I see hazard pay as more of a harm than a good.

Besides, when more soldiers are killed after the war than during the war, I'd say the morale is pretty much fucked anyway.

No extra amount of dollars is going to bring them back to life.

Simply because that's your preception doesn't make it untrue.  notice i never yor figures were innacurate, i merely pointed out that the error in those 2  numbers is fairly substantial.  what does that tell you?

There's no error.

It's a range, and it's verified.

It tells me you're poncing around with this mythical "two figures" argument.

However, if you want a more accurate reading than my range, go to Iraq and find out for yourself!

Are you aware of the purpose of the UN?  

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
  1. To maintain international peace and security

Iraq is one of those places where the UN should go.  They're just waiting for the US to allow for increased foreign control of operations.  

Did anyone else notice that France and Russia haven't said shit about those 30 fighter jets that were found buried in the desert?

I'm very aware of the UN's purpose.

However, how can the UN do its job properly when the US government goes against the UN -- The Iraq war was not approved by the UN, so why should they become involved in the "road map to peace" when the very same "road map" is causing damage.

Not to mention most of the UN reps were against going to war in the first place due to flimsy of evidence.

And, in recent months, reports show the evidence is now even flimsier!

Quote:
But that's the thing -- I don't even think the UN or any any country should get involved in the mess the coalition created.

The coalition "won" the war as Bob said, so let them clean it up on their own!

DG, turning your back on iraq won't make it go away. it'll still be there, and it will still be a world problem. not an american or british problem, but a world problem. which needs a solution from the whole world. hopefully we'll see a resolution that all of the sides can agree to soon, and then we can get to the future of iraq.

Fisrt of all, you've already use my above quote in your previous reply -- you don't have to do it twice.

Secondly, it is not a world problem at all -- statistically, most of the people around they world were against the war -- Thus, it's a US government problem (more so the defense department), especially since Iraq has been high on Rumsfeld's list of countries on his axis of evil years before Bush came to power (even before Bush Sr too).

It's more Rumsfeld's problem.

Thirdly, there is no solution -- that's idealistic nonsense, cause the situation is fucked beyond belief.

The US government can't even provide decent aid for most of its own country so how does it expect to provide aid in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

And fourthly, never ever accuse me of turning my back on Iraq, you fuck --notice I was the one who brought the whole topic of the war back up and I don't see you wanting to face facts.

No, it seems like you want to justify a war with spin and bullshit, and then forget about it, like how most people forgot about Panama (which, as I have said, is practially the same situation as Iraq -- just substitute drugs for WMDs and Noriega for Saddam).

The US government comprimised the truth so many times in the lead up to the war and that is a fact on so many accounts -- you've probably read about them in the last month?

But don't ever accuse me of turning my back on a far-off country -- I have worked a lot with humanitarian groups, pledged financial support for third-world countries, and shown my support against many injustices.

Yes, I hate Saddam and all he has done -- But, my respect of the truth stands high above anything else, even above my hate for a dictator, and as sanctimonious as it may sound it is far greater than trying to justify a war.

So, next time you want to accuse me of turning my back on a country that's been turned into a crater, you'd better wear some thick, steal underpants or else find my steel-capped boot up your arse, kiddo!


As for Barcik:

And DGM - it is quite likely that the Iraqi did hide weapons in schools and hospitals. The Palestinians do the same.

That is no excuse for the US Army to destroy a hospital or a school -- I expect better of them than that.

[Darth Mandarb]

** DM throws his hat into the ring

There are people in this world who do 'bad' or 'evil' things.  Those people NEED to be stopped.

Asking/Telling them to stop isn't going to do it.

The frickin' wussy world at large is far too PC minded and pacifistic.

That is no excuse for the US Army to destroy a hospital or a school -- I expect better of them than that.

They wouldn't just blow up a hospital unless they were being attacked from within it.

And, in my opinion, if the 'hospital' is empty of people and is full of weapons (as most of them were), it ceases to be a hospital and becomes a weapons depot.

This whole problem would never have happened if the UN had done what it should have in the first place and supported this endeavor.  So, is the U.S. crawling back?  No, they're graciously allowing the UN to do it's job.  The UN should be humbly bowing and scraping their way into Iraq.

dm

[Barcik]

Are you aware of the purpose of the UN?  

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
  1. To maintain international peace and security

Iraq is one of those places where the UN should go.  They're just waiting for the US to allow for increased foreign control of operations.  

Did anyone else notice that France and Russia haven't said shit about those 30 fighter jets that were found buried in the desert?

I'm very aware of the UN's purpose.

However, how can the UN do its job properly when the US government goes against the UN -- The Iraq war was not approved by the UN, so why should they become involved in the "road map to peace" when the very same "road map" is causing damage.

The problem with the UN, however nice the idea is, is that it will always be torn by the conflict of interests between the main powers, thus making it a pretty useless organization with only symbolic meaning. It is useless to rely on the UN, as an organization. The US isn't crawling back to the UN, but to France, Germany and Russia.
Furthermore, UN forces, especially under an UN flag cannot help. They will be static, too scared to leave because of the fear of civil war, and too actually wussy and anti-American in policy to take action. The situation will stay much as it is today, and it will be strecthed over a very long period.

[taryuu]

A pow is just that, a PRISONER. they can expect to be tied up, and under threat of fatal retaliation if they try to escape.

A POW is a human being that deserves dignity as much as you or I.

And I doubt they can get very far with hands tied behind their backs.

A gun pointed at their heads while feeding water is unnecessary.

Quote:
I don't think i did miss your point, as earlier you said
Quote:
But I prefer to pay them less
You're going to have to accept the fact that you will have soldiers in harsh environments for a given amount of time DG.Hazard pay is a standard practice, not only with soldiers, but in countless other professions.
The UN has listed Irq as a place where additional pay is authorized to its staff, so why not soldiers?
http://www.un.org/Depts/OHRM/salaries_allowances/allowances/hazard.htm
If you revoke their extra pay it will have an adverse effect on soldier morale. which is bad right?

First, use my full quote, dickhead -- I hate people who only partially use my quotes and thus take my comment out of context.

Second, I do not wish to risk any person in a hazard area -- Therefore, I see hazard pay as more of a harm than a good.

Besides, when more soldiers are killed after the war than during the war, I'd say the morale is pretty much fucked anyway.

No extra amount of dollars is going to bring them back to life.

Quote:
Simply because that's your preception doesn't make it untrue. notice i never yor figures were innacurate, i merely pointed out that the error in those 2 numbers is fairly substantial. what does that tell you?

There's no error.

It's a range, and it's verified.

It tells me you're poncing around with this mythical "two figures" argument.

However, if you want a more accurate reading than my range, go to Iraq and find out for yourself!

Quote:
Are you aware of the purpose of the UN?
Quote:
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security

Iraq is one of those places where the UN should go. They're just waiting for the US to allow for increased foreign control of operations.

Did anyone else notice that France and Russia haven't said shit about those 30 fighter jets that were found buried in the desert?

I'm very aware of the UN's purpose.

However, how can the UN do its job properly when the US government goes against the UN -- The Iraq war was not approved by the UN, so why should they become involved in the "road map to peace" when the very same "road map" is causing damage.

Not to mention most of the UN reps were against going to war in the first place due to flimsy of evidence.

And, in recent months, reports show the evidence is now even flimsier!

Quote:
Quote:
But that's the thing -- I don't even think the UN or any any country should get involved in the mess the coalition created.

The coalition "won" the war as Bob said, so let them clean it up on their own!

Quote:
DG, turning your back on iraq won't make it go away. it'll still be there, and it will still be a world problem. not an american or british problem, but a world problem. which needs a solution from the whole world. hopefully we'll see a resolution that all of the sides can agree to soon, and then we can get to the future of iraq.

Fisrt of all, you've already use my above quote in your previous reply -- you don't have to do it twice.

Secondly, it is not a world problem at all -- statistically, most of the people around they world were against the war -- Thus, it's a US government problem (more so the defense department), especially since Iraq has been high on Rumsfeld's list of countries on his axis of evil years before Bush came to power (even before Bush Sr too).

It's more Rumsfeld's problem.

Thirdly, there is no solution -- that's idealistic nonsense, cause the situation is fucked beyond belief.

The US government can't even provide decent aid for most of its own country so how does it expect to provide aid in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

And fourthly, never ever accuse me of turning my back on Iraq, you fuck --notice I was the one who brought the whole topic of the war back up and I don't see you wanting to face facts.

No, it seems like you want to justify a war with spin and bullshit, and then forget about it, like how most people forgot about Panama (which, as I have said, is practially the same situation as Iraq -- just substitute drugs for WMDs and Noriega for Saddam).

The US government comprimised the truth so many times in the lead up to the war and that is a fact on so many accounts -- you've probably read about them in the last month?

But don't ever accuse me of turning my back on a far-off country -- I have worked a lot with humanitarian groups, pledged financial support for third-world countries, and shown my support against many injustices.

Yes, I hate Saddam and all he has done -- But, my respect of the truth stands high above anything else, even above my hate for a dictator, and as sanctimonious as it may sound it is far greater than trying to justify a war.

So, next time you want to accuse me of turning my back on a country that's been turned into a crater, you'd better wear some thick, steal underpants or else find my steel-capped boot up your arse, kiddo!


As for Barcik:
Quote:
And DGM - it is quite likely that the Iraqi did hide weapons in schools and hospitals. The Palestinians do the same.

That is no excuse for the US Army to destroy a hospital or a school -- I expect better of them than that.

that better? hopefully now you'll avoid calling me a dickhead.  tho it's ok, when confronted with childish behaviour i'll come back at you with teh same childish remarks.
"sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me."

pow's should be treated with dignity, but to the point consummate with the safety of the troops holding them.  talk about actual mistreatment of POW's not questinoable concerns about teh dignity of the situation.

the range is verified??  explain to me how 2000 people may or may not have been killed.  the nice thing about being dead is that once you're dead you're dead.  
you can't die again, and you can't live again.  if iyou die and i shoot you in the face you don't get more dead.

so are those 2,000 people dead or not?  are theirdeaths verified or not? if they are verified than you have 8,000 people dead.  if they're not, than you can only say you have 6,000 people dead.
your statistics has a "range" of error of 2,000 people.  the AP has a total sum of 3240 dead.  do the math. which figure seems faulty?

hazard pay does more harm than good?  what the hell? i dont' even think i can argue this with you anymore, you've crossed over on to the side of illogical.  should the remaining UN workers in iraq lose their hazard pay as well as the US troops?  will that bring everyone home quicker?

the UN's mandate is to maintain peace.  it will need to go into iraq to fufill its mandate.

and when you say something like "there's no solution" and "let them clean it up on their own", that  couldn't be a clearer example of turning your back on the situation.  is english your first language?  or were you just unaware of what that words would actaully mean when combined into a sentence?  It's called reading. Top to bottom, left to right, group words together as a sentence. Take Tylenol for any headaches...Midol for any cramps.

a civilian who takes up a weapon is no longer a civilian, a hospital full of weapons and ammunition is no longer a hospital, just the same as a plane crashing into the side of a building is no longer a plane, it's a weapon.  

and fuck you in the ear twice for making this argument personal. why these attacks on me? no reason to threaten me with violence just  because i'm making some valid points that your argument  can't deal with.

speaking of points you can't deal with, i notice you didn't say anything about the possibility of WMD lying under 10 feet of sand in iraq.  want a refresher course??

iraqs have the capability to bury tons of large objects under the sand.  

ex 30 FIGHTER JETS

they haven buried WMD in the past

ex Chemical and  biological weapons found by UN inspectors in the 90s

isn't a reasonable conclusion to draw that there might be more things buried in the sand in a nation the size of california?

[DGMacphee]

that better? hopefully now you'll avoid calling me a dickhead. tho it's ok, when confronted with childish behaviour i'll come back at you with teh same childish remarks.
"sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me."

I know you are but what am I?  

pow's should be treated with dignity, but to the point consummate with the safety of the troops holding them. talk about actual mistreatment of POW's not questinoable concerns about teh dignity of the situation.

Once again, you're trying to justify cruelty.

the range is verified?? explain to me how 2000 people may or may not have been killed. the nice thing about being dead is that once you're dead you're dead.
you can't die again, and you can't live again. if iyou die and i shoot you in the face you don't get more dead.

so are those 2,000 people dead or not? are theirdeaths verified or not? if they are verified than you have 8,000 people dead. if they're not, than you can only say you have 6,000 people dead.
your statistics has a "range" of error of 2,000 people. the AP has a total sum of 3240 dead. do the math. which figure seems faulty?

Because the majority of sources I've read commonly quote a figure between 6000 and 8000 -- but hey, I'm sure your AP figure is exactly the number of civilians that have died, but I question your reasoning when you only take one figure and accept it blindly without taking into account various other sources.

hazard pay does more harm than good? what the hell? i dont' even think i can argue this with you anymore, you've crossed over on to the side of illogical. should the remaining UN workers in iraq lose their hazard pay as well as the US troops? will that bring everyone home quicker?

They're better off unemployed than dead.

the UN's mandate is to maintain peace. it will need to go into iraq to fufill its mandate.

It wouldn't have to if the US hadn't entered into a non-UN approved war.

and when you say something like "there's no solution" and "let them clean it up on their own", that couldn't be a clearer example of turning your back on the situation. is english your first language? or were you just unaware of what that words would actaully mean when combined into a sentence? It's called reading. Top to bottom, left to right, group words together as a sentence. Take Tylenol for any headaches...Midol for any cramps.

And you take a laxitive cause you're talking shit now.

I support the people of Iraq and their decisions -- but they've been fucked over so many times (by the US governement and their own leaders) that it's hard to see a solution anymore.

And as for the US Government cleaning it up on their own, yes, they should -- That's still not turning my back upon Iraq, it's turning my back upon the US Government.

a civilian who takes up a weapon is no longer a civilian, a hospital full of weapons and ammunition is no longer a hospital, just the same as a plane crashing into the side of a building is no longer a plane, it's a weapon.

I disagree -- your arguement is a very utilitarian one, and is far from an ethical argument.

and fuck you in the ear twice for making this argument personal. why these attacks on me? no reason to threaten me with violence just because i'm making some valid points that your argument can't deal with.

Your last comment was personal -- how dare you automatically asusme I'm turning my back on something when you know fuck all about me?

As for your "valid" points, I fail to see the ethical side of your "validity".

speaking of points you can't deal with, i notice you didn't say anything about the possibility of WMD lying under 10 feet of sand in iraq. want a refresher course??

iraqs have the capability to bury tons of large objects under the sand.

ex 30 FIGHTER JETS

they haven buried WMD in the past

ex Chemical and biological weapons found by UN inspectors in the 90s

isn't a reasonable conclusion to draw that there might be more things buried in the sand in a nation the size of california?

So, I skipped over some your shamblalic argument.

Anyway, if you want to prove it to me, go grab a fucking shovel and dig em out yourself.

The current weapons inspectors seem to be having trouble finding them, so maybe you can tell them where they are, smartarse?


In conclusion, believe what you like, taryuu, and don't believe me -- I don't care whether you take my points seriously or not, cause quite frankly I'm just some other blank face across the other side of the world.

Justify all you like, say I'm turning my back, argue the shit out of my points till your lungs turn blue -- I don't care, cause you tried to challenge my points of view and I tried to give you the best answers I could.

But quite frankly, they're just my opinions, based upon what I've read (and after studying journalism, you read a lot on current events) -- I'm not from Iraq, and neither are you -- I'm not trying to discredit your point of view, only trying desperately to give you the answers you expect, but that simply don't exist (yet).

How the fuck I'm I supposed to know whether the WMDs are buried beneath the Iraqi soil?

I'm just a student from Australia.

So, in conclusion, what do you gain by trying to prove a student from Australia wrong on a shitty debate in an adventure game forum?

To me, it sounds like a waste of time, but that's just my retarded point of view -- I'm sure this will be something you can tell your grandkids about.

Well, here you go, son: You win the argument.

Now, I'll just get back to writing my opinion in peace.

[taryuu]

zing

[SSH]

So, in conclusion, what do you gain by trying to prove a student from Australia wrong on a shitty debate in an adventure game forum?

To me, it sounds like a waste of time, but that's just my retarded point of view -- I'm sure this will be something you can tell your grandkids about.

Well, you did start the debate, DG, I don't think you can complain when people differ from your point of view. Also, given the number of lives and deaths involved, its fair enough for people to get angry about it all, too.

On the other hand, I tend to agree with you on the points of Iraq. The US have said that terrorists have tasted US justice. The trouble is that violence begets violence and that all that has happened is that the US finds itself in a very difficult situation (albeit greatly of their own making) and hatred against the USA has increased. Since the "war on terror" started there has been MORE terrorist attacks on western targets around the world. This is a fact (they said so on BBC Radio 4 this morning, so it must be true   ). Now some of these are unrelated to Al-Quaeda, but the USA is naive if it thinks that killing one guy who hates them, or 20, or 1000, or 10000 will stop anyone else from hating them.

After all, look what happened to Tulsa Doom.

[DGMacphee]

Well, you did start the debate, DG, I don't think you can complain when people differ from your point of view. Also, given the number of lives and deaths involved, its fair enough for people to get angry about it all, too.

I didn't start any debate.

I started this post to bring back certain things people said before the war with the purpose of comparing them to what's happening now -- no real want of debate at all.

I don't like participating in debates cause I usually spend too much time writing endless garbage that won't really make a difference -- I'm never going to convince my opposition, as much as he isn't going to convince me of anything.

So, when a debate comes up, and I feel heated about it, I try to end it.

I do not have the time nor energy to try and win arguments all the time.

And I'm especially tired of replying to taryuu (or whoever it is) just because he doesn't like a particular aspect of my post -- to be honest, it's a pain in the arse.

I'd rather not start any thread that tries to bring some intelligent discussion to the forum.

So, to resolve the issue, he wins, and I don't care.

[SSH]

I'd rather not start any thread that tries to bring some intelligent discussion to the forum.

I dunno, you don't want forum games, you don't want intelligent discussion, you don't want people who haven't finished a game demanding respect.... what do you want?

[Andail]

I think there's a difference between "intelligent" discussions and the bickering that has taken place here as of late, though...it's rather impossible to handle a debate concering a topic this hot, when either of the sides is obviously biased.

When it comes to the debate itself, all this thread has done is making me more sure on whom I respect and whom I have some difficulties respecting, seriously.

I do believe we could lock the thread, though, as freaking usual

[YOke]

Just a little comment on that whole "hid the weapons in the sand" claim. Recently scientists used a satelite to find water several hundred meters under Sahara. Military technology has a way of being better than "public" technology at any time, something the military not only agrees with but even brags about. Point is; I think they could find them if they really wanted to/were there.

Now over to another point.

Is freedom given to a people going to last?
Many countries have had their share of dictators before. Let's just define the word dictator before we go on: A dictator is ONE person that rules a country with absolute authority. Just like the kings of Europe that we are so proud of. If he is a tyrant or a saint really only relies on luck.
Maybe we should just rely on evolution and the people of the countries in the world that have shit leaders. To get all pretentious: Victory given is an empty victory.
Freedom needs to be deserved.
Of course you can always dig up people who say that their leader is shit - "come and invade our country".
Even in the US, and we KNOW you guys have WMD coming out of your ears! And Bush is not the most popular guy in the world right now. Just watch out for the policy you enforce, it might come back and bite you in the ass in the future.

That's my rant for now.  

[Darth Mandarb]

YOke - the U.S. does have WMD 'coming out our ears' but we're not a terrorist run, third-world country either.  Nor are we a dictatorship.  Yes our foreign policy might come back to 'bite us in the ass' in the future but part of being a super power is the projection of power.  If we don't act now the alternatives are more assured than what might happen in the future because of that action.

rant
I agree that some of the discussion in this thread has degenerated to bickering.  I think (and this is in no way a jab at you DG) the wording of the subject is the cause.  This is a hot enough topic without the subject being worded insultingly.  With that subject it causes people's blood to be up before they even start reading.

I think a lot of the problems of this thread are representative of the entire forum.  I think it's a very similar situation the "Homestar Runner: Too Popular" thread by Jam Torkberg.  He states how 'veteran' fans resent the newer fans because they aren't original members of the club.

I think that happens a lot on these forums (especially in the GenGen).  I've heard some n00bs say some things that make a lot of sense but they're completely discredited because somebody (who has been here longer) disagrees with them.

I think these forums suffer (just a little) elitism from the older members.  I think some of them demand respect because they've been here longer.  But, as the old saying goes, "Respect is something you have to earn."

cheers,
dm

[Nacho]

I think that we must think in something before critisizing US attitude in front of the world...

How would OUR country do it?

Would the UK do better? Surely not, the UK has created many of the big problems of the XXth century by their colony policy and by the way he abandoned that colonies after (Some examples: India and Bangladesh, Palestine, Iraq...)

Would German do it better? Mmm... Recent Germany story does not invite optimism...

What about France? Well, France also abandoned their colonies, leaving them in a war situation, many of them still continue (Coste D´Ivory, Argelia...)

And what about Spain? I must unproudly recognise that Spain has problably been the Country whose more people killed in its colonies (Let´s remember that Spain killed, at least, 10,000,000 south american indians, terminating the Maya and Inca population...)

So... Is that my argument to "deffend" the US? Of course not. If I am remembering the dark past of the other countries is just for reaching to one conclussion:

Powerfull countries usually are mercilessly.

Please, do not just shut up in front of my opinion, do nut just think "I won´t never convince him!"... I REALLY wish to hear, to be convinced that there is another way to do the things if you´re a powerful country.

I even demmand less... Please, tell my a civilization which ruled the earth which was mercy.

Not the greeks, nor the romans, germanics (Anglo and Saxons...) Britons, francs, egyptians...

Maybe the chinese?


Thanks for your replies in advance:

Nacho Ayala.