Nope! Your avatar just reminds me of the character Mat Cauthon from the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan. So I was just wondering ...
sorry 'bout that
dm
sorry 'bout that

dm
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuoteBut France isn't the reason why Bush couldn't get the support of the Security Council. Noone denies that the US would have had a whole lot less than the required 9 votes. It wouldn't even have been necessary for France to use their veto.I think that too many of the countries wanted to support the US but were too invested with a relationship with France, and since France wasn't going to back it they were too chicken shit to step up. Plus, and I'll be the first to admit this, the US tends to do what they want regardless of public/world opinion. Almost all those countries who wouldn't support the US originally have now stepped up. The coalition has gotten like 42 members in support now.
QuoteThe reasons given by the administration have changed almost every day, depending on what suits the current mood of the public.We didn't initiate a preemptive strike without first trying to get him disarm through diplmacy. 12 years of diplomacy to be exact. Do you think we should have left him alone to continue developing these weapons?
The initial reason for this war was that "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and we must initiate a preemptive strike in order to stop him from attacking us in the future."
QuoteIt has changed from that to being about not complying with the UN resolutions, coupled with telling the UN that the US doesnt really give a rats ass about its opinion, while at the same time conveniently using its resolutions as a reason.The UN failed. Actually, I don't really blame the UN. I blame France. I'm disgusted by France's unwillingness to help the US. The 56,681 Americans who died liberating France in World Wars I and II are rolling over in their graves.
QuoteThe third and now the noble reason, ah to liberate the people of iraq. They are so opressed. Well people are opressed all over the world, why isnt the US stepping in there? There's a saying that goes 'A man usually has two reasons for doing anything, one reason that sounds good, another that is the truth'. This is the reason that sounds good.I would imagine that the US is stepping in. But if it doesn't come down to military action it doesn't get much press. I don't like the cynasism in the world that demands that there's always deceit in every situation. Why can't the reason that sounds good and the truth sometimes be the same?
QuoteIn my opinion, the US has lowered the standards for starting a war. There was no attack by anyone, there was no evidence that there would ever be an attack, there was nothing but a suspicion that he might attack at some future unspecified date. Tomorrow if someone decides the US might attack them sometime in the future, sort of like what n korea is saying, then are they wrong when they attack the US? That reasoning gives every country a reason to attack almost any other country who shows the least bit of aggression towards them. Hell, Saddam didnt even blink towards the US before all this started.It's not like the US said, "Well, they might attack us so let's invade" that's silly. Iraq has been defying the UN for 12 years since the end of the Gulf War? We didn't (necessarily) invade Iraq just because of their potential threat. We invaded because they weren't disarming and were defying the sanctions put on them after the Gulf War. They were throwing it in the worlds faces. Denying interviews with weapons inspectors, denying them entrance into certain areas, denying them entrance into Iraq at all. Then giving the run around about supposedly disarming. They were asking for it. I think they wanted this war.
QuoteAgain, its not about Saddam being good, it is about railroading the world into a war that is causing casualties on all sides and accomplishing little except wiping out every bit of goodwill the US has had in the world, in the short space of a couple of months.Removing a dictator from power and freeing an oppressed people is not 'accomplishing little'. Again, I say I am afraid of world reaction to what we're doing over there, but again, it's worth it, for the people of Iraq. I know, and hate that fact, that many will die because of the war in Iraq. But if Saddam is left in power, far worse tradgedies will continue, in Iraq and possibly around the world.
QuotePS: I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I meant that the US cannot just appoint itself arbiter of what does and does not define freedom according to its own ideas of freedom. So you can't just go attack a country because it is not conforming to what your idea of freedom is. Everybody will end up attacking everybody. Unless you somehow intend to apply this rule to the US only, in which you are making it the arbiter of freedom for the entire world.I didn't misinterpret you, I just don't agree with you. Freedom is freedom, and everybody should have it.
QuoteThe idea that the US is the arbiter of freedom in the 'free' world sounds pretty arrogant to me. "Oh,you don't meet our ideas of freedom, off you go!"
QuoteDarth: I am very sorry to tell you this, you probably will not care about it because you may think I'm just crazy, but you are really brainwashed, and I say it because all the arguments you say are just what the politicians say and everyone can realize they're just sophism...I don't think you're crazy. You have your opinions, and you choose to believe what you choose to believe, as I do. I wouldn't say that makes me any more 'brainwashed' though. I mean, I can turn around and say that you've been brainwashed by those people you site as your sources. They can make statements about the evil acts committed by this person or that, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Why does what they say mean more than what somebody else says. It's been my experience that for every person who says one thing, there is always a contradicting point made by somebody else. Do you believe that every politician is a bad person? That all they do is lie?
QuoteAnd when the general in charge asked for 48 more hours so he could get Saddam (and he really could) daddy Bush stopped the war right there because he wanted Saddam right in the place he were. See how it ended now. Remember to read the other side of the coin, there is always a hidden interest in every politic action, always.The first Gulf War's intention was the liberation of Kuwait. Not an invasion of Iraq. That's one of the reasons President Bush called a cease fire. That's another side of the coin, perhaps you should have read.
Quotedarth: Business and economy prospers in the war due to massive government spending, as you said, the government spent 60 billion dollars on this, this means that that 60 bill will go towards the businessess or whatever has any relation towards the war.Well, as I said, I'm no economist, but that didn't clarify anything for me. That just doesn't make sense. They're taking money 'from' the economy and spending it 'on' a war ... were is the injection?
To put it in proper terms, the government has made a 60 billion dollar injection into the economy.
just thought I'd try and clarify that point for you
QuoteThat's such an important point, Evenwolf.. And extremely relevant. I think it is very parallel to the idea of 'preemptive attacks'. Let's kick the Iraqi's ass, just in case. WE don't really have evidence, but they ARE the bad guys, and we ARE the good guys, so we can bomb them anyways.We had/have evidence people. For the love of God open your eyes (and your minds).
QuoteWrong. He - at MOST - discredited that one post, but probably only that one point, since the rest of his arguments were clear and reasonable, which can't be said for more than a few (I think I counted three or four sane arguments in *all* your posts on this topic) of yours. Asking how old he is, that one made me laugh. Not because it is witty or smart, but because it is pathetic. Truthfully, I went to check your age in your profile after reading the first two or three posts you made, because I couldn't believe you could be more than 16 or 17, judging by your attitude and arguments. I usually never do that, and I haven't done so with EvenWolf, because it just never occurred to me to check if he was a kid. It did with you. If that's not enough of an argument to make you think twice about your sarcastic (childish sarcasm, I might add) and naive argumentation methods, I don't know what is. You come off as a teenager, and I'm not saying this to flame you, I'm telling you because you do and because it's sad.Because I back up what I say and make strong points that makes me 16 or 17? Just because you agree with this Evenwolf character who doesn't make sense? Just because you agree with him doesn't make me wrong. So who is being close minded now? Unlike DGMcphee who won't open his mind because I use sarcasm, you won't open yours because you don't agree with me. Perhaps I should check your age.
QuoteAnd finally, my opinions only took four lines to state and yet you keep wishing to bombard me with sarcastic replies that make no sense whatsoever -- I consider that way more closed-minded than anything else.I agree ... so why do you keep persisting? My replies (yes, yes, using the dreadful sarcasm) may take a few more lines, but at least they prove my point. Rather than being close minded and short.
A fool always persists in such folly.
QuoteSo blather away, kiddo -- I'm only listening to Pro-Bush people who can at least keep a civil tongue.Yeah, that was civil. Freakin' hypocrit.
Quote from: YakSpit on Sun 23/03/2003 10:23:05I agree with you on all points in this quote. Bush did push. And there's a part of me that says he only did it to finish what 'daddy' didn't. The scuds were in violation, and he shouldn't have had them period. Regardless that he only fired them after we invaded, why did he have them in the first place? He wasn't supposed to, and for 12 years he was told (by the world) to disarm, and he didn't/wouldn't.
Basically, you are correct but Bush initiated the current drive to have the inspections complete. You failed to refute my previous point about the firing of scud missiles. I know they are in violation and there were obviously in existence. However, they weren't used until the US attack was beginning.
QuoteAll I am saying is that Bush was pushing the completion of the inspections and regardless of the inspection's outcome, would've initiated an attack on Iraq. How can we actually stand behind an individual that is unwilling to stand behind agreements that we've made as a country with other nations? He's violating treaties formed under the United Nations.I agree w/ this ... sort of. I mean, I think he was pushing the completion for a few reasons. I think he very likely wanted to take action on Iraq, and may have pushed inspections for that reason, but also (I like to think) that he also saw that Saddam was a potential threat. I don't know if our country can take another 9/11. ALL actions to prevent that should be taken in my opinion. As far as violating treaties ... I hate that it had to happen, but don't you think the protection of America is important enough? What treaties were violated? I'm unfamiliar with them.
QuoteI did note that you didn't bother to defend his intelligence level. His mental landscape is miserably bleak.He does sometimes have an absolutely 'bewildered' look on his face
Quote*However*, I certainly hope that the war accomplishes whatever it's supposed to as quickly as possible so that my friends in the service can get the hell home as soon as possible and the Iraqi populace can breathe a little easier.Amen.
QuoteAlso, you may rail against the pacifists and the protestors but have you stopped to think that some of their publicity and their actions might be enough to turn aside repercussion against our civilian population? At least other nations will know that we're not an entire nation of warmongers and that some of us are not on a personal vendetta against the religion of Islam (I'm not saying Bush/US is.. it's just what the Arabs are saying in the press).Actually no ... I never thought about it that way. I wish that was their only motive though. And of course, most terrorists are so fanatical, and their hatred so blinding, that the protesters probably wouldn't effect them. But you never know!
Quote from: EvenWolf on Sun 23/03/2003 09:54:07What has Bush done that makes you think he doesn't care for the Iraqi people? That is my question. I don't think you have to know somebody face to face to know what they want or think and care about. I'm just asking you to back up your statement that Bush doesn't care about the Iraqi people. I haven't met Saddam, but it's pretty much public knowledge that he's not a nice guy. His actions in the last few decades have shown this over and over and over again. What has Bush done that proves (to you at least) that he doesn't care about the Iraqi people?
Thank you for allowing me to post my own comments, I will. This is incredible that in your mind- you also think that knowing a person face to face = reading that person's mind. If that was the only way to judge character in this world, then I would easily throw it back to you- Have you met Saddam? No, but you do have evidence of his actions, of his character- you have documents and celebrity TV anchormen telling you what to think. Simply because I perceive Bush differently than you do- I personally must know him first before making any judgements? How did you bypass this vital step- or are you sitting next to him right now? "Do you KNOW him?"; such argument is so basic.
QuoteWe are NOT killing as few casualties as possible. Prove that point to me, and how a thousand missiles enters into the peaceful equation,So do you think that the American military is aiming for innocent civilians? You believe the propaganda that Saddam's lackies are using? I can't necessarily 'prove' that we are trying to keep down the number of civilian deaths. But I highly doubt you can prove to me that we aren't either. This is a war. In war, unfortunately, civilians are killed. Saddam brought this on himself, so if you want to blame civilian deaths on somebody, blame him, not the American military.
QuoteWhat has he said, and not adhered to? Again, please prove your points so I can address them.
And it doesnt even matter if he does?
So, if and when your leader lies to you- you are convinced such an instance is isolated from all the other fancy things he claims but never adheres to?
QuoteThey weren't supposed to? When was this? Before or after we threatened them with annihilation? Was this before or after we deployed and began a bombing campaign?After the Gulf War (1991 that is!) Iraq was, as the loser, given certain military restrictions. One of these restrictions was that they couldn't have weapons of mass destruction. These include (forgive my spelling) Scud missles, Al Sammoud 2 missles, and Al Abheer (sp??) missles. Also, chemical and biological weapons of any kind.
QuoteHowever, any rational individual knew, from the first time it was announced that weapons inspections would take place to determine if we would attack, that Bush would declare non-compliance and order an attack.
QuoteAnd you live in a bubble. Mr Bubble Bugglage Bubbles
By continuing to use this site you agree to the use of cookies. Please visit this page to see exactly how we use these.
Page created in 1.513 seconds with 17 queries.