Preserved Topic: Saddam Captured? (Page 2 of 2)

Okay... I'm dipping my toes into this quagmire, simply because I have not stated my positions in previous posts... First off, I believe the capture of Saddam is in line with the goals put forth at the inception of this war. Ever since 1991, the US and the UK have resisted the lifting of sanctions on Iraq until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. It didn't matter how it happened, he just needed to be out of the picture. Was this the only goal? Of course not. It wasn't even the primary goal. With regards to backing by the UN before going in and removing Hussein from power, how long was the US/UK supposed to wait? Ever since Hussein kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq, he has shown how much regard he has had for their authority. The WMD thing has been a game to him. As soon as the threat of military force was implied, he would make a token showing of destroying some weapons, let a couple inspectors in on his own terms and then turn around and kick them out again. I lost count how many times that happened. At the beginning, it really bothered me that the US and UK were going in without UN support. I worried about the diplomatic future of the country and watched what was left of US foreign policy crumble. However the more I thought about it, the more I could understand some of the reasoning behind it. How long would the US have to wait for "diplomacy" to work? "Diplomacy" that was causing millions of Iraqis to suffer because of the actions of their leader. Sanctions set forth by the UN, and backed by the US, were causing pain to a people that Hussein couldn't have cared less about. The sanctions weren't working. Oil for Food wasn't working. Continued talking and negotiations were not going to help either.

And we come around to the question of where are the WMD? That's a really good question. I don't believe they have all been destroyed. These are weapons both the US and the UN knew to exist. Why on earth would the UN insist on additional inspections if they believed they were all destroyed as Saddam Hussein claimed? Why? Because the UN knows they weren't all destroyed.

I wish the US & UK had been able to go in with the UN's blessing. Hussein was not a man that would have voluntarily stepped down from power. He had been threatened time and again with military repercussions for not meeting UN demands. Not once was that threat ever made good on. The UN was not a threat to him. How long was the UN going to sit and play Hussein's game and sit on their hands?

I know from the following statements I am going to be called brainwashed among other things, but I'm going to say them any way. I believe that ultimately, whether we find WMD or not, going to war when we did was the right thing to do. There just comes a time when diplomacy fails. That is all war is, failed diplomacy. It is troubling to wake up and read the news about how many countries hate the US for what it has done this year. To say that the soldiers who are dying are doing it only for greedy Bush's oil interests... it mocks the sacrifices they are making. These aren't just US soldiers that are dying, many from the UK have died as well. I don't deny that there are financial gains to be made, but that is the outcome of any war not just this one alone. Do I believe that Bush has made all the right choices for all the right reasons? No, I don't but I believe the ultimate good that will come out of this overshadows many of the toes that were stepped on along the way.

quote:

---

I would love to see him on Bill O'Reilley's show too.

---

He was on O'Reilley's show, Feb. 19, 2002.

Also, for those interisted, look here at the number 4 and 7 best sellers.

[This message has been edited by Rauthrin (edited 12-16-2003).]

O'Reilly's book was number one at one point wasn't it?

Edit: Never mind, it still is. http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/

[This message has been edited by SPyX (edited 12-16-2003).]

quote:

---

I wonder how they figured out his hiding place though...after all this time and they didn't figure out Osama's place.

---

maybe that's because Saddam's dumber than Osama. If I were him, I'd rather die than get caught and be humiliated by these militaries.

Interesting article:
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1107732,00.html

quote:

---

Nebuchadnezzar, a predecessor of Saddam's, was a favourite target for the men who wrote the Bible. He also appears in Isaiah as the model of the fallen tyrant. "They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, 'Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; that made the world as a wilderness and destroyed the cities thereof?'" The chapter goes on to ask, "Art thou also become weak as we? Art thou become like unto us?"

In Tikrit yesterday this was rather well expressed by an American officer. A small crowd had gathered to demonstrate support for the captured dictator. "Saddam is our hearts!" they shouted, "Saddam is in our blood!" To which the American apparently quietly replied, "Saddam is in our jail!"

---

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Yannah: Saddam will probably enjoy being questionned about his WMD and all his arsenal. He'll certainly have some fun trying to embarass the many countries who sold him some weapons.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

Well you knew it had to happen:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2972666804&category=324

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

You do, of course, have some valid points that I won't deny, and have said myself.

However, I must reiterate, no matter *how* you look at it, Saddam being removed from power is a *great* thing for Iraq.

Period.

And of course, another very important point: George Bush does not have the power to do this on his own. He has a whole adminstartion full of people who are a part of this, and the senate approval that is needed to do such things, etc...

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

quote:

---

You do have two valid points, but this makes me sick.

---

DL making two valid points in one post is enough to make me queasy

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Runs by to say something, but I slipped on Emp's throw-up and landed in Ini's.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Then you had better lock up over half of the US and British population too since they have consistently felt this war was the right thing to do.

InI, you do have *some* valid points but your hyperbole (it was hyperbole wasn't it?) undermines your persuasiveness. I mean, I tend to tune out people who seem to be reading from a leftist talking points memo rather. Umm... that goes for those reading from right wing memos too.

Do you really believe all the things you said above or was some or most of that just blowing off some steam?

[edit] Rauthrin, you are right. He has appeared on Bill's show and that is a good thing. Do you know whether or not he has addressed the Iraq issue? Feb 2002 was too early for that. I recall now he was talking to Bill about taxes and such saying how we should be paying 70% of our incomes to the government. I would still love to hear hime on the Larry Elder program to address the inaccurate info contained in his bowling for Columbine movie concerning guns. Here's a link to Larry's invitation, scroll down to the "Michael Moore Where Are You?" section and it explains a bit more where Larry's coming from.

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 12-16-2003).]

no matter what, the USA is always the bad guy. we're fucked, regardless what we do. there's no shortage of people who'll gladly bitch about how awful we are and how whatever we happen to be doing at the moment is wrong, but those same people have no problems stickin their grubbly lil hands out when they want our help. there's not one 'saintly' government on the planet and while my government may not be the best....it's by FAR not the worst. it could be better...but so could the rest of them.

i feel that a majority of the reasons we went to iraq in the first place is horseshit but, i do feel it needed to be done. saddam needed to be removed. though, my reasons for him needing to be removed and those of my government, i'm sure are different.
as michael moore said in that article, we know he had wmd because we gave them to him. i completely believe that! i'd like them to be found, but i don't think it really matters at this point. not finding any wmd isn't going to change a damn thing that's been done. now that saddam's been removed i hope things improve for the people of iraq.

as for michael moore... while he physcially makes me ill and i can't stand the sound of his voice, he does have valid points. it's just that those points have been made so many times now that it's kinda like beating a dead horse.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

The thing about his points, many of which have been echoed eloquently here by our members, is that I do accept the ones that are factual but I ask the question "so then what?". How many have done that? How would each of the loudest critics of these things done it differently? Were there good reasons for supporting Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war?

It's so easy to criticize and so very difficult to actually do anything in this world. More solutions and less hand wringing is what I want to hear from the Left please. I am not referring to all here on the left because there are a few who have risen to this challenge and have made very good arguments for alternative actions. But if you're going to sit there and criticize what we're going then you had better have a BETTER idea to replace it with. Because if you don't then I can virtually guarantee that worse things will happen by sitting on your asses and letting it all go to hell.

Should we follow the lead of how the Europeans so adeptly handled the Balkan atrocities? Do nothing, do nothing, do nothing, oh crap the Americans are doing something. Bastards!!! Oh, now the atrocities have ended and the evil Americans have saved a Muslim population from ethnic cleansing from a Christian population, cool beans. I know that is very turse and silly but is it really that far off?

[edit]
InI, we posted almost at the same time. I want to respond in detail to your points after I've read all clearly but let me say that my initial reaction to your position is that all your questions are completely relative. There is no moral anchor to your view, it is a though you have pulled every nation out of a hat without regard to history or action and treated them as perfect equals. Now God may see it that way but when you are discussing the legitimate exercise of human governments operating in this fallen world, distinctions MUST be drawn.
[/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 12-16-2003).]

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Bugs:

quote:

---

Then you had better lock up over half of the US and British population too since they have consistently felt this war was the right thing to do.

---

Make it three quarters, for good measure, and you've got a deal

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

**Quietly thinking... Maybe it is good that I do not express my political opinions on here too much.**

Ah... Wolfen! Let your ideals fly! We're all in trouble sooner or later. Might as well have fun first.

quote:

---

Why didn't they do a thing? Why in Iraq?

---

My guess would be because stablity in Iraq has a global impact and stability in Rwanda does not. You argue in terms of social equitability... why? Governments don't work in social arenas. They work in a political arena as it relates to themselves. At this point it is a planetwide arena that can only be dealt with in terms of "it affects my country," or, "It doesn't affect my country." Not the best way of dealing with things but it is the only thing one country can do. Where was the US? Where the hell was everyone else? We step in when we have to... We even step in when we don't have to. We have money, yes, but it isn't limitless. You want things to get done... HELP! Everyone gets down on the US because we're out there doing so much stuff. You want us to do less, do more yourself.

That's mostly rant, not directly pointed at you, InI, you just set me off. We can't be responsible when we do something and responsible when we don't. How many people would be bitching if we had sat on our asses waiting for UN authorization and were attacked again or someone else was attacked? Why keep claiming that WMD don't exist and then accuse the US of giving WMD to Saddam? Where did it go if we gave it to him? Isn't the US allowed to fix it's own mistakes? There are some ridiculous inequities on both sides of this argument and I don't think anyone is looking at it very realistically.

I may regret making a comment at this point in the discussion... but here goes:

*steps up on soapbox...*

While I don't agree with Mr. Bush's policies, and don't want him in office, I do agree that given the situation at the time, he did what he and our government felt was right. You can't expect a country of however many billion we are to all agree with him about what exactly was "right".

Change, however it comes, to whomever it comes, is painful. There is no easy way to make serious changes. Bring it down to the microcosm... the individual relationship... You go along, day after day, doing your own thing... thinking your own thoughts... doing what feels good and right for you... Then BLAM! One day, someone important in your life pipes up that what you're doing affects them badly, and in order to keep the relationship, you must change. In order to get things running smoothly again, there has to be a compromise made somewhere. Getting a person to accept the compromise is a different issue entirely. In my experience, there's an awful lot of screaming and crying before the compromise is reached. Sound familiar?

Same with governments. In this case, The UN wanted Iraq to hand over a sufficient number of wmds so that it could say it had done it's job. Saddam didn't want that... no compromise there... The UN and the US both tried various and sundry means of compromise with Saddam. To no avail. Well, going back and forth the way we all were obviously wasn't doing any good. Someone's hand had to be forced. Better the US force Saddam to step down (one way or another) than for Saddam to force the world to bend to his will. Make sense?

Governments are only human, and they can only function as such. We expect way too much of the people we have in power. They can only work with what they have to work with, same as anyone else.

No, I don't like the war. I don't like the fact that the US has become the anathema to the whole world. But someone's got to look the bad guy, and I'd rather it was us, and not some crazy a**hole with genocidal tendencies.

That's my straight up opinion on the matter. Based solely on my observations of the issue through the various available sources on information. Probably all propaganda, but we haven't got much else to go on.

*steps off soapbox...*
edit: spelling... damn new fingers!

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 12-16-2003).]

InI's mention about sustaining a rebellion reminds me of the first Gulf War... Saddam really had some weapons at that time, and a rebellion was spawning. But leaving Saddam in place, let him use his weapons against the rebellion and put an oil for food plan was more important than supporting the rebellion and thus removing him.

Whatever, the USA and UK lied to the whole world to do that war. Where are Saddam's stocks of Anthrax, biological weapons, WMD, ... . Georges W. only does what HE wants and don't bother about internationnal rights and other countries ( I think to that war and to the KYOTO protocol ). If a military intervention ( notice I'm not even talking about a war ) should have happened, it should have been done by the UN because all this mess came from a problem between IRAQ and the UN, not between IRAQ and the USA and UK. Period. The USA and UK didn't have the right to engage a war, neither do they have the right to occupy IRAQ.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

[This message has been edited by poi (edited 12-16-2003).]

Granted... but they're there now, what's the point in arguing about whether or not it was right to do it in the first place? Saddam's been captured, a feather for Mr. Bush's cap, now he has to figure out how to end the hostilities over there in a way that will be best for his image and the Iraqis, as well as for the rest of the world.

Perhaps things could have been handled differently in the past to avoid the whole thing... and if my aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle.

It's what we do from this point forward that's important now.


Cell 617

Whoa thats a lotta rhetoric up there.

A) Michael Moore is a bafoon with a camera looking to make a meager buck while trying to appear righteous. Bowling for Columbine was a farce. The way he cut the film to make it look like the NRA pres was speaking directly about columbine was as duplicitous as any "vast right wing conspiracy" could ever be.

B) It was about time America got a chance to expend munitions... right or wrong Iraq was a perfect firing range. "Shock and Awe" was not so much for Iraq, but for the rest of the world to see. We accomplish many things; scare the shit out of anyone who wants to fuck with us; recycle old weapons; create a need to spend massive amounts of money on restocking are weapons; And, get control of a vast oil reserve.

C) Funding a rebellion would be a ten year trickle: Trickle down economics aside it just would never had amounted to enough expenditure to move our trillion dollar economy. And there would have been all that pesky congressional oversight... never very effective.

The fact the Saddam was caught hiding in a hole is just icing on the cake. He's done. Now is the time to look at who else has something we as americans covet. It shouldnt take too long to figure out a way to take theirs as well... What does Rwanda have that we want? Rwanda? pffft... Lets not be silly.



_____________
Is this thing on?

A Work In Progress

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

I am glad to see there are others out there who share similar views to me, I only wish people with these views would stand up and voice their opinions more often. By saying that I support the war in Iraq I am not saying I am Pro-War, far from it. I am not even pro-US in many regards. I think this nation is on the verge of a social breakdown, but that is beside the point. I support the war in Iraq simply because I believe it to have been the only path to take.

First off, the WMDs. Iraq is a decent size country right? Give them time. You know, there is information that the intelligence agencies collect that isn?t released to the public. The media hardly gives you the full picture, most of the time it barely gives you half. Thing is, all media is subject to small alterations in wording to ?spin? and even mislead the public. I?ll say it once more, give them time.

If you ask me, I say we have found the worst WMD in that country, Saddam himself. For without Saddam or some other crazy dictator in there to use the WMDs, they are a moot point. Point being, the worst WMDs are not made of steel and chemicals, they are made of flesh and blood. At the risk of using a cliche, don't blame the gun, blame the guy who pulled the trigger.

WMDs aside, Saddam had his chance (many times) to redeem himself. He chose to blow off the world, so he was removed, simple as that. It is a shame that many had to die, I would have just had the bastard and his sons assassinated and been done with it, leaving the innocents to continue with their lives and their country. IIRC, though I cannot find a reference, assasination is illegal, so what's the next best option?

Now granted, even if we do find the other WMDs, it doesn?t matter now. Conspiracy theorists will eat that one up with joy. Hell, maybe they can even bring aliens into the mess. Actually, GW has been tapping into the Grey collective and meeting with all the top Saurians as well regarding this issue, and they have offered to plant the WMDs themselves.

Meanwhile, the Greys are two-timing us, hiding Saddam?s real WMDs in their underground bases and tunnels. Branton is there, along with bin Laden, JFK, Hoffa, and the Nazis. (off-topic side note: If you?ve never heard of Branton, take a look. Guy has some crazy ideas, and I bet that is something we can all agree on. )

Ini said

quote:

---

The usa are still using this war to make a profit as they refuse to let other countries help rebuild Iraq.

---

Hmm, well considering we were the ones who took the ball and ran with it while everyone else bitched and moaned about how wrong it was, I would take the same position there.

?You want a part in the rebuilding process, well where were you when our soldiers were sacrificing their lives to make a difference?? Asks the Coalition.

?We were too busy bad-mouthing your nations and complaining.? The whiners reply.

?Then you can take your offers and fill in the blank here.?

Sorry to be blunt, but isn't that basically what it comes down to.

Ini said

quote:

---

And no, it's not good to have the Usa create war for the us economy's sake.

---

I totally disagree here. Sure, undoubtedly one of the benefits of any war will be a boost in the economy. But the United States was the victim of one of the worst terrorist attacks in history. I don?t live in NYC, but happened to be there visiting relatives the week it happened. What I saw that day changed me. You live your life believing ideals of peace, then one day you witness two 100+ story buildings come crashing down before your eyes.

What?s that have to do with anything? A lot if you put yourselves in our shoes. After 9/11, why should we risk another such attack? The US intelligence agencies considered Iraq a threat to OUR national security due to information collected. Bush and his team reviewed that information, found it to be valid, and acted on it. Sorry if we as a country are getting a little tired of all the crap (those of us who don't let the media do our thinking for us)and are tired of playing the political game, a game which time and again failed in this particular area. As I stated above, there is more than likely a lot of information surrounding this that we as regular citizens are not privy to.

Ini said

quote:

---

And I have no doubt that WMDs will be discovered in Iraq, as soon as the us government has
found a way to discreetly bring them there...

---

So of course, no matter what happens, we lose. If we honestly find the WMDs, all the leftists out there are going to scream conspiracy. Ini, nobody likes war, but be real man. Humanity is warlike, whether you like it or not. We?ve been killing each other since the beginning, but look on the bright side, we are getting more humane about it.

As far as wars go, this was very mild and could have been a lot worse. There were those who predicted this would be another Vietnam, and it is not even in the same ballpark. Great measures were taken in keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. Sure, they got sloppy when aiming for officials, but all in all compare this to other war death counts. If anyone has a better source, feel free to post it. This is the best I could come up with.

What is it, roughly 8,000 Iraqis dead, 1500 of those being civilians? Ok, that is a lot but how many of these so-called civilians were armed? More importantly, what is the greater good? How many deaths has Saddam been responsible for in the past, of his own people and neighboring countries? Sure we are guilty of giving him weapons during the Iran/Iraq war, but I think every country has made some blunders in the past, many of which cost a lot more lives than that.

Also, as DL pointed out, Bush did not act alone. He made the decision to go to war based on the information presented him. If any of that information turns out to be false, do you blame him or his sources? If any false information was presented to him, I have no doubt he would make them pay. I believe in this man, it is a hard job and I don't think there are very many humans who could handle the weight that was put on his shoulders without cracking.

(OFF TOPIC RANT: 9/11 probably could have been avoided, but the fact that it wasn't is a testament to Bill C*****n's mess. He cut the budget of the CIA and NSA throughout both of his terms, knew the threat was there, but left it for someone else to clean up. He is the real POS IMO.)

Bugimus said

quote:

---

It's so easy to criticize and so very difficult to actually do anything in this world. More solutions and less hand wringing is what I want to hear from the Left please.

---

Well said Bugs. My sentiments exactly.

Poi, I haven?t agreed with one thing you?ve said here, but you are French so that isn?t any surprise. Please don't let my bluntness offend you, I would hope it would take more than words to do that anyway. It is not a racist or anti-French comment (I am 3/4 French BTW), it is just the truth. The general attitude of France in regards to the US is well known.

I?m going to be blunt, screw the UN. The UN does nothing for me, and only promises to herd us all into a global socialist animal farm without any national sovereignty. Sorry, I am against Globalization and anyone who supports it. After reading their charter, it all sounds like a bunch of idealistic crap to me with no application in the REAL world. A world where war, death, and evil are a fact of life.

In the end, what I really want to know, is how anyone would have done it better? Everyone moans and bitches and complains, particularly these wanna-be presidents. I have not heard one of them state how it could have been done differently, all they can do is bad-mouth the president like a bunch of little high schoolers. None of them seem very presidential to me, and I sure as hell don?t want a whiner in the White House, I want somebody that will do the job the best he knows how, and to me, that is what Bush has been doing all along.

I pose this final question, who is wrong? My answer is that we all are. War is wrong, but so is standing by with your thumb up your butt while innocents die. You want to make the world a better place? Sacrifices and actions must be made. No problem is going to just go away, and most of the time they will only get worse.

I am never happy to see anyone die in this world, but everyone does eventually. I am just glad that this wasn't as bad as it could have been, and more importantly, Saddam is gone. Regardless of any underlying motivation, that is what is important.

My 2 cents. Do with it what you will. Agree, disagree, put it in a blender on frappe.

Just making a new post so it isn't lost in my other one. I have a question for Ini regarding:

quote:

---

Please, show mercy, and show me something that can make this legit, that can make this
"the right choice" when it could easilly have been avoided.
Please...

---

How again could this have been avoided?
How many lives have been and were being taken under Saddam's regime?
How many lives were ending due to the UN sanctions?

Two scenarios:

1) Saddam remains in power: Innocent people continue to die indefinately.
2) Saddam is removed: Innocent people die, but there is an end.

As I asked in my previous post, what is the greater good here? As I see it you just don't like war, and I agree there. The point is that sometimes war is simply unavoidable. Lives were lost yes, but those who remain will be well taken care of, I'll bet every red cent of my tax dollars on that. Not to mention the added bonus of being FREE human beings, no longer held captive to an evil regime.



[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 12-17-2003).]

Thank you, Ramasax for stating the above much better than I. I agree with you.

heh, That's one at least.

Ramasax:

quote:

---

I am 3/4 French BTW

---

Nobody's perfect, but it could be worse, you could be French Don't worry, I can live with people thinking otherwise than me.

UN have been created after the WWII to be an internationnal peace maker, its inspectors and troops should be given a power superior to the one of its own countries. Until that the UN couldn't be taken seriously and few countries will have to take all the risks. It's not fair for them, and not how the things should work for the good of the world and the members of the UN. If the UN had engaged a military intervention, many countries would have followed ( Turkey to name one ) there would have been even more troops with more/various experience and the number of casualties would have been different and diffused among the countries.

To get back to the troubles within the UN, the USA claimed that IRAQ was a serious threat and was hidding some WMD. Although many intelligence services around the world emitted some serious doubt about the existence of Saddam's WMD, the USA refrained to give some clear evidence. No surprise that the UN didn't concluded to send its troops. Later some persons in the Bush administration admitted the CIA had supplied some wrong informations.

Of course, the end of Saddam's reign is a good thing. Nobody said the contrary.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

[This message has been edited by poi (edited 12-17-2003).]

I would just like to point out, for all of those listening and participating, and especially those talking about "financial interests" that Halliburton has so far lost millions of dollars in Iraq.

Serves them right, in my opinion. (I agree that we are trying to exploit them for oil and other things, but I just happened to stumble on the Halliburton news, so I thought I would share it.)

Oh, yes, and I also will be exercising my vote come next election to help poke Mr. Bush off his pedestal if possible. I think that there is no excuse for the way we went in and for those pathetic reasons. Hell, if we can bully whoever we want around because they have powerful toys, then so should we be bullied. Would some of you Canadians and Europeans please motion that America's nukes be handed over or destroyed, and invade us if we don't cooperate? They are quite dangerous in the hands of a madman.

-Xel

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

It may be obvious to every one now, but I think, we could even post 1 billions messages here that nobody will change his/her mind.

A little off topic, but I saw yesterday in the news that there's an exposition in homage to the Enola Gay.... This is scary to give an homage to a plane that did ~200.000 direct casualties while you are "freeing" a country. What a nice intention.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

quote:

---

it's just that nobody called for this war except the us government

---

That's not correct.

The Brits were just as gung-ho, and many other nations *did* in fact support it.

Again, I've said from the start that we did not have the justification for starting this. But it was certainly not the US alone.

And this war, though I still feel it was unjustified, still does not come anywhere near the evil perpetuated by Saddam himself in his own country.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 12-17-2003).]

Poi:

quote:

---

It may be obvious to every one now, but I think, we could even post 1 billions messages here that nobody will change his/her mind

---

Hey Poi, there's something we agree on. Everyone will share a different viewpoint depending on their particular culture, life experience, and brand of propaganda (which unfortunately we are all victims of as someone above stated, but what else do we have to go on?)

Ini, I never wanted to come across that I thought any war was humane, I don't believe that. I am aganst violence, hell we have enough of it on our streets here. I just don't believe there was a better choice. Remove all the BS surrounding this situation (money, greed, power, and any other unpure motivations) and what you are left with is what I said above:

1) Saddam remains in power: Innocent people continue to die indefinately.
2) Saddam is removed: Innocent people still die, but there is an end.

When it comes down to it, I base my choice off of those two scenarios because I believe #2 to be the best in the long run, for the world and for the Iraqis. The truth is that no matter what, innocent people die. A man like Saddam does not allow the third choice of peace unfortunately.

As far as everyone elses WMDs: make guns illegal, and only criminals will have guns. Same thing here, a balance of power must be kept. I don't like the fact that our race has enough firepower to destroy the world many times over, and it would be nice to disarm the whole world. But if you do that, there is nothing stopping people like Hussein from carrying out their dreams of conquest while we all sit around helpless.

But, as Poi states, my words can't change your views, and vice versa. So, in the end, all I can do is this:

quote:

---

OFF TOPIC RANT: 9/11 probably could have been avoided, but the fact that it wasn't is a testament to Bill C*****n's mess. He cut the budget of the CIA and NSA throughout both of his terms, knew the threat was there, but left it for someone else to clean up. He is the real POS IMO.

---

That's actually completely wrong. Bill C*****n actually devoted more efforts to stopping terrorism and capturing Osama Bin Lanin (after Regan and Bush armed and put Bin Ladin in power) than anyone else. Clintion had placed into action plans that were targetting known terrorists, including Bin Ladin, and they were succeeding until they were cut completely short by the end of his term in office. When the Bush administrator came into power, they nixed the anti-terrorism plans until after 9/11 and then reinstated Clintion's plans verbetum claiming them as his own.


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

Yep.

It's real easy for GW to act the hero now, and for c*****n to protrayed as weak and in effective in hindsight.

But it's simply not true.


Bin Laden could have been a much reduced threat had GW listened to C*****n in the first place.

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 12-18-2003).]

[Emp edit: It appears this has been continued here (although to be honest I didn't think this had yet got unweildy but he ho........):
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum1/HTML/008496.html ]

[This message has been edited by Emperor (edited 12-18-2003).]