Preserved Topic: census: should the USA attack Iraq (Page 2 of 3)

You're really out there, huh?

quote:

---

As far as knowing what our gains/losses are before hand... How do we know now what our gains and losses are before we take any sort of action now? We look back on the past actions of similar thought and tally the results. As of most recent count I don't think we have a very good track record as far as saving actual people in the places we've tried to help. We remove one gov'mt and replace it with another that we'll try, and probably succeed, in replacing in 5-10 years. it's a cycle that needs to stop.

---

Life is about trial-and-error. It's a cycle that will never stop unless some eerie phenomenon destroys all life in the galaxy. There is no way to know the future. Omniscience is impossible. In reality, the United States has a very good "track record" in terms of saving lives. We also have economic prosperity to finance any operation deemed necessary to our means to correct life's errors. There's one thing that everyone forgets when they lay blame to another: the biggest mistake ever made was the creation of humans. Don't get me wrong, I'm a dutiful humanitarian, but I understand that fault is typically inherent.

Secondly, the United States of America is a government and a government is a business without the usual civilian business hassle. Therefore, the following definition of what is an "alliance" is applicable to foreign policy: http://www.alliancestrategy.com/MainPages/PDFs/AlliancesDefinition129.PDF

Another term that can be used instead of "alliance" is "bloc" as in "the communist bloc." A bloc (or alliance) is an alliance of people, nations, or organizations working together to achieve some legislative or political goal. Coalition, union, league, federation, confederacy, assembly, association, society, and guild are all synonymous with alliance and bloc.

I imagine that you are the kind of person who wants an international government to replace the current anarchy but you also don't want each country to meddle in the others' affairs. Hypocritical? Yes. If you're not, then I apologize.



[This message has been edited by ramsaydesigns (edited 08-02-2002).]

Now, just how am I supposed to take this then

quote:

---

. If we want the place run the right way we should run it ourselves. Depose the current government and take over. Thats the way it worked in Medival times. You walked in killed everybody and took the land. Wars should work BraveHeart Style too. One, maybe two big battles and there aren't enough able bodied people left to fight anymore. I'm just tired of all of this ridiculous attempt to mediate a situation that we don't REALLY want to mediate. Let Isreal and Palistine destroy each other(or watch Isreal level Palistine in any case). Finish Saddam like we should have during Desert Storm. If we don't want something from the country or we aren't joining an ally I think we should stay out of it. If we truly gain security from offing Saddam... go for it. If we gain nothing... stay out of it. Nice, Simple, Clean cut ideas that always work. Screw world politics.

---

GrythusDraconis? I don't think that it was a case of misunderstanding, but of you poorly wording your intend and opinion.

And that is exactly the problem in world politics and foriegn affairs (misunderstandings). That's why it is a world of grays, and not black and white.

@ramsaydesigns - you don't need to inform me of the intelligence community...I used to work for them in the information gathering area.
And yes, there is a dept. for Foreign affairs...and in some instances, America has had long-running, consistent foreign policy (cuba comes to mind). More to the point, is establishing a consistent, steady approach to the world. Americas ever-changing 'face' causes a lot of turmoil and scepsis in the political arena. This could (and should, for the most part) be avoided. Unfortunately, the world is an ever-changing place (politically), requiring new 'solutions' to old problems. It's all about national interest. This must be understood.

I for one, do think that a global government has it's uses. I would very much like to see the powers of the UN increased. But this will probably not occur for some time. Most of the developed countries are against this (and they are on the security council, for the most part). Until Global interest is put before National interests, there will continue to be tension between countries of the world.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that this would solve all the problems that we have. However, it would go a long way toward establishing an environment where most problems could be dealt with without resorting to the threat (or actual use) of force.

Life is about trial and aerror... Hmmm... sound like what I said. The cycle I spoke of had nothing to about learning how to deal with life. The cycle I spoke of was removing governments and helping one get into place that we would be removing in 5-10 years.

You're really very good at pulling apart the bit of information you want to see.

No, I don't want an International government but I don't think I'd die if one was put into place either. I also wouldn't other countries meddling in each others affairs. Hypocritical? Yes. Unreal? Yes. You needn't apologize for calling me a hypocrite. I am. And so is most everyone else. All a hypocrite is is someone who wants more than they can have. Of course, knowing that just means that I'd rather settle for something better than what is around right now.

You're right WS. I did poorly word my opinion. But thanks for using that to furthur your arguement. I agree with your statement about the UN needing more power to do its job. Global interest is something that's very hard to come by. I don't really expect to see a world unified by a common enemy or realizing that we aren't alone in the universe(s) which seems to be the only way it ever happens in movies. So how do we get there in reality?

To get back to the issue; I've decided in my opinion that going after Saddam would be pointless. Going after his munitions plants and labs might be a better choice. Since that's what bother us most about him in the first place. Saddam is just a man. If we take him out specifically then we'll get some other man who will have the same bombs and biologics that Saddam had. Unfortunately that means we have to go in and occupy the area until we find them all. Whilst my point of view on war makes me seem like an ass I don't really want or like it in any way. So to refresh my memory... we're going after Saddam because he's a potential threat? Isn't that pretty close to first striking everyone who could hurt us ad happens to ahve a gripe with the US? Where does that stop(To quote WS)? It sounds like that puts us right where WS thought I was trying to go.


GrythusDraconis

Draconis: Life is about trial-and-error and so is politics. (e.g. remove government, establish new government, result is bad, try, try again)

Shouldn't we perhaps let the people decide who should govern them? What right do we have to tell them who can and can't govern them? We should let them decide how they want to be governed and by who. If the people decide that they don't want to be dictated to be their government they'll take care of it. If they refuse to take a chance and stand for their beliefs, I have a hard time supporting the United States doing it for them. They still won't get anywhere because they don't have the convictions to succeed on their own. They need to be proud of what they've earned. As it is now they have no pride in anything because they've had little to nothing to do with the removal/replacement procedure. Revolution is a good thing when it's necessary. Revolution promots change and growth. Revolution is also an internal issue. A struggle for the greater good of the people involved. We're never letting the people of these countries get to that point of necessity where they choose to revolt and change things in their country for the better. We change it for them and they never get anywhere, things rarely change, and we end up dictating to them who is allowed to rule them. We're helping them stagnate and I think that's one of the worst things we can do.

GrythusDraconis

Sorry about that last post if you saw it. I just had to walk a long ways because my ride disappeared...

I'll let WebShaman answer you, Draconis, since he was in intelligence. If I answer you, I'll end up insulting you and starting a flame war... then this thread will burst into flames and the moderators will lock it to contain the blaze....

[This message has been edited by ramsaydesigns (edited 08-03-2002).]

Well. GrythusDraconis that's an interesting point that you raise...and one that deserves to be investigated.

quote:

---

Shouldn't we perhaps let the people decide who should govern them?

---

Ok, let's deal with the question for a moment - we are talking about the Iraqi citizens here, right? Now, I take it, they have many things in common with just about all human beings, in that they do wish to have a better future, and better living conditions, esp. for their children. However, their country is shot to hell, living conditions are miserable (most are only thinking about surviving today, and that is hard enough, without thinking about tomorrow...), the countries infra-strukture is pretty much non-existent...

So how do you suggest that someone 'poll' them for what kind of Government that they want? Hell, they'd take anything that offered jobs, money, and food. It's only when someone has a relative amount of security, wealth, and prosperity that one begins to 'long' for more...this is all based on the 'needs pyramid', you know, that thing you learned in basic psychology...or are you suggesting an 'armed revolt'? Then you are asking a people to somehow arm themselves (with who's help? Even the Americans didn't 'do it alone'...we had help from the French...), get organized, and somehow topple Saddam from his throne...get real. This is an example of a dictator, who has a very tight control on everything. He's got spies everywhere, and the military at his disposal. And he has no qualms with 'eliminating' threats to his reign...as he has showed, time and again. But most importantly, he controls information. And because the US has before 'suggested' such an action (and even supported it, for awhile, before dropping the thing like a hot potato), it is hardly likely that anyone there would be stupid enough to trust the Americans again. So who's going to do it? The UN? Well, they are not 'allowed' to do such things...so somebody will have to do it, but without the help of the UN...

To be blunt - the 'easy' way, if you will, is to just get rid of Saddam...and give the people time to get back on their feet, improve living conditions, etc. with a provisional government, supported by UN Peacekeepers. Then one could have local elections, whatever. One must keep in mind, that Iraq does have substantial reserves of oil, which can be readily turned into currency...with a solid start, Iraq could get back on it's feet again in a relatively small amount of time.

Ramsey -

No, I didn't see the post but it makes me wonder what you thought was so terrible about it. And secondly... I don't join fire fights. They're pointless. I would've just let you dish it out. you'd have lost your voice soon enough.

WS -

I didn't mean we should 'poll' the people for what they wanted. I meant they should decide for themselves, on their own. Your proposition of the US getting help is true. We did get help. We even asked for it. What I want to see is the people to take initiative, not for us to cram Democracy down their throats. They want Saddam gone. Very good, we can do that for them. They want a benevolent ruler/president/ whatever they want. Well... we refuse to rule them because we don't want to appear the conqueror. This is where they need to have some drive all on their own. They have to want it badly enough to work at it after we fix it for them. I still think the best way for that to happen is for them to initiate everything. That shows that they are going to try and keep what we're trying to help them get.

My issue with the provisional governments that are set up is that they always seem to be the governments that take over and get replaced later on. We need to pay attention to the quality of the provisional government. We can't keep just replacing governments all the time. Eventually we're going to run into a government structure that the people like and that ruler might not like us any more than Saddam does. So what do we do then? We can't site the suffering of the people as our reason for going after him then. It just becomes war. As of right now, I don't see any vested interest based on the people of Iraq. They have plenty of interest in seeing him taken out, mind you, but they aren't turning that interest into action. Even if the only action they take is to ask for help. That'd be the first step in their revolution. Not all revolutions are fought by those who want the revolution to happen. But revolutions are always fought for an ideal that someone within the country wants. Not what we want for them. That's just a war against their government. They need to make the first move or they'll end up depending on the US or the UN or whoever's name this happens under. In short, we get a spoiled brat of a country that is used to things being done for them and given to them.

GrythusDraconis

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-05-2002).]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-05-2002).]

One thing that many people (e.g. the general population of the United States of America) don't realize is that America is not ABLE to attack Iraq any time soon. Why? Because we've used up all of our bombs in Afghanistan. Defense companies like Raytheon and DRS Technologies are getting BIG contracts for more Jadam (1000lbs.) bombs and the newest bomb "Dial-A-Bomb." It'll be at least a year before we see any action taken by the U.S.

Also, there are some folks who think that assassinating Saddam is a breach of foreign policy. This is untrue. The presidential directive banning assassinations issued in 1976 by President Gerald Ford applies only to assassinations of private citizens. Saddam Hussein and Kadafi have a problem. They call themselves generals. In other words, they are the top general of their country and military, therefore they are not private citizens. The presidential directive banning assassinations will not apply to these two persons.

Current U.S. President George Bush's staff is complete with his father's old foreign affairs personnel. America's foreign affairs is managed by the best of the best in foreign affairs. Remember, former President George Bush was incredible with foreign affairs and was also the most experienced president we've ever had.

Colin Powell, U.S. Secretary of State, is one of those foreign affairs people. He knows from his experiences in past wars like Vietnam that in order to win a war... you must be the nastiest bastard alive. Nice guys finish dead. You have to sledgehammer your opponent and destroy his forces in quick, heavy blows to the head. We saw this in Vietnam from former President Lyndon Johnson. We also have to know why we are fighting and what we will do when we achieve our goal. Colin Powell knows how to win wars.

I've more interesting facts but I have to go work soon. Be back later.

GrythusDraconis, though you do have some points of merit (and we are getting further and further away from the original topic here), you must keep a few things in mind. First of all, who should one ask in Iraq as to what kind of government is wanted? Because irregardless of who one asks, others will disagree.

Second, people fearing for not only their own lives, but those of their families, are not very communicative...how do you propose to 'protect' such people from retaliation for Saddam before the actual 'rebellion'?

Third, the problem with self-rule is (from an American standpoint) that it could decide not to be 'friendly' to the US...and this is a 'natural' result of national interest...as such, many 'governments' have been either a) supported by the Americans, because they give us what we want or b) disposed of, because they get in the way of what we want. Sadly, this is business as usual, not only for America, but the world at large.

Fourth, one must consider that (and I can't believe I have to say this...do some research on the region, for cryin' out loud) Iran, Iraqs neighbor, has a vested interest in Iraq...and would just love the chance to 'include' it into the Moslem faith...controlled, of course, by Iran...but as a 'seperate' nation...as it does with other lands in the region...

So as one can see, the problem is certainly not one of black and white, but one of grays, many grays...where the margin to err is great. Because of this, it is often easier (and quicker) to use military force. Whether or not that is the best way, is a relatively moot question here. It is simply the most efficient. Blast Saddam away, get the Un to set up a 'provisional' government, and it's business as usual in the world...not meaning that it is right, or just.

Here an interesting link http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13749 - though not everything in the article I agree with, it's not totally inaccurate...


[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 08-06-2002).]

And a rebellion it would be for the Iraqi people for rebellions are crushed and revolutions succeed. I'm having a moment here... um...

The question is made so that we would help ourselves to understand. The question is not made in order for us to merely say what is right and what is wrong; it is the question that blinds us and it is the question that lets us see clearly. We must find answers to the question stated in the first post and in the topic in order to help us understand the decisions of the world for it is unlikely that any of our mere opinions will have a real effect on others' decisions.

Is that clear?

A question is for understanding that which is questioned not for "questioning" the act that which is done by another.

I say yes .. only because we should have finished what we started .. he is only creating more and more tension in the area


Click on the Image to go to the Recycling Center .::. cEll .::. 513

Well, in my personal opinion, we should leave Iraq be for the present time. I hate to say this, but Dubya's getting just a little bit too gung-ho for my liking. He goes on about a preemptive (pardon the spelling if it's wrong) strike to usurp Saddam Hussein from power. He is completely disregarding the political and social-economic consequences that this will have on the Middle East and indeed, the entire world.

If the US attacks Iraq when the majority votes against such action, does that not make the US a greater threat? Everyone goes on about how good the US is, and then they try to pull a foolish action such as this. True, not all Americans agree with Bush's view of things, but it is their country and their elected government. They should have a say on what their country commits to. Is the world really prepared for another Gulf War?

it's simple.
Saddam is contractually obligated to not have certain weapons, due to the terms of the gulf war when we beat his ass.

If he has these weapons now and won't let us dismantle them, then we'll have to beat his ass again and most likely remove him from power.

Only problem I have is that no proof has been shown to us or anyone else that he actually is harboring these weapons.

If we get proof, cool, do it. If not, no way.
And none of that post-war "evidence".
No one can believe that crap anyway.

Now here is an interesting one - there seems to be an assumption that if the US (and hangers on like the UK) attack Iraq that they would win but this could be a fatal assumption:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,787017,00.html

The US seems to be gearing up for a straight toe-to-toe fight with Iraq but that is certainly not the kind of war they got in the war games mentioned above and it certainly wouldn't be the way I (as an armchair general) would fight it. Iraq knows it would loose a conventional battle but it can fight two different kinds of war:

1. A hit and run war on the American supply lines - truck bombs, suicide bombers, small planes loaded with explosives all hitting bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. and the fleet as well as strikes across the US and Europe (technically he doesn't even have to co-ordinate these efforts as events of nearly a year ago proves there are people ready to do that anyway).

2. A psychological war gragging the whole of the Middle East to Hell with him. Saudia Arabia is on a knife edge (one of the reasons the US want another oil-rich country in their back pocket) and other countries like Egypt aren't far behind (I think it was an Egyptian minister who said the other day that a war would 'open the gates of hell'). One anthrax laden Scud landing in Israel would probably prompt a nuclear retaliation and you would find a lot of people in the Moslem world taking a more militant stance than before.

Of course it is possible for the US to take out Saddam but the world is a different place to what is was when the Gulf War took place. If you go in without some kine of UN agreement then the psychological war will be far worse - if they go in without expecting a dirty war then they might win but the losses will be huge.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

hmmmmmz...........

nope.... well not until u can provide some hard evidence.

americans are wierd. what i find ammusing is that america does go about bullying people and then when they get a reaction everyone is like "OMG WHY DID THAT HAPPEN"
thus the saying what goes around comes around, spin shit an it will come back to you.
aside from that, i have sore pecks! heeeeelp..........

Well your points are certainly well researched and valid StickyFinguz.

I'm proud of all the effort you put into those points and counterpoints you just listed.

Oh wait... i'm sorry.... that wasn't you at all.
And I was being sickeningly sarcastic.

But please go ahead and be an Osama-apologist.
Doesn't bother me.
Living in your socialist, crime-ridden, freedom-bereft, greenpeace Australia is punishment enough, I'm sure.

<shakes head, sadly>

I'm not going to pollute this thread with a bunch of facts, since they would be lost in the allegations and generalizations.
I'm not going to attack anyone, directly, since clearly we're all much more interested in side-stepping the ideas and turning directly to personal conflict.
I'm not going to follow the above rules.

genis, first off, I need to spend a moment taking apart your character, as it's clearly in desperate need of some glue -- even your ideas fall apart when collected under a header such as this:

quote:

---

But please go ahead and be an Osama-apologist.
Doesn't bother me.
Living in your socialist, crime-ridden, freedom-bereft, greenpeace Australia is punishment enough, I'm sure.

---

I've heard Dear Abbey columns that were better researched. I think it might be time for you to take a step out of Dallas and look at the rest of the world for a few minutes -- really, it does exist. It's frightful that our current dicta...president came from your backwards state. I am suddenly no longer surprised that we are going trigger-happy with the lives of the rest of the world.

After all, those bastards needed a'killin'. That's a legal defense over there in Tay-hah, right?

Now, taking a step back from the character assassination #1, we'll turn to the focus the above quoted material (for the Texans in the audience, it's the part right before, "I've heard Dear Abbey," and right after, "header such as this:").

We are speaking about a possible massacre in Iraq, right? And Captain Bush is trying to pull this all under the "WE'RE BEING ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS SO GET YOUR GUNS AND DRINK A LOT OF FUCKING COFFEE AND SHOOT AT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT MIGHT THREATEN OUR SUPERPOWER REGIME AND/OR LOOK DIFFERENT FROM US," Presidential Seal, correct? Alright. So, when does the public get our grubby, clearly-too-stupid little hands on the evidence that Bush has collected? (Side note: I wouldn't trust Bush to Collect All Four toys from a McDonald's Happy Meal drive) Even if we were to finally see this mythical data, at what point did we appoint ourselves (as no one else would) to the rank of Uber-Soldat in charge of keeping everyone under us subservient? I missed that memo. Maybe you could fax it to me? I'll be in the bomb shelter.

This war wouldn't be about facts any more than the last one we fought was. It's about oil. It's about people with towels on their heads getting rowdy with the rowdiest fuckin' bully on the block. It's about a bunch of rich white people getting together to pick a new enemy, since the last one (Russia) became too friendly. It's about giving Americans something to talk about beyond the weather which is positively depressing.

Eek. I can't leave the assassination there, genis. You mentioned the contracts that Iraq had to sign after the Gulf War. When will we learn that incredibly-punitive reparations lead to more wars? Someone didn't read their history books. I'll point you to the Treaty of Versailles. Don't stop there, follow it for a couple years. Nod and say thank you.

RammStein makes a very interesting point. He says that we should go ahead and kill some more civilians because, "...we should have finished what we started." Awww, haven't you ever started a .PSD and never actually completed the damn thing because you realized you were trying to use Photoshop to improve your sex life? Surely you have. Surely you have also recognized that the two things (a sex life, and photoshop) have absolutely nothing to do with eachother, right? In this case, the metaphor is solid: killing civilians in Iraq has nothing to do with keeping America safe from terrorists...or completing what we started, for that matter. That was a previous Bush Regime. Read up on it--he was beaten soundly in '92 because no one in America supports an over-zealous war-monger.

WebShaman also graces us with a few pearls of wisdom. He mentions that this regime-change in Iraq (something I suggest for ourselves, but I keep getting guns shoved in my face) has a possible side-effect of "[not being] 'friendly' to the US." We cherish remarks like these, because they remind Us why We don't like listening to Rush Limbaugh. Remember how we used to vote for presidents? Man, things are tough all over for the heartless regimes of America. Next, we'll think our votes actually count!

Suddenly, from the darkness of night, ramsaydesigns tells us that America cannot attack Iraq right now because we "used up all of our bombs in Afghanistan." Allow me to sit back and giggle for about twenty minutes. When I'm finished there, I'll tell you about how many bombs we actually have, and if we had used them all, Afghanistan would be a glass parking lot.

<giggles>

Alright, I'm done. Wait, no I'm not! Not after reading this gem: "...former President George Bush was incredible with foreign affairs and was also the most experienced president we've ever had." Call me when FDR rolls over, vomits, and then comes back to kick your ass. He'll be seriously upset to note he's been pushed down the totem pole to below the man that threw up on the Japanese Prime Minister.

Oh, I could go on, but I need to get back to my drinking. The world is going to hell, but at least now I know who is goading it on.

s t e p h e n

[This message has been edited by twItch^ (edited 09-07-2002).]

Oh what... are you trying to say I just listed an opinion without stating any fact or research whatsoever to back up that opinion?

OMG how adept of you.

I wish someone would get the irony.... anybody at all get the irony and sarcasm???!!!

I mean, I WAS replying to someone who just gave as a ridiculous response about my country as I just did about theirs.... I mean... HELLOOOOO.... HELLOOOOOOO!!!

<shakes head, sadly>

But then after your personal attack on my state (and president, and also backed up with no facts) you went into the actual subject.
In which you blabbed about reparations... <giggles> (<-- oh by the way with all these reutterances of your own words in your post... I'm making fun of you.... had to point that out... you're not exactly the most astute individual.)

reparations my ass!
What? Like we're a bunch of carpet baggers, marching into Baghdad claiming Iraqi merchandise for ourselves? Only thing we took was their bombs, and then we dismantled them.
I think you're thinking of economic sanctions.... its what we put on all fucking countries that don't play nice.
You seem to remember Russia not playing nice.... it's what we did to them.
It's how we won the Cold War for fuck's sake!

Did that lead to another war? Hell no, it stopped the biggest war there ever would've been.
Have these economic sanctions caused another war?
nope, only rebellion amongst the Iraqi citizens, which was their intent.

I don't know what history books you're reading, biggin, but they must have the horrible stank of an angle.
Not the best facet for a history book to have. (and they say the winners write the history books.)

Your passion for history facts amaze me, because then you say Bush (41) lost in '92 because no one likes an overzealous war-monger! HAHAHAHA.... oh man... do you live in this country ???
We love over-zealous war-mongers as long as the work for us.
Bush was beaten in '92 because
1.) he was a liar - said he wouldn't raise taxes.... but he did
2.) he signed the brady bill - this is only the most restrictive measure to the 2nd Amendment EVER. And Bush was a LIFE-MEMBER of the fucking NRA (who kicked him out and rightly so).
3.) Ross Perot was on the ticket - This guy got all the NRA supporters (6million members + non-member supporters) plus he got the ultra-conservative vote... he took a substantial share.
4.) We were in a recession - This combined with tax hikes will unseat any incumbent president. Hands down.

HOLY FUCK, could I go on and on, but apparently your stupidity knows no bounds.
Attacking me with no apparent reason other than my attack on an Osama-apologist has got to rank up there as one of the dumbest posts of all time.

Amazing.... simply amazing.

*Gets out popcorn*...ohboy...Genis...you're kinda new around here...and so, you don't know twItch^...

*Grins*...maybe he will actually reply...been a long time since he's done that...the first post here is just a taste...



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 09-07-2002).]

don't mind me.... i'm just a "passer-by"...

but um... we've got a bomb or two "left over" from that afghanistan incident.


-that's all.
-go back to chattering about nonsense and not listening to each other.

*pulls out little black book*
... anyone want a piece of this?

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

it's genis..... come on... g-e-n-i-s .... you spelled twitch^ right.... yeesh.

Living outside of America gives me a slightly oblique angle on this entire saga.

Genis, you really need to wake the fuck up and stop believing that it's your countries right to govern the world. There's been a bunch of polls about this very subject the world over (that's outside of America btw) and the reason why no one has blindly offered support for America in this is becaue they're so not in your favour. Well, except for Australia, cause our sorry excuse for a Prime Minister is only still in power because of the media coverage surrounding him about September 11 last year. Thus he thinks by continuing this he will continue to cast a shadow on any other political matters in this country and steal the press away from the real shit that's happening over here. The really sad part about this is that it'll work too.

Leading up to 9.11 the polls were showing him to be in a dismal political position. Post 9.11 they almost reverses themselves. Why? Because all of a sudden there was a new enemy to parade to the people and he knew he could hide his true self behind the propaganda and appear to be a hero for doing little more than kissing bush's ass.

64% of Australians don't want to support America in this. Given the huge amount of sympathy flowing towards the US lately even I was surprised to find the figures this one sided. Maybe there is hope left for humanity after all. Still, doesn't it make you want to stop and ask why the support from the people outside your borders is failing?

Oh and getting shitty about people miss spelling your handle comes across as really pertinacious. It happens all the time, get use to it already.

quote:

---

Genis, you really need to wake the fuck up and stop believing that it's your countries right to govern the world.

---

Did I say that?

Hmm, nope.
Don't know where you got that shit from Dragsis.

genis, it's not about what you say, its what can and will be inferred from your posts

edit: and for the record, no offense genis, but you haven't been here but a week or too, and already your ethnocentricly judging people left and right, reminds me a lot of ramsaydesigns who ended up leaving the asylum after a very short mounth of what you seem to be doing

word of the wise

watch your fucking mouth before you end up like me

[This message has been edited by InSiDeR (edited 09-09-2002).]

seems to me he's making some good points in a rather arrogant way, he fits in just fine around here I think.

a big chunk of successful living can be carved out for anyone that wants to filter through the arrogance and trash talk of a different perspective and take something from it. everyone's got something to offer man, even you insider, yep.

Jason

I can't see how I have come off arrogant, however I might come off conceited.
Because I am. In this particular topic anyhow, after reading some of these rants.

But i swear... it's only because some opinions expressed in here are espoused by utter morons.

(<-- HA! Now THAT was arrogant! )

Oh yeah, I forgot to make fun of Insider... hoo boy!

quote:

---

genis, it's not about what you say, its what can and will be inferred from your posts.

---

If you are referring to how many in this forum dislike you Insider, it isn't because of what they infer about your character from your posts, it is because of what you say in your posts.

Your sadly overbearing tone I always consider secondary to any good content in your post.
Unfortunately, you rely heavily on your tone to speak for you, rather than any sort of point.
And it doesn't seem to be working.



[This message has been edited by genis (edited 09-09-2002).]

hmmmmmmmm (interesting thead btw... for a change)

what about the bigger picture?

Ozone problems (as in atmosphere), the Aids epidemic, starving children , anon , et al? heh

~sigh~

If Isreal, a nation known for launching pre-emptive attacks, isn't worried about Saddam why should the United States be? If Saddam doesn't have the ability to launch nuclear weapons at US targets and if the likelyhood of him selling nuclear weapons to bin Laden are so slim, then why are we going to risk the lives of our citizens to stop this man?

Other then helping Bush win re-election, what insentive does the United States have to invade Iraq?

-Jestah
Cell 277

good point Jestah.
And as the outspoken U.N. weapons inspector Ritter (who is against another war) has said he has close ties to Israeli intelligence and says they don't believe Saddam is building large weapons factories.

I mean we do know he keeps building anti-aircraft weapons, we blow them up weekly, but large scale weapons should be the only worrisome thing.
But hey it all comes down to evidence.
We don't actually need any more to justify going in, but the public should demand it before we send our sons and daughters to war again.

Who knows what the incentive is for the US, other than preventing a bigger war in the future.
It may be a secret Israli-US deal after all, or it may be we just want to have control of two sides of Iran.

Who knows, but if there is sufficient evidence that he's close to a nuke (hell, even conventional ICBMs) I say lets turn his backyard into the surface of the moon.

As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination.
When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular.

Oscar Wilde

What difference does it make if Saddam's nuclear or close to it?

Historically speaking nuclear nations don't pose as much of a threat to us.

Besides, what evidence has been gathered against him?

-Jestah
Cell 277

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 09-09-2002).]

Historically speaking, nuclear nations were led by people as power hungry AND as terrified of nuclear war as we are in the US. I don't know that we can say the same for Saddam. Personally I think he already has nuclear capability. We seem to be focusing on his building of nukes... Why? He has enough money to buy them from anybody who's offering. They may not be good nukes. but they don't really need to be, do they? Think "Sum of All Fears". Tactical missle launches aren't the only way to deliver nukes to the US.


GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Haha...

My tone?

How would you know what my tone of voice is when I read this in my head as I post?

It's all about interpretation buddy...

And as far as the "infer," comment goes, I meant some people can interprete (there's that word again) from what you say.

And as for the "If you're refering to how many poeople dislike you in this forum," comment goes... Damn right, I am probably the most disliked person in this forum, but I don't care. I'm still here, giving blood, keeping faith... Or ermz, no faith I guess...

Good Luck.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

Can't say I've seen Sum of All Fears, could you clearify your point please?



-Jestah
Cell 277

The basic drive of the movie is the production and shipment of a nuclear bomb to US soil. Some old, nuclear bomb off of an Isreali fighter jet was bought on the black market, rebuilt into a vending machine and put in a stadium in Baltimore, Maryland. All organized with agents that were already in place and waiting for the word to go. The whole thing is based on our focus on missle attacks and the ease with which the plan was enacted.

We are focused on Saddam's ability to create things, ICBM's and nukes and the rest. Why? Nukes aren't only missiles and he has the money to buy what he wants even if he can't/we don't allow him to make it himself.

Sorry to all those who haven't seen the movie yet.


GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 09-10-2002).]

Read the book...it's much better...

And in the wake of 9/11, just the more erie...

That's a Tom Clancy book right WS? The last few of his that I've read have been very disappointing. I'll hafta pick up a copy though.

September 11th was a tragedy, but try not to forget this is a movie. We can't simply invade everyone because there's the chance they *might* be trying to become nuclear. The world's a sad place when a politician (Bush) is willing to send a country to war so voters will forget about financial troubles come election time. Saddam poses no new threat to the United States then he did a decade ago.

Bush hasn't even been able to convince Republicans in Congress to support him. We'll have to wait until tomorrow when he addresses the United Nations to find out exactly what type of evidence he does have. Although I get the sinking sensation once again he's going to tell people he has evidence. He can't show anyone the evidence because it would compromise the United States but we have evidence.

Yea. I have the original Mona Lisa. I can't show it to you, but if you give me $10,000,000 in cash upfront I'll let you have it.

-Jestah
Cell 277