 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - The lounge
Subject: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Viewing all 168 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17
Original Message 1/168 11-Aug-02 @ 12:49 PM - [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
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 2/168 11-Aug-02 @ 01:10 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
well, why'd you stop?
Message 3/168 11-Aug-02 @ 01:26 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
US lollipop sticks in the future.
Message 5/168 11-Aug-02 @ 02:02 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
credentials. No more pussy footing around
destabalising socialist regimes in tinpot banana
republics, or forcing tiny little caribbean economies to
open up their internal markets to our corporates.
The next step is to remove the ability of countries to
defend themelves from ourselves or our allies (Israel for
instance) using the guise of action against terrorism,
and thus establish the US hegemony.
Who on earth would miss out on the opportunity that
now stands before the US?
If anyone stands in our way (unlikely) we can simply
arrange for some terrorist acts to be initiated from that
area (that's what the CIA is for) and use that to justify a
bit of carpet bombing.
It is also vital that we do not allow democracy to take
hold in the Arab countires. The risk of fundamental
Islamic governments being elected is too great. We can
work together with the Kings and Princes of that region
to ensure that any democratic movements are
discredited and prevented from gaining a foothold. It
may sound harsh, but that's what real politics is all
about, 'blood and iron' as Bismarck used to say.
The alternative is to allow the US economy to begin a
downward slide and that means unemployment, civil
unrest and the dimunition of US power globally.
With the establishment of the single currency in the
European union and the rise of the Chinese economy
now is not the time to worry about 'morals' or 'ethics',
now is the time to act.
Secure control of the world's remaining oil resources, in
the middle east and around the black sea, plus of
course the means to deliver that oil to market; the
pipeline thru Afghanistan to the Indian subcontinent
and the pipeline to Europe thru Kosovo.
Exit from so called 'green' treaties, this gives us a
susbstantial economic advantage over our competitors
who do sign up.
Increase spending on arms and the military in general.
We are now in a position to put an unbridgeable gap
between ourselves and the powers left in the rest of the
world, notably China and Europe.
To combat terrorists we can make use of the new gps
(global positioning satellites) technology to tag all
suspects, thus making sure that we can immediately
eliminate anyone who was not involved. In fact we
should consider tagging all americans. Imagine if your
child was kidnapped and you could track exactly where
they were to within 30 feet? That way, anyone who
wasn't tagged would immediately fall under suspicion.
If we fail to follow this path, we will pay the price, no one
else.
Message 6/168 11-Aug-02 @ 02:11 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 7/168 11-Aug-02 @ 02:13 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 11/168 11-Aug-02 @ 02:29 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
There's never a good thing about war in my mind. I think a country should try to avoid war at any costs..
Remember.. they are people just like you. If you think it's okay to kill them, it's definately okay to kill you.
Message 13/168 11-Aug-02 @ 02:34 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Thnakfully, the people's choice is limited to the
Republicans and the Democrats and the people who
really run the country stay in the background.. same as
any democracy.
And 'Avoid war at ANY cost?'
Surely you can't mean this?
How should we have responded to Pearl harbour?
Surrender? That would have avoided a war certainly..
Message 14/168 11-Aug-02 @ 02:34 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
I understand that you as an american is concerned about your sequrity, but invading iraq or any country is not the solution. I think it will only make things worst.. and the hate towards america will explode.
I am sorry I called you stupid, but it's just that I got really upset when I read what you wrote. I was not sure you where kidding or being serious.
Message 15/168 11-Aug-02 @ 02:36 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 16/168 11-Aug-02 @ 02:45 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
figuratively and literally.
But, tell me this, who is going to help out if the oil in the
middle east falls under the control of Islamic tyrants?
They will then have a strangehold on the western
economies.. get real, we have to get in there and do the
business, then leave as much military hardware in the
region as possible.
Message 17/168 11-Aug-02 @ 02:55 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
What gives america the right to control the oil in the middle east? Islamic tyrants? What if it got under control of american tyrants? That would be just as bad in my mind.
Instead of exploiting other countries one should cooperate and help each other. It's about solidarity and respect of human life. No people is more worth than any other people.
Trade instead if taking. So, middle east got oil. Hey, america need oil. Hoi, america prolly got something middle east want. Go Trady trady
Message 18/168 11-Aug-02 @ 03:17 PM Edit: 11-Aug-02 | 03:17 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
I do think that waging war against iraq is a bad idea though...
Message 19/168 11-Aug-02 @ 04:09 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
___________________________________
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 20/168 11-Aug-02 @ 05:42 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
pict
Posts: 1005
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 21/168 11-Aug-02 @ 05:55 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 22/168 11-Aug-02 @ 06:08 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
keep america rolling... yeah. right, farside right.
Message 23/168 11-Aug-02 @ 06:20 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
http://artists.mp3s.com/artist_song/2234/2234406.html
THEY CAN'T STOP ISLAM!
Message 24/168 11-Aug-02 @ 06:46 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
i didn't understand why they want to do it until i started reading up a bit on it.
pat seems to be using the absurd to illustrate reasons why we shouldn't do it.
k where are we 'about to default on all our loans' etc?
if thats the case the europeans should be scared to no end because we borrow more from you than the japanese.
jamey
Message 25/168 11-Aug-02 @ 06:51 PM - No.
BJT
Posts: 90
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Gee, you're not a bit right wing are you.
I think America should really think hard before making such an aggressive move toward another country. Historically the USA has been an aggresive country but this takes the cake.
It has been alleged that Saddum Hussien has been involved in funding the Al Queda movement, this does not make sense, Saddum hates fundamentals, he has shot many of them himself.
The real point of issue is that abrubt aggressive actions could trigger a war that will, regardless of how powerful you think America is, it will hurt America and its Allies and this will not be good for America in the coming decades.
As for fundamentalism...
You seem scared of these people, when infact they are honest, open, good 'god lovin folk' (as bush would put it).Fundamentalism is not really an islamic way, it came about from poverty and 'idle hands'. You admit yourself that a poor economy leads to social unrest, this is exactly how Al Queda came about - similar to how Germany's war payments (after WW1) lead to WW2.
So it is plausable that economic sanctions actually formed Al Queda.
After the September 11 attacks, french president Shaq Shiraq mentioned that America may have to review its foreign policies. Countless governments have pointed out that America is often meddling in affairs which they do not belong to, amazingly even the Chinese government has spoken out about this issue, with reference to the current handling of Afghanistan
- the Chinese government rarely speaks out about any issue, the Chinese government dislikes their middle-eastern neighbours because of their relation to herion rings and religion.
But surely you'e taking the piss!
'blood and iron' was a Nazist slogan, so obviously youre taking the piss, good to air these arguments tho'
Your taking the piss and your somebody else who hangs about this forum!
Message 26/168 11-Aug-02 @ 07:01 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Every time a country needs help they always come begging for the US aid, and we come in and finish it for them! It has been this way going back to WWI.
Did the British ask the world if it was ok to fight Argentina, no , you asked for our help and We supported Britain immediatly. Talk about opressive,how many countries around the world does/did Britian occupy. Even the afgahn problem goes back to it being a british colony. I seem to recall over 20,000 british being slaughtered by them. So we helped them fight the russians. There weapons are russian made and were purchased mostly with drug money from russia in last 10 years. the nothern aliance was using most of the old weapons from the Russian war. The tallaban had new hardware. We did how ever show them how to fight which is why they were and are so dangerous. There has never been an american empire, but there is a Bristish Empire still in existance and Britian is willing to go to war for those interests. This isn't about oil. Russia and alaska could keep us very happy motorists. this is about a dictator making it unsafe for us, funding terrorist that came here and killed our families, and we are going to change the way other countries think about double talk. smiling to our faces and feedding our enemies isn't going to fly anymore. We have a legal right to inspect his country. He signed a treaty and has violated it time and time again.
Message 27/168 11-Aug-02 @ 07:09 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
BJT
Posts: 90
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Scary stuff anyway.
Anti American sentiment has grown amazingly, in europe, on the continent. The problem is the poor American backpackers cop it bigtime, its unfair because commonly these people agree that what is going on is wrong.
Message 28/168 11-Aug-02 @ 07:15 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
BJT
Posts: 90
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 29/168 11-Aug-02 @ 07:31 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
BJT
Posts: 90
Link?: No link
File?: No file
It is a good point that the colonial countries have been the ones that have manipulated other countries historically.
Most countries don't like when dictators threaten others, generally. Most countries will more or less help out depending on their bias, no country 'have will and always will help out', why would they?
Message 30/168 11-Aug-02 @ 07:44 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
I know you're on vacation, and I know you like to write parodies of your official public positions on music forums, but c'mon... can't you find anything better to do with your time?
You have a nice ranch in Texas. Use it, enjoy it, or I will come take it away from you.
As for US invading Iraq: I know you're looking for something spectacular to distract the world from the American Economic Meltdown, but this just ain't gonna do it.
Didn't work for your dad, got him fired, won't work for you, either.
Get a little creative, do something else a little more entertaining. This terrorist/axis of evil/homeland security bullshit is just tired old shtick at this point; you're losing your audience. Besides, you don't have the money to afford the props to make it look convincing, even.
So can it, go play golf and come back with, say, a good stand-up comedy routine. If you can.
rt
Message 31/168 11-Aug-02 @ 08:32 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
axis of evil: focus; washington
Message 32/168 11-Aug-02 @ 09:37 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
'blood and iron' was a Nazist slogan'
Actually it was said by Bismarck, the guy who invaded france and started the German Navy and the Naval race with Britain. Wrong century.
'You admit yourself that a poor economy leads to social unrest, this is exactly how Al Queda came about - similar to how Germany's war payments (after WW1) lead to WW2.'
Errrr.. actually Al Quaeda was never poor.. stupidly rich in fact, being full of Saudis.
Brett:
'but, 'there is a British Empire still in existance'..
where where? You mean the falkland islands?
'He signed a treaty and has violated it time and time again.'
Violating treaties eh? Nuke them all! oops, sounds like grounds for
attacking the US then?
'Americans as a country don't like it when dictators threaten others. we have and will always help out.'
Gee, you mean like in Chile when that nasty dictator Allende was helped to resign and replaced with that nice
US backed Democrat General Pinochet?
'Kuwait needed help. We, not nato, put together the coalition and the strategy behind it with the help of coarse of
many countries.'
Any idea WHY Iraq invaded Kuwait? Not a clue I bet.. because Saddam is 'evil'? Go look it up. No, I'll tell you.
The Kuwaitis and the Iraqis share an underground oil reservoir. The Kuwaitis decided to start removing oil at a
much faster rate than they had agreed with Iraq. Saddam asked them to stop as it was seriously affecting the
Iraqi economy. Kuwait refused. The Iraqis then had a critical meeting with Madeleine Albright from the US
Government and they asked what the US position would be if they attacked Kuwait to prevent them stealing the oil.
Her response? 'Not our business.. we have no position'. Set up or what?
Message 33/168 11-Aug-02 @ 09:43 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Pat Riot
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Don't they realise that the only reason they enjoy their self-indulgent Nike/MTV lifestyle is because men and women have died for it? And I'm not just talking about american men and women!
Message 34/168 11-Aug-02 @ 10:18 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
actually an american anyway.
Like I said, nice trolling anyway.
Message 35/168 11-Aug-02 @ 10:35 PM Edit: 11-Aug-02 | 10:35 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
It doesn't even make any sense. Maybe instead of waging death making, war...how about we start saving lives there. We could have started by stopping that bastard from gassing the Kurds..while we were supporting them more then ever..almost to the tune of Israel. And that was an extra excuse for attacking in the Gulf War, "LOOK WHAT HE DID TO HIS OWN PEOPLE" *a gasp from the crowd*
And those sanctions, that ish is killing 5,000 children a month. How would you like it if that was happening once a month here? Every month for the past 5 years. Mostly infants and toddlers. Dying because they don't have the inoculations that would normally flow right through the border...thanks to their oil production...which in fact was reconstructed by none other than DICK CHENEY'S Halliburton, shortly after the end of the war??? HMMM?
I think we've been doing enough damage.
Message 36/168 11-Aug-02 @ 10:37 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 37/168 11-Aug-02 @ 10:38 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 39/168 11-Aug-02 @ 11:13 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
rt
Message 40/168 12-Aug-02 @ 12:16 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
the fact that there is actually somebody out
there called 'Randy Wanker', and thats his
stories about the fights he's been in.
thats boys a star.
Message 41/168 12-Aug-02 @ 01:12 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 43/168 12-Aug-02 @ 01:26 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 44/168 12-Aug-02 @ 01:29 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
DEBKAfileSpecial Military Analysis
10 August: America’s offensive against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq has begun as an exercise in gradualism rather than a D-Day drama. DEBKAfile ’s military sources report that tens of thousands of US, British, French, Netherlands, Australian troops may take part in the campaign, openly or covertly, but not in massive waves that fling themselves telegenically on Baghdad.
The fact of the matter is that American military concentrations are already unobtrusively present in northern and southern Iraq. The US campaign to oust Saddam is therefore unfolding already, albeit in salami-fashion, slice by slice, under clouds of disinformation and diversionary ruses – like the latest statements by President George W. Bush (No date set yet for the offensive) and British premier Tony Blair (Plenty of time before the war begins), or the grave reservations issuing from the Russian, French and German leaders. The peasoup of deception is further thickened by utterances in the last 48 hours from Turkish prime minister Bulent Ecevit, King Abdullah of Jordan, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and the Saudi crown prince Abdullah. They warn Washington that attacking Iraq would be a terrible mistake, one which they want no part of.
DEBKAfile’s military sources attempt here to pierce some of the thickets of confusion with a few facts on the ground:
A. Special US forces entered the Kurdish regions of north Iraq towards the end of March nearly four months ago, to set up local Kurdish militias and train them for battle.
B. At around the same time, Turkish special forces went into northern Iraq in waves that continued through April, fetching up in Turkmen regions around the big oil towns of Mosul and Kirkuk.
C. Meanwhile, the Americans threw a ring of bases – using existing facilities and adding new ones – around Iraq. They have since been pouring into those bases US armored ground units, tanks, air, navy and missile forces, as well as combat medical units and special contingents for anti-nuclear, biological and chemical warfare. According to our sources, the noose around Iraq extends from Georgia and Turkey in the north, Israel, Egypt and Jordan to the west, Eritrea and Kenya in the southwest, and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain to the south.
Furthermore, a large US armada, including aircraft carriers, has assembled at three points: the eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.
D. Since June, American and Turkish construction engineers have been working in northern Iraq, building and expanding airfields and air strips to make them fit for military use.
(Details of this operation appear in an earlier report on this page.)
First US Military Steps
In the past week, once those preparations were in place, the United States carried out two military operations:
1. Tuesday August 6, at 0800 hours Middle East time, US and British air bombers went into action and destroyed the Iraqi air command and control center at al-Nukhaib in the desert between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The center contained advanced fiber optic networks recently installed by Chinese companies. DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military sources say the raid made military history. For the first time, the US air force used new precision-guided bombs capable of locating and destroying fiber optic systems. The existence of such weaponry was hitherto unknown.
Following the destruction of the facility, about 260 miles (415 kilometers), southwest of Baghdad, waves of US warplanes swept in from the Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia and from US aircraft carriers in the Gulf and flew over the Iraqi capital.
The Iraqi air force and anti-aircraft system held their fire on orders from above. This deep air penetration told the Americans that the early warning radar system protecting Baghdad and its environs from intrusion by enemy aircraft and missiles was inactive.
2. Two days later, on Wednesday night, August 8, Turkey executed its first major military assault inside Iraq. DEBKAfile’s military sources learn from Turkish and Kurdish informants that helicopters under US, British and Turkish warplane escort flew Turkish commandos to an operation for seizing the critical Bamerni airport in northern Iraq. This airport, just outside the Kurdish region, lies 50 miles north of the big Iraqi oil cities of the north, Kirkuk and Mosul. With the Turkish commandos was a group of US special forces officers and men. Bamerni airport was captured after a brief battle in which a unit of Iraqi armored defenders was destroyed, opening the airport for giant American and Turkish transports to deliver engineering units, heavy machinery and electronic support equipment, which were put to work at once on enlarging the field and widening its landing strips.
The American unit, reinforced, went on to capture two small Iraqi military airfields nearby.
The Turkish expeditionary force in northern Iraq now numbers some 5,000 men, in addition to Turkish air force contingents.
DEBKAfile’s military experts explain that with Bamerni airport and the two additional airfields the Americans have acquired full control of the skies over the two oil cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, as well as over the Syrian-Iraqi railroad, which they can now cut off by aerial bombardment. A prime strategic asset, this railroad is Saddam’s back door for taking delivery of his illegal overseas arms purchases, which are ferried from Syrian ports to Baghdad by the Syrian-Iraqi railway. On the return journey, the same railway carries illegal Iraqi oil exports, over and above the quantities allowed under UN sanctions, out to market. The Iraqi war effort and the Syrian treasury depend heavily on the revenues accruing from these smuggled oil sales.
The battle over this airfield was in fact the first important face-to-face engagement between a US-led invasion force and Iraqi troops. It was carried out seven hours before the Iraqi ruler delivered his televised speech to the nation, on the 14th anniversary of the bloody eight-year Iraq-Iran war. In that speech, Saddam threatened American troops going to war against Iraq that they would return home in coffins.
Next Steps
Just before the Saddam address, US spy satellites and planes detected unusual movements by elite Republic Guard units in the capital. They appeared to be digging positions below ground on the banks of the Tigris. Some military commentators were convinced the Iraqi ruler had decided to bury himself and his key associates in fortified bunker-type positions. He was said to be counting on American reluctance to engage in urban warfare in Iraqi towns for fear of large-scale-casualties that would force them to withdraw.
DEBKAfile’s military experts see little sign of this tactic – aside from the initial report. In fact, the bulk of the Iraqi army is concentrated in three regions outside Baghdad - the Kurdish regions of the north, the H-3 and al Baghdadi air bases opposite the Jordanian border in the center, and along the Saudi and Kuwaiti frontiers, in the south.
In the north, the Iraqi armored divisions, which are massed opposite the Turkish border along the Little and Big Zeb Rivers, show now sign of movement in response to US-Turkish activity.
Iraqi concentrations in the center and south have been augmented somewhat but not substantially.
Iraq’s military passivity in the face of US-led advances and strikes is beginning to worry the American, Turkish and Israeli high commands. They suspect that Saddam is playing the same fog-of-war game as Washington, so as to put them to sleep and then catch them unawares.
Such sudden action could take the form of an Iraqi missile or bomber attack on Israel using warheads loaded with radioactive, chemical or biological materials, a combined missile-terrorist strike to sabotage Saudi oil fields, or a mass terrorist attack in the United States.
The sharpest alert to a threat to Iraq’s southern neighbors came not from military intelligence but from international oil dealers, who warned that Saddam Hussein if attacked may well decide to set fire to Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields, sending oil prices skyrocketing above US$ 40 per barrel.
Israel’s Concerns
Israel faces three threats, all of them in the realm of the unknown:
a. An Iraqi missile attack, when the size of Saddam’s arsenal has not been reliably established.
DEBKAfile ’s military experts dispute the assessment heard this week from retired Israeli military leaders that the Iraqis have only a few missiles. The truth is that no one outside Iraq knows how many Saddam has cached or what advanced missile technologies he has secretly developed. According to one estimate, Iraq may have accumulated between 70 and 150 warheads, or maybe more.
b. A WMD threat, when no one knows what Saddam has up his sleeve – whether radiological bombs with a limited radius, or a more highly developed type. The same questions apply to Saddam’s biological and chemical warfare capabilities.
c. Notwithstanding the presence of US forces in Jordan and the strategic-defense relationship developed between Jordan and Israel, the possibility of the old Eastern Arab Front coming back to life against Israel, though unlikely, cannot be entirely ruled out.
The gloomiest scenario envisages Iraqi units surging through Jordan to attack Israeli from the east concurrently with a Syrian-Hizballah strike from the north – a combined assault that may sweep King Abdullah into the fray against Israel.
The Jordanian king is an unknown quantity, untried in war situations. Therefore the odds on his executing an about-face as radical as this cannot be estimated with certainty. Israeli war planners, however, are not ignoring this possible peril, however improbable.
______________________________________
Message 45/168 12-Aug-02 @ 01:47 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Slowly?! More like, "not since The Great Depression..."
What makes me sick is the immediate reversion to ad hominem attacks the Republicans always engage in when they know they're about to lose, big-time.
Watch for it this coming election season; it will be widespread.
rt
Message 46/168 12-Aug-02 @ 02:23 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 47/168 12-Aug-02 @ 02:42 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
for all of you europeans, would you like saddam launching dirty bombs on your soil? he can do it and probably already has nukes. you guys are much closer than we are.
as for the saudis, they finance more terror than iraq is even capable of. don't be suprised if the saudis go from friend to foe quickly and end up being manipulated or new govnt or something quickly if the us does attack iraq.
if the saudis were shut down, probably 80% of the worlds terror operations would shut down as well (statistics pulled out of my rear)
notice the us is building a nice large base in the middle east that is *not* in arabia?
the thing that scares me isn't when middle eastern nations get nukes, its when the north koreans and chinese get them. its hard to do anything against billions of poor chinese with nothing to do (needless to say not enough women cuz of the infanticide that happens there) and if they have nukes that makes them even more pesky.
you guys all talking about the 'reasons' america will go to war is silly.
the socialists/liberals amongst us say its all tied to money and oil and its a big conspiricy
the conservatives all say its to save lives down the road
in reality it probably covers several hundred reasons that none of us even know about... not *everything* is leaked to the press. comon!
anyway, iraqis sitting off the coast with sam based nukes etc doesn't appeal to me. lets at least look at evidence before jumping to conclusions.
and the guy who posted the fact that we "kill 5000 children a month because of sanctions" thats utter bull. please provide a link to a statistic to back that up. 60,000 children a year do no die because of 'sanctions' when the sanctions don't even work. its lies...
jamey
Message 48/168 12-Aug-02 @ 02:56 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
it was based on one womans claim and was picked up by unicief and all the other relief groups etc and was widely reported back in the early 90s...
1) the sanctions do not include medicine and food.... if the people are not getting these items the *only* reason is because the iraqi government doesn't want them to...
2) if iraq is truely too poor to buy medicine and food for children (which isn't the case, no one heeds the embargo except the usa basically) then relief organizations should certainly be able to fill the gap and probably have done so (i will try to dig up more on this fact)
3) i would say that whenever the lady was in that made that 'soundbite' was in iraq, saddam had plenty of propeganda going on about how many children die because of the evil usa etc... the same lady said that the same thing would happen in yugoslavia. well its strange but she was wrong... so the emphesis should be placed on iraq, not the usa.
its just like when there was famine in africa in the 80s, it wasn't that there was no food to be had, it was just that the people in power made bad decisions.
so if iraq spends its money trying to get nukes instead of medicine and food, how is that a USA policy problem?
jamey
Message 49/168 12-Aug-02 @ 05:11 AM - .
BJT
Posts: 90
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Yes Al Queda are rich but the soldier's aren't, that's why they are such nutters! I'm saying its FA to do with religion its economy, sanction's and the like. The Nazi party was rich but Germany was poor!
Anyway, the problem for average American Citizens is that it is very difficult to get information on what has occured in the middle east. News presentation by CNN and NBC is very biased. Especially with respect to the Palestinian conflict, it's sometimes outrightly immoral.
I do think that within the US, freedom of speech does play a good role in the political system, its just that for a country so entwind in world politics, their average citizen does not get enough information on the decisions their leaders are making externally.
Brett you have to agree with me.
But, as shown, its not just the US, pretty much all of the western world is agreeing behind closed doors.
Anyway, what sh*ts me here in Australia, we are not allowing refugee seekers into Australia, infact we are locking them up and pretty much treating them as criminals, crushing their wills so they will go home. Many are afghans, we have an opportunity to do some thing positive for the region and we are blowing it!
Message 50/168 12-Aug-02 @ 06:59 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
I think people reach a point where it interfears with their ability to go to work and get things done if they are distracted by the fears of all this. They just tune it out and enjoy the bliss of ignorance.
True -suadi's are neck deep in this, and jamie you pretty much summed up alot of what i was thinking.
and James, I know I am tool, it's why i am handy to have around. I get things done!!!!!
Message 51/168 12-Aug-02 @ 09:09 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Ah, the power of the US media.... brave america leaping to the defense of poor little Kuwait.. and in the last reel, 2 days AFTER the ceasfire, Bruce Willis single handedly
launches air strikes against the people fleeing Kuwait City, burning them all to death. fleeing soldiers, civilians, men, women and children slaughtered on
the road to Basra. But they probably forgot to run that on CNN right? You guys should take advantage of independent news sources,
like the BBC world service, people living under deceitful, propogandised regimes have been using it as a source of real information for decades now.
One US soldier described that massacre as a "turkey shoot". For 40 hours a five mile long column of retreating soldiers and civilians was utterly pummelled.
Gulf War soldier John Callaghan, from St Helens on Merseyside (in the UK), hung himself with his shoe laces in May 1996. His cousin Les told
how John was haunted by the memories of "clearing burnt out vehicles on the Basra road. He was pulling bodies and arms and legs out of vehicles, and children.
formant: 'it was based on one womans claim and was picked up by unicief and all the other relief groups etc and was widely reported back in the early 90s... '
Uh, yeah right, it is just one sound bite eh? Do you really believe that? Do you know WHY the children are dying? Could it be anythign to do with the fact that
the US/UK systematically destroyed Iraq's drinking water supplies? Did they? Gosh, that never got reported on FOX News either?
Article 54 of the Geneva Convention states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy or render useless objects indispensable to the
survival of the civilian population" and includes foodstuffs, livestock and "drinking water supplies and irrigation works".
During allied bombing campaigns on Iraq the country's eight multi-purpose dams had been repeatedly hit, simultaneously wrecking flood control, municipal and industrial water storage, irrigation and hydroelectric power. Four of
seven major pumping stations were destroyed, as were 31 municipal water and sewerage facilities - 20 in Baghdad, resulting in sewage pouring into the Tigris. Water purification plants were incapacitated throughout Iraq.
Water-borne diseases in Iraq today are both endemic and epidemic. They include typhoid, dysentery, hepatitis, cholera and polio (which had previously been eradicated), along with a litany of others. A child
with dysentery in 1990 had a one in 600 chance of dying - in 1999 it was one in 50.
The US and the UK continually and continuously bomb Iraq to this day. The frequent 'collateral' damage where civilians are murdered never gets reported in the west. And the americans wonder
'why do they hate us'? They must hate freedom. No, wrong! They hate being bombed, starved and poisoned (by diseased drinking water) on a daily basis for the last 10 years. And yes, 5000
CHILDREN a month are dying from water born diseases and malnutrition. Yes, Sadaam is an asshole, and is cruel to his people. Unfortunately, the US/UK actions make him look like a saint by comparison.
formant: 'Its just like when there was famine in africa in the 80s, it wasn't that there was no food to be had, it was just that the people in power made bad decisions. '
Uh, yeah, there is no such thing as 'drought', you know where it doesnt rain for a few years and all the crops turn to dust. It's the
poor what gets the blame eh? It's their own fault they are dying of starvation, is that what you are saying?
formant: 'the thing that scares me isn't when middle eastern nations get nukes, its when the north koreans and chinese get them'
Hello!? WHEN the chinese get nukes? What planet do you live on? China's first nuclear test was detected on 16
October 1964 at Lop Nor. That's nearly 40 years ago.. and you are worried that they might get them sooN? Gee...
formant: 'for all of you europeans, would you like saddam launching dirty bombs on your soil? he can do it and probably already has nukes. you guys are much closer than we are.'
Saddam has the delivery capabilities of MAYBE reaching Israel.. that's it. Of course it is possible to deliver nuclear devices by 'suitcase' but in that case, well it's
as easy to fly to New Zealand as it is to Europe... or the US.
If you want to guarantee terrorist action against the US for the forseeable future, then make an unprovoked attack against Iraq.. yup you heard me 'unprovoked'.
If you decide that middle eastern countries must NOT be allowed to have nuclear weapons then be consistent; Attack Israel, they already have them and it's the fact
that they do that is driving the arab nations to develop them too. Or are you saying that ONLY Israel must be allowed to have Nukes?
Formant and Brett, I'd suggest you go and do some research, you seem to be living in a sort fo never-never cornfed FOX News fantasy land. Go to to google and
search.
Message 52/168 12-Aug-02 @ 09:26 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
How about thinking in small minded reverse. What is the benefit (to those in power) of this action. Apart from Pats suggestion of consolidation of world power (and it could easily be just that). We have had distraction, I'm sure civil liberties are on the re-write, warhead military spending? (greed and jobs worth), finishing off dads work and making a name for himself, ecomomic kick start, non christian persecution, non white persecution (Tx!).
Lets have some suggestions guys - i think this is it - WHAT ARE THEY GETTING UP TO BEHIND THIS GUISE
Message 53/168 12-Aug-02 @ 09:31 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
I am a UK citizen, and it makes puke to see Tony Blair lick GWB's arse. but there you go, the Anglo-Saxons stick together, through thick and thin.
The UK is just as bad as the US, we just have less power.
What has to happen on BOTH sides of the Atlantic is that people have to wake up to the horrors that are being perpetrated in their name, by their democratically elected governments.
Unfortunately the US media seem to have mind controlled the US populace to such an extent that they do not seem to have a clue as to what is really going on.
In the UK a clear majority of the citizens are against going to war with Iraq. Whether that will make any difference to what the UK government actually does when push comes to shove remains to be seen.
Doesn't it seem odd though, that there is no news about the ongoing milittary attacks in afghanistan and Iraq in the media anymore? 'The forgotten War' they called it on Fox News last ngiht. Forgotten? The Iraquis and the Afghanis sure haven't forgotten it.
The US and UK are bombing Iraq on a daily basis right now. Of course the Iraquis claim that we are consistently hitting civilian targets and keeping their infrastructure crippled; water, roads, communications etc etc, but then they would say that wouldn't they? Our brave, honest Generals would never lie about something like that would they?
Message 54/168 12-Aug-02 @ 10:10 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
since the G8 incidents public demonstratoion nas been made illegal
The most powerful country in the world states that if you arn't with us - your against us. I heard that in the playground before the bully started in on the weakest
all of these words are just to relieve our guilt - possibly justify our wanky goatees
Message 55/168 12-Aug-02 @ 10:15 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
How much of my unhappiness/disenchantment with the current situation is due to my age/experience?
IS it happening all the time and only now - in my experience - am i recognising this or is it really getting worse?
I am shrinking
Message 56/168 12-Aug-02 @ 10:40 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 57/168 12-Aug-02 @ 11:24 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
And cheddar, it's your age and experience.. this stuff has been going on since the dawn of time..
Message 58/168 12-Aug-02 @ 01:52 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 59/168 12-Aug-02 @ 03:55 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bandow081202.asp
Message 60/168 12-Aug-02 @ 04:08 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 61/168 12-Aug-02 @ 08:49 PM Edit: 12-Aug-02 | 08:50 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Steve Roughley
Posts: 1178
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Have a nice day all! :¬)
Steve.
Message 62/168 12-Aug-02 @ 09:25 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 63/168 12-Aug-02 @ 09:36 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
my grandfather was on two ships that were sunk in WWII. He never let it upset him he floated in the ocean twice watching his freinds all die around him. i know he was part of the island hoppers and took part in the bloodiest fighting in the pacific. He was happy to be alive, and lived his life happily. You can blame the guilt this guy was carrying for his suicide. But there is always somthing more wrong with people who take there own life. i don't feel any pitty for him.
i don't feel bad for any of those iraqi soldiers either. The Kuwait women and children were killed and raped by iraqi's you idiot. We were the ones stopping it. so go sell your propaganda elsewhere!
Message 64/168 12-Aug-02 @ 09:47 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
no one had it as bad as [insert favourite had it worse than someone else figure here].
Message 65/168 12-Aug-02 @ 09:53 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Weird..
We've already killed more than twice as many Afghanis as died in the twin towers.. are we just getting started or what?
Message 66/168 12-Aug-02 @ 10:08 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_2062000/2062429.stm
and
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
or the government's own http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
Message 67/168 12-Aug-02 @ 10:23 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 68/168 12-Aug-02 @ 10:28 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
I'm all for bombing Iraq. It's not the us/uk's fault those iraqi children are starving. A corrupt government more concerned with developing and maintaining an army is to blame. As an American, I'm VERY scared of Saddam AND the Saudi's. But only because they will come after ME, and not our military.
You folks around the world also need to understand that GWB does not equal the average American. He is running his show as if he won that last election in a land-slide. And quit with this crap about pointing out places where the us didn't intervene. I'm not sure if this has been reported outside of hte US, but you'll find the us military has shrunk SIGNIFICANTLY since the 1980's. We CAN'T be everywhere at once. The us is in a no-win situation. If we do nothing, we get criticized. If we do something we get criticized. So, we look after our own interests. Your governments do to, and I bet you do the same EVERY SINGLE DAY OF YOUR LIFE.
Frankly, the fact that I don't know what is going on is good. If I know what our troops are up to, so does Saddam. And if he knows, he kills more of us. Loose lips sink ships.
An unbiased media is a myth. EVERYONE has an agenda. If you happen to agree with it, it appears unbiased.
Go on Jamey...
Message 69/168 12-Aug-02 @ 10:31 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Where, when?
Message 70/168 12-Aug-02 @ 10:53 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
I don't like to opinionize for very long without providing at least some information along the way, unlike the US news media.
I find it disturbing that so many military activities are taking place on behalf of a so-called democratic government, without in the least consulting the rulers in that government, i.e. we, the people.
Oh -- I forgot -- that no longer applies.
rt
Message 71/168 12-Aug-02 @ 11:34 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
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?
Message 73/168 13-Aug-02 @ 12:44 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
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?
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
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?
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
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?
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
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
Message 81/168 13-Aug-02 @ 02:48 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
We'll fight the baddy with you george, we're on your side..
K, right on man... as long as people think interms of THEM and US, GOOD and EVIL, they are going to miss the awful obvious truth.. there is, always has been and always will be, both in every one of us. It's learning to see that and move beyond it that is the only possible solution.
So, I'm off to be a buddhist and pray for peace.
'Om oil munnee, Om oil munnee'
Message 82/168 13-Aug-02 @ 03:04 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
JAWA
Posts: 1
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Doh, bad grammer, bad grammer. tut tut.
JAWA
"Why can't people just get along...."
Message 83/168 13-Aug-02 @ 06:42 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
BJT
Posts: 90
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Its almost childish.
Usually on a political field if you start mis-using words and generalise so blatantly you discredit yourself.
But in the case of the 'Terrorist' thing, GWB makes blatant generalisations and no one makes opposition about it.
What particular Terrorist organisation is Saddum funding? Tamal Tigers?
Is America at war against the Tamal Tigers?
What about the Terrorist Organisations internal to America?
Message 84/168 13-Aug-02 @ 06:51 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 85/168 13-Aug-02 @ 07:56 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
The flow of your rant (used in the classic, positive, English political tradition sense!
You see, they all start as reasonably successful solutions to pragmatic, immediate problems of the time.
Then, since they've succeeded, they're formalized into systems of absolute truth -- it worked, therefore it must be true.
Then, a flock of interpreters gathers around this formalized system, writes interpretations of it, and pretty soon you have warring factions with diametrically opposed interpretations claiming the other factions must be annihilated so that the truth of the originally successful system can be preserved. Usually, more than one of those factions succeeds in eliminating some of the others.
And thence, centuries of dispute, warfare, bloodshed, killing of innocents afterwards.
If you're lucky, the originally formalized system loses all authority in the real political and economic realm, and turns into an interesting series of grumblings by old scholars tucked quietly away in libraries.
I'm waiting for Judaism, Christianity, Marxism and Mohammedism to all achieve that wonderful, benevolent fate.
Meanwhile I am hoping for a new system to arise out of the accidental success of solving some significant socio-economic problem on a large scale, somewhere in the world.
My advice this time around: DON'T WRITE IT DOWN, GUYS. Just do it, be thankful you succeeded, remember you're only the best thing since sliced bread for awhile, and then you're toast. Don't create trouble for all of us by getting all huffy about it along the way, either.
Good advice for BT, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Britney Spears and other would-be religious figures along the way as well.
At least, that's what the aliens told _me_.
k, I think we talk to different aliens; I hope they get along with each other.
rt
Message 86/168 13-Aug-02 @ 10:30 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
to..
Message 87/168 13-Aug-02 @ 11:19 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
rt
Message 88/168 14-Aug-02 @ 05:47 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Personaly i think a dual balanced system is required, with the fabric of the basics of society organised using a 'socialist' model and a then over that people can do whatever they want to persue their own business/trading/ self employment/businesses etc on a reasonable capitalist model.
I mean what's wrong with that?... the water, power, transport, health, basic housing etc should be state supplied to provide a stable base to society, the rest goes on top... what's wrong with that?
taken to a further level, countries can pool resources to provide a base system, like Greenland or iceland COULD supply the Uk with about 1/3rd of all the power we need, but we turn their offer down, so you could do stuff like that, countries with hydroelectric resources could provide to neighbouring states utilising their excess to supply other places, we could have safe nuclear plants on uninhabited islands and run cables from there, etc, wind farms in places which can capitalise on that resource, etc etc, big old solar farms in Africa & other hot places etc... try to balance things out.
Message 89/168 15-Aug-02 @ 04:59 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
-canadian
Message 90/168 15-Aug-02 @ 07:20 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Sometimes... sometimes human beings are amazing too...
k, Capitalism isn't trade, capitalism is the accumulation of 'capital'... i.e. money, to fund 'growth'... works too...
In fact, no matter what system you have, you always get the same type of 'curve' i.e. a small proportion of the population will own a large proportion of the wealth.
Message 91/168 15-Aug-02 @ 11:25 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
without capitalism for example we'd have no music gear like this or cheap PC's etc, but we dont also want that capitalism to be so fucked it can also ruin everything else.... I dunno.. we're just talking, but there has to be a more sensible solution
___________________________________
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 92/168 15-Aug-02 @ 01:51 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Same as a decent government is composed of the executive, the judiciary, etc
checks and balances...
yeah
Message 93/168 15-Aug-02 @ 07:47 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
you do realise that there is a 70 mile long antenna buried under the ground in wisconsin or somewhere round there don't you?
Message 94/168 15-Aug-02 @ 10:02 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
[image file]
Which station are they trying to pick up?
Message 96/168 15-Aug-02 @ 10:13 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
for a man like steve!
hey trevor your a shmuck
so...being american means instant stupidity?
hmm. thats a good one
Message 97/168 16-Aug-02 @ 12:52 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 98/168 16-Aug-02 @ 12:56 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
However, there should be limits as well?
Message 99/168 16-Aug-02 @ 01:07 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
ha! one in the eye for the spelling nazi.
Message 100/168 16-Aug-02 @ 02:35 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
you got me
Message 101/168 16-Aug-02 @ 03:16 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2197367.stm
Message 102/168 16-Aug-02 @ 03:22 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 103/168 16-Aug-02 @ 06:23 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
tortoise
Posts: 107
Link?: No link
File?: No file
No matter what type of economic system you have (from capitalism to communism) or the level of socialism you have (from circa 1800 USA to modern Sweden), the same wealth distribution function appears in all human populations. In economics, it is known as the Pareto Function or Pareto Distribution.
The reason the Pareto distribution always exists is esoteric (so I won't go there), but the curve depth can be shaped by the economics and government to a great extent. Ideally, you want a population with as shallow a curve as possible, where wealth smoothly flows through the entire range of the population, as opposed to deep curves where almost all the wealth is concentrated in the hands of very few people.
A number of good studies have been done on policies that optimize the Pareto distribution for a population. Those studies developed very good models for how to distribute wealth as evenly as possible in a population so that concentration is minimized, while maximizing the aggregate wealth of the total population. The resulting models strongly suggest very limited taxes (5% +/- a few percent max, in aggregate), limited and general regulation of business (i.e. safety regulations, not regulations about the size of the holes in Swiss Cheese), and very limited government function with strong and equitable legal systems, will generate a distribution that is close to optimum in a given population.
No country has ever actually met that list of criteria. The times when the US looked like this economically and in terms of government function, we had funky legal and legislative stuff that did not meet the criteria and deepened the curve. There were a couple times in 19th century Britain that came close as well, but my history of other countries is too fuzzy to say whether they ever really came close to this in modern history (most didn't).
So that gives you an idea of the parameters you can tune for tweaking wealth distribution in a population. The more the parameters to the Pareto function deviate from the above, the deeper the curve becomes and the more wealth will concentrate in the hands of the wealthy. This is one of those cases where a little is good for you, but any more than that is toxic. Some things that actually serve to concentrate wealth, such as progressive income taxes (or income taxes of any type, for that matter) may seem counter-intuitive at first, but are pretty simple to explain (e.g. income taxes of all types hinder the average person from accumulating wealth at a rate that is always higher than an already wealthy person on average, no matter how "progressive" the income tax is).
Cheers!
Message 104/168 17-Aug-02 @ 10:46 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
___________________________________
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 105/168 21-Aug-02 @ 06:05 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
As a child you are not self-aware, you are still with God. You are one with the universe. Then people start yammering at you wanting to know what you want to be when you grow up and you proceed to spend the rest of your life under the illusion that you are separate from God, you go to gurus to try to find your way back...
Adam and Eve got subverted by religious powerjunkies to serve their agenda...that we were "good" until the woman (can you say "patriarchy"?) ed up and now we're all "bad". I see it as really almost a funny story. "He told you not to eat the apple! What were you thinking?! We were sittin pretty! Now we gotta get jobs...what a nightmare!"
Message 106/168 21-Aug-02 @ 06:14 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 107/168 21-Aug-02 @ 09:02 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
that becoming aware of your self is kind of a step backward or a veil over the underlying reality of our connectedness with the infinite, which we can't understand because our bodies are finite...
Message 108/168 21-Aug-02 @ 10:06 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
But it definitely is a double-edged sword ...
Message 111/168 22-Aug-02 @ 10:48 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 112/168 23-Aug-02 @ 07:51 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
I must say tha allthough we have no Bill Gates's in this country the accumilation of 'wealth'seems not to be someting problematic for the majoratiy in this country, and never have I seen healthier, well fed people than the Nores.
Message 113/168 23-Aug-02 @ 10:13 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
And beer costs $8 a pint!!!
Message 114/168 23-Aug-02 @ 01:33 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 115/168 23-Aug-02 @ 02:41 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 116/168 23-Aug-02 @ 03:03 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Always wanted to move to Norway anyways. Love the fjords.
rt
Message 117/168 23-Aug-02 @ 05:40 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Too much wood and high mountains.. and not so many cool record shops.
Move to tibet, save the munks. Let Norway save the whales and together we play fussball in the worldcup.
Message 118/168 23-Aug-02 @ 07:15 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 119/168 23-Aug-02 @ 07:28 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
BJT
Posts: 90
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 122/168 27-Aug-02 @ 11:07 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
http://www.satirewire.com/news/aug02/red_tape.shtml
Message 123/168 28-Aug-02 @ 01:08 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 124/168 29-Aug-02 @ 05:48 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
'Who is the greatest threat to world peace, George W Bush or Sadaam Hussein'
63% replied George
37% for Saddam
yikes
Message 125/168 29-Aug-02 @ 08:24 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 126/168 29-Aug-02 @ 09:02 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
And apparenrly the US won't let in weapons inspectors either... tsk, or sign up to anti-torture agreements.. or take any notice of international law.. or even their own constiution.. consult congress before making an unprovoked attack on another country.. ha!
hmmm..
Message 127/168 29-Aug-02 @ 09:04 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
oh, rite..
Message 128/168 30-Aug-02 @ 05:32 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 129/168 31-Aug-02 @ 06:22 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
you may weep for us now
Message 130/168 03-Sep-02 @ 12:58 PM Edit: 03-Sep-02 | 01:00 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Open Letter To United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and to
Representatives of the Member States, on the Declared Intention of the United States to Commit Aggression Against Iraq
Dear Sirs and Madams:
Although the U.S. government openly plans a war against Iraq, U.N.
officials
and representatives have neither spoken out in opposition nor taken any
actions that might prevent the United States from embarking on this
violent
course. The United Nations was created explicitly to "save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war" (Preamble, U.N. Charter) and "to take
effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to
the peace..." (Article 1, 1). The U.N. Charter condemns unilateral attacks
across borders when not justified by self-defense, referring to the need
to
fend off an ongoing or clearly imminent attack. Otherwise, it is
obligatory
to obtain Security Council sanction for any such military action. When a
country simply takes it upon itself to displace a regime of which it
disapproves by force of arms, this is aggression, described by the U.S.
representative at the Nuremberg trials, Robert Jackson, as "the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains
within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." The recent U.S.
assertion
of a right to engage in "pre-emptive" attacks on states, including Iraq,
does not obviate these considerations--it is another expression of an
intent
to violate international law.
Claims regarding Iraq's pursuit or actual possession of "weapons of mass
destruction" (WMD) cannot justify a U.S attack, any more than an Iraqi
attack on the United States could be similarly justified based on the U.S.
possession of such weapons (and much greater threat of their use).
Existing
resolutions that address this issue, such as U.N. Security Council
Resolution 687, do not give the United States the right to launch a strike
without specific authorization from the Security Council. The idea that
the
United States is threatened by Iraq's alleged possession of WMD is
untenable. There is no evidence that Iraq possesses any long-range
delivery
systems, or that its leadership is so irrational as to be planning actions
that would unleash the full force of U.S. military power on their country.
The United States also lacks clean hands on this issue, as it and Britain
facilitated Iraq's acquisition and use of WMD in the 1980s--including the
U.S. provision of high quality germ seed for anthrax and other deadly
diseases--when Iraq was fighting a war against Iran and served U.S.
interests. The United States also compromised the work of the U.N. Special
Commission for weapons inspections (Unscom), using it for espionage and
withdrawing it in advance of the U.S. bombing of Iraq in December 1998.
More
recently, as it seeks to preserve its rationale for going to war, the
United
States has rebuffed offers from Iraq to negotiate on re-admitting
inspectors.
Under strong U.S. and British pressure the U.N. imposed and has maintained
sanctions on Iraq for the past dozen years in the alleged interest of
preventing Iraq's acquisition of WMD. But the price of those sanctions has
been paid by millions of innocent civilians, not the regime or its
leaders.
The embargo has made it difficult for Iraq to recover from the 1991 Gulf
War, undermining its ability to rebuild sanitation and water treatment
systems targeted and destroyed by U.S. bombing. That deliberate bombing
violated Article 54 of the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva
Convention.
Although then-President George Bush stated in 1991 that "we do not
seek...to
punish the Iraqi people for the decisions and policies of their
leaders...[and] we are doing everything possible and with great success to
minimize collateral damage" (New York Times, Feb. 6, 1991), the
necessarily
devastating effects of such bombing on civilians were understood at the
time
and in fact intended by U.S. planners. The Washington Post reported
shortly
after the war that "Planners now say their intent was to destroy or damage
valuable facilities that Baghdad could not repair without foreign
assistance" (June 23, 1991). It is now known that these included water
treatment facilities, whose absence was understood to "lead to increased
incidences, if not epidemics, of disease" (Defense Intelligence Agency,
"Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," Jan. 21, 1991, quoted in Thomas
Nagy, "The Secret Behind the Sanctions: How the U.S. Intentionally
Destroyed
Iraq's Water Supply," The Progressive, Sept. 2001). Wrecking these
facilities and preventing their repair or replacement would give greater
bargaining leverage by intensifying the adverse effects of sanctions on
civilian welfare.
As is pointed out in the report recently issued by over a dozen church and
human rights groups, "Iraq Sanctions: Humanitarian Implications and
Options
for the Future" (Aug. 6, 2002), "The 1977 Protocols to the Geneva
Conventions on the laws of war include a prohibition of economic sieges
against civilians as a method of warfare." In their actions involving
Iraq,
the United States, Britain, and the United Nations have violated these
laws
of war in a historically unprecedented manner. In an article in Foreign
Affairs ("Sanctions of Mass Destruction," 78: 3 [May/June 1999]), John and
Karl Mueller contend that "economic sanctions may well have been a
necessary
cause of the deaths of more people in Iraq than have been slain by all
so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history." The United
Nations Children's Fund has documented an increase in the under-five child
mortality rate in Iraq from 56 to 131 per thousand in the sanction years
1990-1998, with an estimated child death toll of several hundred thousand.
Having contributed to these mass deaths through economic warfare, the
United
Nations now remains silent in the face of an openly planned war of
aggression against Iraq. The war will be bloody and will have much wider,
potentially disastrous, repercussions. If the Secretary-General and
members
of the United Nations do not speak out, oppose, and attempt to stop what
would be flagrant aggression, will it not be clear that the United Nations
is not an institution serving to prevent war but rather a political
instrument of the United States and selected allies?
We urge the UN Secretary-General and U.N. members to act now or stand
condemned as accomplices of aggression, in defiance of both the clear
language of the U.N. Charter and the desires of the vast majority of the
world's people.
___________________________________
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 131/168 03-Sep-02 @ 01:11 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Wednesday August 21, 2002
The Guardian
Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the past is repeatedly cited by the US and British governments as justification for his removal from power now. But just what was their response to his use of poison gas against Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s? Far from condemning his actions, they stepped up their support for Baghdad. One of the most damning revelations to come out of the Scott inquiry into the arms-to-Iraq affair was the British government's secret decision to supply Saddam with even more weapons-related equipment after he shelled the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988 with gas bombs, killing an estimated 5,000 civilians and maiming thousands more. Saddam said he had punished the Kurds for "collaboration" after the town had been successfully attacked by Iran. The weapons were produced with German-supplied chemicals.
At the end of the Iraq-Iran war later that year, Sir Geoffrey Howe, the foreign secretary, drew up a paper entitled The Economic Consequences of the Peace. There were "major opportunities for British industry", he said. But he was terrified his plan to increase British arms exports to Iraq, secretly agreed by the government, would be leaked.
"It could look very cynical if so soon after expressing outrage about the treatment of the Kurds, we adopt a more flexible approach to arms sales," one of his officials told the Scott inquiry. The government's decision to change its policy, but keep MPs and the public in the dark, was even more cynical, replied Lord Scott.
As Whitehall turned a blind eye to exports to Baghdad of equipment which ministers and officials admitted could be used to produce chemical and nuclear weapons, Howe ordered his paper to be kept under wraps until, in the words of Ian Blackley, a senior Foreign Office diplomat, the "cloud had passed" - a reference to the attack on Halabja.
This cynicism and hypocrisy was matched only by the US. Soon after the attack, Washington approved the export to Iraq of virus cultures and a $1bn contract to design and build a petrochemical plant the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas. And while the Reagan administration condemned the use of chemical weapons during the eight-year Iraq-Iran war, US officers were secretly supplying Iraqi generals with bomb-damage assessments and detailed information on Iranian troop deployments.
"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," Walter Lang, a former senior US defence intelligence officer, told the New York Times this week. Washington was worried about the threat of Iran spreading its Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Ever since TE Lawrence and his admirers in Whitehall drew the map of the modern Middle East after the first world war, the British and, later, American approach to the region has been dictated by naked self-interest. It is an approach which demanded a totally craven approach towards human rights. Saudi Arabia, no respecter of these and a past funder of Islamist extremism in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere, remains one of Britain's biggest arms markets and a key supplier of oil to the US.
Whatever the reasons, and there are many, for seeing the back of Saddam, don't listen to Bush or Blair when they talk of morality, democracy and good governance. The evidence of Lord Howe and his officials to the Scott inquiry revealed the government's priorities. This might be salutary to remember as the government prepares to respond to pressure for a debate about the Bush administration's plans to invade Iraq.
"Public opposition in this country might have been embarrassingly vociferous, particularly in view of the use by Iraq of chemical weapons," Scott told Howe. Howe replied that he wanted to defend British corporate interests from "malicious commentators" and "emotional misunderstandings". The decision to prevent MPs from knowing about the government's shift in policy was a "perfectly legitimate management of news", he said.
Then, the evidence against Saddam was there for all to see, but conveniently ignored. Britain and the US were desperate to benefit from Saddam's massive arms procurement programme. Now, we are told, Saddam must be overthrown because he is again said to be developing weapons of mass destruction, but we are not given the evidence.
A senior Foreign Office official told the Scott inquiry: "If there had been an outcry [over the change in policy towards Iraq] I am not sure it would necessarily have reflected the view of the country, only of the number of people prepared to comment." Those words may be worth recalling in the weeks ahead.
Richard Norton-Taylor is the author of Truth is a Difficult Concept: Inside the Scott Inquiry
___________________________________
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 132/168 03-Sep-02 @ 01:35 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Independent - 02 September 2002
"...In fact, if your ancestry is in the so-called Third World, you cannot but question the theatrical anniversary we are about to experience. This week, we will be manipulated by emotional stories about babies who were born on that day in New York, healthy babies to two parents who feel damaged. I wonder how many of these sensitive couples remember 2 December 1984? Would they recognise the name Bhopal? And, if they did, would they recall that between 16,000 and 30,000 Indians were choked to grisly death by acid fumes, and that 500,000 were wounded? In his book, Five Past Midnight in Bhopal, Dominique LaPierre calls this "the most murderous industrial disaster in history". Read this, if you can, without screaming. A young girl with bells on her ankles was piled in with the dead, still alive with frothy bubbles coming out of her burnt insides; Muslim graves had to take 10 victims each; hearts, livers and spleens tripled in size and victims drowned in their own secretions.
An Indian court last week reminded the world that, 18 years on, Union Carbide, the American company responsible, and the chief executive officer James Anderson have escaped justice. So do US couples who gave birth on 2 December feel a sense of horror?..."
Message 133/168 03-Sep-02 @ 07:36 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
cheddar, everyone knows that one western baby is worth at least a thousand third world ones..
Message 134/168 03-Sep-02 @ 09:08 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
And paint the sable skies
With azure, white, and red
Bill drummond 1585-1649
Message 135/168 03-Sep-02 @ 09:41 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
i'm not telling.
Message 136/168 03-Sep-02 @ 10:33 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 137/168 03-Sep-02 @ 11:26 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 138/168 03-Sep-02 @ 11:27 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
the old classics are the best
why did Marx only drink herbal tea's?
cos all property is theft
drrrrrrrrrrr-tishhh!
Message 139/168 04-Sep-02 @ 02:23 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Bush has little to no support for this war. Both inside and outside of the US. Not that you're interested...
Message 140/168 04-Sep-02 @ 08:23 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza - "...In a special section on the Vietnam war, which also defined the era, there is a list of the numbers killed: US troops, 58,000; Vietnamese deaths, 1,639,000, which McCleary describes as a "probably low estimate"". (The Hippie Dictionary: A Cultural Encyclopaedia of the 1960s and 1970s, by John Bassett McCleary) - So soldiers have a much lower exchange rate.
Moonunit - That isn't the same Bill Drummond of Echo and the Bunnymen manager, Julian Cope killing, KLF ABBA sample stealing, million pound burning, Turner Prize hijacking, only guy I ever wrote a fan mail to... fame...is it?
Message 143/168 04-Sep-02 @ 09:41 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 144/168 04-Sep-02 @ 11:15 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 145/168 04-Sep-02 @ 12:45 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Tony Blair has promised to publish a dossier of evidence against Iraq "in the next few weeks" as he gave his broadest hint yet of support for toppling Saddam Hussein.
"I believe there is evidence that they will acquire nuclear weapons if they possibly can," he said.
"Vast" amounts of chemical and biological weapons remained unaccounted for, said Mr Blair, and there was real concern that Iraq was trying to gain ballistic missile technology.
So Saddam is about to launch a nuclear attack on the US or the UK?
Hahahahaha! Yeah, right... if he attacked the west, Iraq would be a smouldering lake of radioactive waste before you could say 'war crimes tribunal'.
School bully: 'I thought he may have had a penknife in his pocket so I murdered his entire family sir'
Teacher: 'Good boy, you have saved us from a potential threat to the entire school!'
Police Officer: 'Here, boy, have a medal for your timely pre-emptive strike'
Message 146/168 04-Sep-02 @ 10:59 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
___________________________________
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 147/168 04-Sep-02 @ 11:04 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Iraq may at any time launch a first strike against the US or the UK... it's time to spill the blood of thousands of innocent people to counter this very real threat.
Now, lets see......, who's next for a regime change?
China is not a democracy, brutally represses its own population and has an active nuclear and ballistic program... and no doubt a whole heap of secret weapons programs... and they invaded Tibet.. an extremely peaceful country...
So, lets go for it... c'mon george and tony!
Message 148/168 04-Sep-02 @ 11:42 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
what saddam needs to do is open lots of BK's & maccy-d's in baghdad & make happy-meal toys
(assuming he's actualy alive that is, & not stuffed, sitting motionless in that chair as he always seems to be doing)
heh heh
___________________________________
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 149/168 04-Sep-02 @ 11:47 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 150/168 05-Sep-02 @ 12:20 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 151/168 05-Sep-02 @ 01:24 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
hey..how come its fine and dandy for the US to have enough bombs to kill life in its entirety, but the mere mention of it in anyone elses hands is "potential terrorism"?
hell...'we' are the only one that ever even used the shit!
Message 152/168 05-Sep-02 @ 09:32 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 153/168 05-Sep-02 @ 06:18 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
would you guys keep it quiet with the china thing!
you're making the boys in taiwan nervous.
influx "...US to have enough bombs to kill life in its entirety..." nope, not even if we tried harder. life as WE know it, sure, but LIFE, nope.
it would be like a cold reboot for the planet and set evolution on a new course, maybe not a bad idea seeing how miserably humans failed.
Message 154/168 05-Sep-02 @ 06:21 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 155/168 05-Sep-02 @ 06:27 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 156/168 05-Sep-02 @ 07:42 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
i think i´m doing a good job avoiding political discussion
Message 157/168 05-Sep-02 @ 07:55 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 158/168 05-Sep-02 @ 08:27 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
just missed the mark. some of us really want a better place though and I dont think that requires killing everyone!
Message 160/168 05-Sep-02 @ 09:25 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 161/168 07-Sep-02 @ 11:02 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
[image file]
LOOK!! PROBLEM SOLVED!! I'VE DISARMED SADDAM HUSSEIN!!!
rt
Message 162/168 12-Apr-07 @ 06:45 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Pat Riot
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 163/168 13-Apr-07 @ 12:10 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
___________________________________
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 164/168 13-Apr-07 @ 12:35 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
classic thread, nice
Message 165/168 13-Apr-07 @ 08:43 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Message 166/168 15-Apr-07 @ 11:45 PM Edit: 15-Apr-07 | 11:53 PM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Message 168/168 16-Apr-07 @ 11:39 AM - RE: [ot] Should the US invade Iraq?
___________________________________
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!!!
Viewing all 168 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 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
