 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - The lounge
Subject: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 17
Original Message Date: 11-Aug-02 @ 12:49 PM - [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
I think the USA should definitely invade Iraq at the
earliest possible opportunity. They threaten the US's
control of this vital oil producing region. If the US has no
access to this oil, the economy will crumble and people
will starve. let's keep the starving where they belong. In
the thrid world!
What's the point of being the world's greatest power if
you can't excercise that power in your own interests?
The whinging liberals can leave the country as far as I
am concerned. The US should use its military, political
and economic power to assure it's safe future. Any
other course of action is mere self delusion. Do you
think that another country with the same power as the
US would act any differently?
Anyone, like bin laden, or arafat, who dares to attack
the US or its interests must be first humiliated and then
destroyed. This may cause resentment in other nations,
but what the hell are they going to do about it? Invade
America?
Anyone who threatens the viability of US corporates
must be taught a lesson. The US controls the IMF, the
World Bank, etc etc. The US should NOT be afraid to
use this leverage to further its own ends.
The time has come for the world to realise that we are
not beholden to any organisation, legal body or treaty,
whether or not we signed it sometime in the past.
Times, as they say, change.
earliest possible opportunity. They threaten the US's
control of this vital oil producing region. If the US has no
access to this oil, the economy will crumble and people
will starve. let's keep the starving where they belong. In
the thrid world!
What's the point of being the world's greatest power if
you can't excercise that power in your own interests?
The whinging liberals can leave the country as far as I
am concerned. The US should use its military, political
and economic power to assure it's safe future. Any
other course of action is mere self delusion. Do you
think that another country with the same power as the
US would act any differently?
Anyone, like bin laden, or arafat, who dares to attack
the US or its interests must be first humiliated and then
destroyed. This may cause resentment in other nations,
but what the hell are they going to do about it? Invade
America?
Anyone who threatens the viability of US corporates
must be taught a lesson. The US controls the IMF, the
World Bank, etc etc. The US should NOT be afraid to
use this leverage to further its own ends.
The time has come for the world to realise that we are
not beholden to any organisation, legal body or treaty,
whether or not we signed it sometime in the past.
Times, as they say, change.
Message 71/168 12-Aug-02 @ 11:34 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
"No longer applies"
shit! It's never applied. Read up on what James Madison was really for...the federalists/anti-federalists. They both knew the deal at the end of the day...it's just fractions of the same whole. Either you were clear about your intentions or you tried to mask them...it's been this way all along.
You can read about the decision being made how this was gonna be a republic and not a democracy if you'd like. It's all there...WITHOUT YOUR HIGHSCHOOL HISTORY BOOK TWIST.
Take responsibilty for your knowledge base...stop perpetuating bullshit and lies!
dissonance
shit! It's never applied. Read up on what James Madison was really for...the federalists/anti-federalists. They both knew the deal at the end of the day...it's just fractions of the same whole. Either you were clear about your intentions or you tried to mask them...it's been this way all along.
You can read about the decision being made how this was gonna be a republic and not a democracy if you'd like. It's all there...WITHOUT YOUR HIGHSCHOOL HISTORY BOOK TWIST.
Take responsibilty for your knowledge base...stop perpetuating bullshit and lies!
dissonance
Message 72/168 13-Aug-02 @ 12:15 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
rt - you are soooooooo living in a dream world. You need to get real. How successful can actions be if you notify the whole world what you are going to do. If I am reading this right, GWB should be telling the American people that they are sending troops into Iraq, along with some other allies preparing for war, before they do it? And this is supposed to be kept secret from Saddam? Or maybe you'd prefer a referendum?
Message 73/168 13-Aug-02 @ 12:44 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
ummmm,
You can justify "secret military actions" until you're blue in the face; they're a quick and easy stepping stone towards a full military dictatorship.
Oh... wait... isn't that what we're trying to bomb Iraq back to the Middle Ages to prevent? In the name of "democracy"? Right??
dissonance,
See if I didn't already know that. Until recently, though, the US was at least a few steps short of a full-scale dictatorship.
Now, of course, the political reality lies fully unmasked, for anyone who dares take a peek at it.
Ever since the days of De Tocqueville, the hypocrisy of American politics has been vividly and almost laughably evident -- to everyone except the purported "citizens" of the United States. With the exception of Mark Twain, of course.
rt
You can justify "secret military actions" until you're blue in the face; they're a quick and easy stepping stone towards a full military dictatorship.
Oh... wait... isn't that what we're trying to bomb Iraq back to the Middle Ages to prevent? In the name of "democracy"? Right??
dissonance,
See if I didn't already know that.
Now, of course, the political reality lies fully unmasked, for anyone who dares take a peek at it.
Ever since the days of De Tocqueville, the hypocrisy of American politics has been vividly and almost laughably evident -- to everyone except the purported "citizens" of the United States. With the exception of Mark Twain, of course.
rt
Message 74/168 13-Aug-02 @ 03:25 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
If Iraq is funding terrorists, then they are basicly attacking America. I would like to know (see the evidence) if Iraq is guilty of this or not.
Message 75/168 13-Aug-02 @ 08:23 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Yeah, that's the problem isn't it.. there actually is no evidence of Iraq funding terrorism is there?
And certainly not any evidence of Iraq funding the Al Quaeda, who have no love for Saddam anyways, being into Islamic, not secular dictatorships.
The excuse that 'we must attack Iraq because they may have weapons of mass destruction' and 'Saddam is evil' don't really stack up.
For instance we KNOW that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and a VERY unstable regime, and lots and lots of islamic fundamentalists... so what should we do there if the govrnemnt falls apart (quite likely, especially as the Pakistanis hate the current Military Dictator's sucking up to the allies)?
But, hey, maybe a middle-eastern country with weapons of mass destruction that consistently oppresses and brutalises large parts of it's own population needs to taught a lesson? OK, lets invade Israel then, make them get out of palestine and replace their war mongering terrorist leader with a US backed dictator?
If we do attack Iraq and depose Saddam, who takes his place?
I know a bunch of people that will be rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of the US/UK invading Iraq, who? Al Quaeda of course... it makes their brand of fundamentalist Islam a lot more credible and will probably gain them a nation full of new recruits.
Or do you think that the 'precision' (sic) bombing of Iraq's infrastructure will convince the arab civilian population that the US/UK are their best friends?
I know, we could destroy their fresh water supply, communications and transport infrastructure! Ah.. no, we did that already.. damn.
So what exactly do we do? Bomb the shit out of Baghdad until Saddam comes to his senses.. Sure there might be a little 'collateral damage' (code for dead women and children) but hell, that would mean we get to replace Saddam with uh... a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists? A bunch of rolex wearing guys in silk suits? (as a US general recently described the fragmented Iraqui oppostion)
If we attack Iraq it will start a christian/moslem conflict that will cast a shadow over this whole century.
And certainly not any evidence of Iraq funding the Al Quaeda, who have no love for Saddam anyways, being into Islamic, not secular dictatorships.
The excuse that 'we must attack Iraq because they may have weapons of mass destruction' and 'Saddam is evil' don't really stack up.
For instance we KNOW that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and a VERY unstable regime, and lots and lots of islamic fundamentalists... so what should we do there if the govrnemnt falls apart (quite likely, especially as the Pakistanis hate the current Military Dictator's sucking up to the allies)?
But, hey, maybe a middle-eastern country with weapons of mass destruction that consistently oppresses and brutalises large parts of it's own population needs to taught a lesson? OK, lets invade Israel then, make them get out of palestine and replace their war mongering terrorist leader with a US backed dictator?
If we do attack Iraq and depose Saddam, who takes his place?
I know a bunch of people that will be rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of the US/UK invading Iraq, who? Al Quaeda of course... it makes their brand of fundamentalist Islam a lot more credible and will probably gain them a nation full of new recruits.
Or do you think that the 'precision' (sic) bombing of Iraq's infrastructure will convince the arab civilian population that the US/UK are their best friends?
I know, we could destroy their fresh water supply, communications and transport infrastructure! Ah.. no, we did that already.. damn.
So what exactly do we do? Bomb the shit out of Baghdad until Saddam comes to his senses.. Sure there might be a little 'collateral damage' (code for dead women and children) but hell, that would mean we get to replace Saddam with uh... a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists? A bunch of rolex wearing guys in silk suits? (as a US general recently described the fragmented Iraqui oppostion)
If we attack Iraq it will start a christian/moslem conflict that will cast a shadow over this whole century.
Message 76/168 13-Aug-02 @ 08:52 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
saddam has been laying on the islamic rhetoric lately though, he knows when he's on to a "good thing", propaganda-wise, and can see the benefits to himself easily.
iraq is land of jihad
al-qaeda in iraq
the holy struggle in Iraq
iraq is land of jihad
al-qaeda in iraq
the holy struggle in Iraq
Message 77/168 13-Aug-02 @ 10:52 AM Edit: 13-Aug-02 | 10:53 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
[image file]
"i, for one, welcome our new inset overlords."
@ steve roughley
geddit?
after Graham Rawle's missing consonants
ok so i'm crap with photoshop :P
Message 78/168 13-Aug-02 @ 11:30 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Reported on the Bloomberg this morning.
Ship movements into the middle east - traders nervous - money moving into oil.
Sources indicate attack within 3 months, maybe sooner.
Ship movements into the middle east - traders nervous - money moving into oil.
Sources indicate attack within 3 months, maybe sooner.
Message 79/168 13-Aug-02 @ 02:15 PM Edit: 13-Aug-02 | 03:39 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
yeah, wassisname, Bin-drinkin, he's also against the Saudi's and Saddam, I guess if he is promoting pure genuine islam he must be. In Islam (Mohammed's version) there are some interesting rules like these two:
1. you cant have empty property, and if it is anyone can sleep in it legaly.
2. You cant refuse a hungry stranger food or water, you dont have to eat with them, you dont have to be their freind or even pretend to be, but you gotta give it up if they ask.
Hmm.. I guess it is encumbant on the US/western/capitalist administration to turn any potentialy uprising philosophy that is socialist based into some other threat, like they did with the whole civil rights movement, turned it from being a socialist thing to a 'black' thing, that way they could mobilise anti-feeling in the majority white-christian mainstream of the populace... but Malcolm Little and his peers like Rap & Eldridge etc, & going back, marcus garvey etc were first and foremost socialists. The bits I go for the most with Malcolm is his stuff about the importance of the local grass roots economy within the community, so he was essentialy delivering an anti-capitalist agenda in his rhetoric as a root of the movement. Garvey the same, being originaly a union founder and leader (Railwaymen wasn't it?), so they all started with the premise that the essential ethic that the local community has some measure of control over their own employement, economy etc and therefore it's welfare is the starting point, it just so happens that they happened to be african-america/africa-carribean rather than white/european descended, but during the socialist uprising of the early 20th century triggered off by the Russian revoltion, (& crushed by a concerted global fascist movement funded by USA, Britian, Germany, France and all the main imperial powers, France was the original downpresser in Vietnam), that was the movement and it was only natural that it'd also include such a movement from all races, (India too via Ghandi who started the Indian independance movement by taking the cotton industry back to a home-based cottage industry system hence the spinning wheel is the center if India's flag)
The roots of Islam, is basicaly that Mohammed was an illiterate worker, so much of it is socialist based simple philosophy like the above 2 examples & thus like the civil rights movement must be downtrodden and discredited..
My favourite quote of Mohammed is:
"Trust in God... but tie your camel first!"
so he even had a sense of humour!
cos that is the 13th century equivilent of "In God we trust, all others pay cash"
Also western academia ALWAYS points to a lack of womens rights in Islam by highlighting countries practicing an aberation of Islam, it's a hot potatoe and they KNOW it is 100% guaranteed to cause uproar and negativity towards islam as a whole in the west, when in fact one of the principals of the founding of the social code known as islam was that Mohammed gave women equal rights in law and property, the first time that was ever done on the planet as far as i know, rather like Attaturk did in Turkey... So Islam gave legal equal rights to women 1100 year before the west in fact.
As Mohammed himself said: "In the end there will be 72 sects of Islam, and only one will retain the correct interpretation" - so it's no surpise there is plenty of propoganda fodder for the west to choose from. Just look around. This in turn bring another point , that people assume that 'Muslims' are all the same & any highlighted bad 'Islamic' state represents some collective whole - rubbish, many muslims look upon those staes with equal dispair, nmore so if anything because they see their faith being poorly represented.
Yes, sure, there is some other stuff, which i dunno how to judge it, sure, Mohammed did apparently have a few people bumped off, and did yes for sure lead an army and use a certain amount of violence to persue this end, but he was an astute political mind too, basicaly tho all he did was establish monoathism in Arabia combined with a proper legal & tax system for the populace. That system might not have been perfect, but at least they had some social & llegal rights and all that. It just went all pear-shaped after he died and the family leadership in-fighting started.
The key to it all has long since been recognised... Essentialy humans exist within a mental structure that causes them to always devide things into two sides, an unbalanced dualism, never the harminising whole, balanced. So we have 'LEFT WING' & 'RIGHT WING' you have to have ONE ot the OTHER, not a balanced amount of each which is the solution.
This is clearly shown in the Bible book called 'Genesis' but always mis-quoted and it is an observational masterpiece written as an allegory:
"Adam and Eve (humans) were flung out of the Garden of Eden (balanced peaceful happy human existance) because they ate of the fruit of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil"
Not
"Adam and Eve were flung out of the Garden of Eden because they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge"
The whole thing is contained in that sentence correctly quoted, let him who has understanding read this it says. same in Revelations
"The devil came down and cast upon the earth the ultimate deception"
again, alegorical, and it says again, let him who has understanding read this and understand...
Now, what would be the ULTIMATE deception if you were the devil (representation of negativity with agenda to make human life aweful and evil) as opposed to the God (representative of positivity with agenda to make human life cool and harmonious)
Well surely the ULTIMATE DECEPTION would be to set up a system duping all the humans/earth into thinking they are worshipping and following your 'opposite' (God) and doing all your negativity & evil but IN HIS NAME, while at the same time claiming to be fighting AGAINST YOU.. and to establish that so deeply as a deception that no matter what, humans will never be able to confront it and see it and do anything about it ever.
Oh man that is like the ultimate trickery, the ultimate con, the ultimate deception, pure political genious... the irony is superb you have to admit, it's so perfectly conceived, simple beyond simplicity, yet the deepest most perfectly ironic deception you can have. The whole population of the planet operating a massive combined psychology that they are working tirelessly to fight against YOU and actualy doing your agenda in the process... ha ha ha lol! - superbly masterful.
but you will have to go banana's reading Revelations to 'see' it, most people dont come back from that that's the problem, they get hung up on the detail of that chapter because the human natural tendancy as noted is to ALWAYS see/approach things in a dualistic/split way in that way revelation hides itself as noted in the text, hence humans can never get back to 'the garden of eden' (harmonious existance only avalable when you cease collectively to order the world in terms of opposites/split-dualism)
er... well that's what the aliens told me anyways.
1. you cant have empty property, and if it is anyone can sleep in it legaly.
2. You cant refuse a hungry stranger food or water, you dont have to eat with them, you dont have to be their freind or even pretend to be, but you gotta give it up if they ask.
Hmm.. I guess it is encumbant on the US/western/capitalist administration to turn any potentialy uprising philosophy that is socialist based into some other threat, like they did with the whole civil rights movement, turned it from being a socialist thing to a 'black' thing, that way they could mobilise anti-feeling in the majority white-christian mainstream of the populace... but Malcolm Little and his peers like Rap & Eldridge etc, & going back, marcus garvey etc were first and foremost socialists. The bits I go for the most with Malcolm is his stuff about the importance of the local grass roots economy within the community, so he was essentialy delivering an anti-capitalist agenda in his rhetoric as a root of the movement. Garvey the same, being originaly a union founder and leader (Railwaymen wasn't it?), so they all started with the premise that the essential ethic that the local community has some measure of control over their own employement, economy etc and therefore it's welfare is the starting point, it just so happens that they happened to be african-america/africa-carribean rather than white/european descended, but during the socialist uprising of the early 20th century triggered off by the Russian revoltion, (& crushed by a concerted global fascist movement funded by USA, Britian, Germany, France and all the main imperial powers, France was the original downpresser in Vietnam), that was the movement and it was only natural that it'd also include such a movement from all races, (India too via Ghandi who started the Indian independance movement by taking the cotton industry back to a home-based cottage industry system hence the spinning wheel is the center if India's flag)
The roots of Islam, is basicaly that Mohammed was an illiterate worker, so much of it is socialist based simple philosophy like the above 2 examples & thus like the civil rights movement must be downtrodden and discredited..
My favourite quote of Mohammed is:
"Trust in God... but tie your camel first!"
so he even had a sense of humour!
cos that is the 13th century equivilent of "In God we trust, all others pay cash" Also western academia ALWAYS points to a lack of womens rights in Islam by highlighting countries practicing an aberation of Islam, it's a hot potatoe and they KNOW it is 100% guaranteed to cause uproar and negativity towards islam as a whole in the west, when in fact one of the principals of the founding of the social code known as islam was that Mohammed gave women equal rights in law and property, the first time that was ever done on the planet as far as i know, rather like Attaturk did in Turkey... So Islam gave legal equal rights to women 1100 year before the west in fact.
As Mohammed himself said: "In the end there will be 72 sects of Islam, and only one will retain the correct interpretation" - so it's no surpise there is plenty of propoganda fodder for the west to choose from. Just look around. This in turn bring another point , that people assume that 'Muslims' are all the same & any highlighted bad 'Islamic' state represents some collective whole - rubbish, many muslims look upon those staes with equal dispair, nmore so if anything because they see their faith being poorly represented.
Yes, sure, there is some other stuff, which i dunno how to judge it, sure, Mohammed did apparently have a few people bumped off, and did yes for sure lead an army and use a certain amount of violence to persue this end, but he was an astute political mind too, basicaly tho all he did was establish monoathism in Arabia combined with a proper legal & tax system for the populace. That system might not have been perfect, but at least they had some social & llegal rights and all that. It just went all pear-shaped after he died and the family leadership in-fighting started.
The key to it all has long since been recognised... Essentialy humans exist within a mental structure that causes them to always devide things into two sides, an unbalanced dualism, never the harminising whole, balanced. So we have 'LEFT WING' & 'RIGHT WING' you have to have ONE ot the OTHER, not a balanced amount of each which is the solution.
This is clearly shown in the Bible book called 'Genesis' but always mis-quoted and it is an observational masterpiece written as an allegory:
"Adam and Eve (humans) were flung out of the Garden of Eden (balanced peaceful happy human existance) because they ate of the fruit of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil"
Not
"Adam and Eve were flung out of the Garden of Eden because they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge"
The whole thing is contained in that sentence correctly quoted, let him who has understanding read this it says. same in Revelations
"The devil came down and cast upon the earth the ultimate deception"
again, alegorical, and it says again, let him who has understanding read this and understand...
Now, what would be the ULTIMATE deception if you were the devil (representation of negativity with agenda to make human life aweful and evil) as opposed to the God (representative of positivity with agenda to make human life cool and harmonious)
Well surely the ULTIMATE DECEPTION would be to set up a system duping all the humans/earth into thinking they are worshipping and following your 'opposite' (God) and doing all your negativity & evil but IN HIS NAME, while at the same time claiming to be fighting AGAINST YOU.. and to establish that so deeply as a deception that no matter what, humans will never be able to confront it and see it and do anything about it ever.
Oh man that is like the ultimate trickery, the ultimate con, the ultimate deception, pure political genious... the irony is superb you have to admit, it's so perfectly conceived, simple beyond simplicity, yet the deepest most perfectly ironic deception you can have. The whole population of the planet operating a massive combined psychology that they are working tirelessly to fight against YOU and actualy doing your agenda in the process... ha ha ha lol! - superbly masterful.
but you will have to go banana's reading Revelations to 'see' it, most people dont come back from that that's the problem, they get hung up on the detail of that chapter because the human natural tendancy as noted is to ALWAYS see/approach things in a dualistic/split way in that way revelation hides itself as noted in the text, hence humans can never get back to 'the garden of eden' (harmonious existance only avalable when you cease collectively to order the world in terms of opposites/split-dualism)
er... well that's what the aliens told me anyways.
___________________________________
I had an idea for a script once. It's basically Jaws except when the guys in the boat are going after Jaws, they look around and there's an even bigger Jaws. The guys have to team up with Jaws to get Bigger Jaws.... I call it... Big Jaws!!!
Message 80/168 13-Aug-02 @ 02:35 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
JAWA
Posts: 1
Link?: No link
File?: No file
K, very astute indeed.... you're obviously well read, or those aliens were
I was reading an article yesterday about MEMRI who are "supposed" to be an independant body who translate documents and articles that are from the Middle East and translate them to English so us ignorant westerners can understand them.
Haven't got time to explain it but if you go to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4480174,00.html
and read it it's quite enlightening.
The only reasons Bush is banging on about Saddam are oil, the fact his dad lost out to him, and the threat to Israel.
Yes i agree Saddam is a c**t but i don't think invading iraq isn't the answer.
Out of all the religions only one message runs true for them all:
"Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself"
The truth is you get nowhere by bullying your way around the world. We in the UK with our "mighty" British Empire learnt that a long time ago, the sooner the US realises that, the better.
JAWA
I was reading an article yesterday about MEMRI who are "supposed" to be an independant body who translate documents and articles that are from the Middle East and translate them to English so us ignorant westerners can understand them.
Haven't got time to explain it but if you go to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4480174,00.html
and read it it's quite enlightening.
The only reasons Bush is banging on about Saddam are oil, the fact his dad lost out to him, and the threat to Israel.
Yes i agree Saddam is a c**t but i don't think invading iraq isn't the answer.
Out of all the religions only one message runs true for them all:
"Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself"
The truth is you get nowhere by bullying your way around the world. We in the UK with our "mighty" British Empire learnt that a long time ago, the sooner the US realises that, the better.
JAWA
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 17
There are 168 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
