PDA

View Full Version : why i am a true patriot



Warren_Lushia
03-24-2003, 11:24 AM
recently, some people here have accused me of being unpatriotic, and for those of who think that way, let me explain why this is not only untrue, but the complete opposite of reality.

the united states of america is at a very unique position in the history of the entire world. we are the only true, singular, global super-power. with the collapse of the former soviet union, there is nothing standing in the way of the usa leading the world for true international peace and global security.

however, with this unique position, we hold a heavy responsibilty not only for our own people, but for the people of the world. and with this in mind, we should take EVERY opportunity to embrace other cultures, to try and understand other people. not everybody wants to live as we do, but at the same time, i think everybody wants to live in freedom and security.

with this realization, we need to take a look at how the rest of the world sees us. quite frankly, the rest of the world, for the most part, views the usa as a bully and a tyrant. and this was even before we violated international law to wage a war. our latest "efforts" will only reaffirm those notions in the minds of anti-americans.

the government of the usa does not really have an obligation to assure the whole world is secure, its obligation is first and foremost to its own people. with that being said, global security is certainly a goal, a rather lofty one, but not necessarily unattainable.

so, at a time where no single nation has the power to destroy us, where the have been no imminent threats, we really should not be on the aggressive to wage a war. some people would like to think when i say this, i am somehow defending a monster named sadaam hussein, or that i somehow mean we should leave him alone. that is not even true in the slightest. we should aggressively seek out measures to assure hussein poses no threat, we should seek out measures to assure hussein can no longer violate human rights. that is what the united nations is there for. sure, the UN aint perfect, but it WAS the best thing we had.

for the usa to take aggressive military action against a country which poses no immediate threat, and to do so in a manner which violates international law is simply uncalled for. we can stand behind a principle of eliminating potential terror threats, and try and justify our actions in any number of ways, but quite frankly this is ludicrous.

before you jump all over me and tell me what a bad man hussein is, let me ask you this: with a country filled with weapons inspectors, facing international economic sanctions, what immediate risk do you think they impose? this matter was being taken care of, in a diplomatic way, and progress way being made. we should aggresively pursue all dimplomatic efforts to avoid military conflict, not wage a war against a nation which has already suffered enough. we can go against international law, and slaughter the same people we are claiming to save, and try and justify it as some sort of liberation. and at the same time putting our own troops at risk.

americans have a tendency to view our military might as some sort of sports team. when people cheer when we bomb the crap out of baghdad, it makes me cringe. this isn't a game people.

i am sure most of you realize that it was not that long ago the iraq was considered our ally, and it was not that long ago osama bin laden was also our ally, receiving the full benefit of the american military in his defense against soviet occupation in afghanistan. did you ever sit back and wonder, why bin laden turned against the united states? did you ever sit back and wonder when this happened?

this has been well documented by historians and biographers who have studied bin laden. his aggressive stance against the usa came FROM THE GULF WAR!!! this was a war in which we had backing from the UN, in which we were NOT of the offensive, but rather the defensive. just how the hell you think this war looks in the eyes of the world? do you not think this time we are creating even more potential terrorists? do you HONESTLY really feel any safer or more secure with the aggressive offensive stance we have taken in iraq? i sure as hell don't.

iraq was our ally, and bin laden was our ally. both have come back to bite us in the ass. we gave bin laden support, weapons, training, and put the taliban in power, and 10 years later the trade centers were taken down. that is an example of our foreign policy at work folks.

i WILL speak out, and voice my negative opinion on the president's illegal and agressive stance in iraq. for those of you who think i should just shut up and blindly back the president, i will say this: once this war is over we will not know the true implications of our actions for years, long after bush is gone. so shutting up now, and waiting for the next election to use my power of voting won't do a hell of alot. if our troops engage in a bloody war with mass slaughter on both sides in the streets of baghdad, and then north korea decides they might be next and drops a nuke on hawaii or california, i guess it will be a little late to start criticising the way this was handled with my power of vote.

if 5 years from now i can save 10 cents on a gallon of gas, it aint gonna make me feel any more secure knowing what we did to enable that to happen. our goverment is supposed to use our military to ensure homeland security, and in this case i feel just the opposite is what is going to happen. i am a true patriot.

warren..

Kato
03-24-2003, 11:47 AM
Warren, I'm not going to argue the war with you or anyone. What I'd like to mention is you mentioned Iraq facing economic sanctions. Who gets hurt when a country receives sanctions? I think it's the people, not the leadership. The leadership does not care about the people and sanctions don't hurt them as they are already rich from raping the country over the years.

Kato

Gayle in MD
03-24-2003, 12:34 PM
Dear Warren,
In the beginning of this mess, it looked to me, I will admit, that Bush was being a bit trigger happy. I didn
't like the prospect of war, but also, I don't like being part of a country, with the kind of power the U.S. has, that is willing to just sit back and let innocent people who cannot defend themselves be persecuted by a mad dictator.

I didn't want George Bush for president, either, and didn't vote for him.

But now, now that I have observed the many other facts that have come to light during the last month, I must say, that our country is doing the right thing, and that if we do not face this tyrant now, we will just have to face him later when he is better prepared to cause havoc to us and to the rest of the world.

I hate to be redundant, since I just added to another post almost these same words before I read yours, but as an American, unless there were intentions which I was absolutely certain had not grown out of humanitarian concerns, there is no way that I could ever critisize my country during war time when there are so many brave young Americans fighting for my freedom and safety. It is bad enough that we have been deceived by Saddam, the French, the Russians, and Belgium, and even the UN Inspectors, but if there has ever been a time to stand up for America, THIS IS IT !

Gayle in Md. Would buy no damn pool table from Belgium either !

Wally_in_Cincy
03-24-2003, 12:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren_Lushia:</font><hr>

the united states of america is at a very unique position in the history of the entire world. we are the only true, singular, global super-power.

<font color="blue">This is not the first time. See Roman Empire, Alex the Great </font color>

with this realization, we need to take a look at how the rest of the world sees us. quite frankly, the rest of the world, for the most part, views the usa as a bully and a tyrant.

<font color="blue">And what is their justification for that? </font color>

we should aggressively seek out measures to assure hussein poses no threat, we should seek out measures to assure hussein can no longer violate human rights.

<font color="blue">What should we have tried that hadn't already been tried? </font color>


we should aggresively pursue all dimplomatic efforts to avoid military conflict, not wage a war against a nation which has already suffered enough.

<font color="blue">They have suffered enough. That's part of the reason we are there. </font color>

americans have a tendency to view our military might as some sort of sports team. when people cheer when we bomb the crap out of baghdad,

<font color="blue">Well, yeah, when I saw Saddam's palaces bombed I was happy. What's wrong with that? </font color>

i am sure most of you realize that it was not that long ago the iraq was considered our ally, and it was not that long ago osama bin laden was also our ally, receiving the full benefit of the american military in his defense against soviet occupation in afghanistan. did you ever sit back and wonder, why bin laden turned against the united states? did you ever sit back and wonder when this happened?

this has been well documented by historians and biographers who have studied bin laden. his aggressive stance against the usa came FROM THE GULF WAR!!! this was a war in which we had backing from the UN, in which we were NOT of the offensive, but rather the defensive.

<font color="blue">So it was a justified war and we helped him defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan and he still hates us. What's your point? </font color>

just how the hell you think this war looks in the eyes of the world? do you not think this time we are creating even more potential terrorists? do you HONESTLY really feel any safer or more secure with the aggressive offensive stance we have taken in iraq? i sure as hell don't.

<font color="blue">I do. </font color>

iraq was our ally, and bin laden was our ally. both have come back to bite us in the ass. we gave bin laden support, weapons, training, and put the taliban in power, and 10 years later the trade centers were taken down. that is an example of our foreign policy at work folks.

<font color="blue">Yes warren, that's the way it works. Allies change over time. </font color>

i WILL speak out, and voice my negative opinion on the president's illegal and agressive stance in iraq.

<font color="blue">That is your right. </font color>

for those of you who think i should just shut up and blindly back the president, i will say this: once this war is over we will not know the true implications of our actions for years, long after bush is gone.

<font color="blue">We shall see. </font color>

so shutting up now, and waiting for the next election to use my power of voting won't do a hell of alot. if our troops engage in a bloody war with mass slaughter on both sides in the streets of baghdad, and then north korea decides they might be next and drops a nuke on hawaii or california, i guess it will be a little late to start criticising the way this was handled with my power of vote.

if 5 years from now i can save 10 cents on a gallon of gas, it aint gonna make me feel any more secure knowing what we did to enable that to happen. our goverment is supposed to use our military to ensure homeland security, and in this case i feel just the opposite is what is going to happen. i am a true patriot.

warren.. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
03-24-2003, 12:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
the united states of america is at a very unique position in the history of the entire world. we are the only true, singular, global super-power. <hr /></blockquote> As an astute historian yourself, surely you don't feel this is a "unique" period. There have been many many other "super power" countries/people. We could look back to Alexander the Great, the Egyptians, the Romans. This is not the first time in history.
[ QUOTE ]
we need to take a look at how the rest of the world sees us. quite frankly, the rest of the world, for the most part, views the usa as a bully and a tyrant. <hr /></blockquote> and the one country that will help pay thier way. Who do these countries go to when they need help. Get real, we should look at all the ways these countries look at us, and if they did look to us with hate and contempt then they are hypocrites. They have no problem looking for monetary relief when times are rough. One great example is Nelson mandela. He states that the US is the most evil country of all time, however he says nothing about the 15 billion the US has just offered Africa for help with AIDS.

[ QUOTE ]
where the have been no imminent threats, we really should not be on the aggressive to wage a war. <hr /></blockquote>Is this not hilarious. I guess you forgot 9/11. What would have happened if some country with a desire to destroy America had funded this mission and supplied them with nuclear weapons. Suppose those nuclear bombs were snuck onto the plane and and set to explode on impact. This desire to sit back and wait is ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
we should aggressively seek out measures to assure hussein poses no threat, we should seek out measures to assure hussein can no longer violate human rights. that is what the united nations is there for. sure, the UN aint perfect, but it WAS the best thing we had. <hr /></blockquote> Wow, this is a mouthful of crap. Show me one time in the history of the UN which they actually did something about a dictator committing genocide to his own people. Show me one time where the UN has actually done anything to even act like some sort of policing effort is being taken.
[ QUOTE ]
with a country filled with weapons inspectors, facing international economic sanctions, what immediate risk do you think they impose? <hr /></blockquote> Who was policing their money, monetary transactions, meetings with Al-Qaeda? This is a joke. The weapons inspectors were not in Iraq to prevent weapons of mass destruction from being made. The inspectors were in there to make sure the weapons have been destroyed. These are two very different things. What happens in a factory when the inspector leaves? Do you think they continue doing the good for Iraq or do the the employees go back to making the weapons?
[ QUOTE ]
did you ever sit back and wonder, why bin laden turned against the united states? did you ever sit back and wonder when this happened? <hr /></blockquote> Does it really matter? He pioneered a few thugs to fly their planes into our towers. Whether he decided to do it 10 years ago or yesterday, it still happened. Whether at one time he was our ally or not, it still does not matter. He commanded the destruction and death of innocent people. What is your point here?
[ QUOTE ]
just how the hell you think this war looks in the eyes of the world? do you not think this time we are creating even more potential terrorists? do you HONESTLY really feel any safer or more secure with the aggressive offensive stance we have taken in iraq? i sure as hell don't. <hr /></blockquote>I do feel safer. At least now, the monetary freedom that helped allow these terrorists to do what they want is gone. I am not saying Iraq was all the money but they are a portion and it will no longer be there. It is hard to run the Al-Qaeda and buy nuclear weapons and such without any money.
[ QUOTE ]
i WILL speak out, and voice my negative opinion on the president's illegal and agressive stance in iraq. for those of you who think i should just shut up and blindly back the president, i will say this: once this war is over we will not know the true implications of our actions for years, long after bush is gone. so shutting up now, and waiting for the next election to use my power of voting won't do a hell of alot. <hr /></blockquote> Likewise, it does not do much to say anything either.
[ QUOTE ]
if our troops engage in a bloody war with mass slaughter on both sides in the streets of baghdad, and then north korea decides they might be next and drops a nuke on hawaii or california, i guess it will be a little late to start criticising the way this was handled with my power of vote. <hr /></blockquote>It will also be ignorant to think that Korea gives a hoot whether we are fighting with Iraq or not. Korea will decide on their own if they want to do this, and it will not be retaliatory based on our war with Iraq. By the way, we are in Iraq mostly due to their desire to not disarm. The UN just does not want to go through with their own orders. The US has decided to do what it says, you seem to have a problem with that. Iraq was told in 91 to disarm or we will use force to disarm them. They NEVER proved to have disarmed, so we are using force. The UN did not have the guts.
[ QUOTE ]
if 5 years from now i can save 10 cents on a gallon of gas, it aint gonna make me feel any more secure knowing what we did to enable that to happen. our goverment is supposed to use our military to ensure homeland security, and in this case i feel just the opposite is what is going to happen. i am a true patriot. <hr /></blockquote> This is funny, you tried to slip in oil as possibly being the reason for this war. What a joke, a true liberal at work.

eg8r

Warren_Lushia
03-24-2003, 12:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Kato:</font><hr> Warren, I'm not going to argue the war with you or anyone. What I'd like to mention is you mentioned Iraq facing economic sanctions. Who gets hurt when a country receives sanctions? I think it's the people, not the leadership. The leadership does not care about the people and sanctions don't hurt them as they are already rich from raping the country over the years.

Kato <hr /></blockquote>

excellent point and observation kato, you are correct. this is also why it is dangerous to think of everything from our point of view. in free nations in which we can chose to elect who will represent us, economic sanctions can work. in those nations in which the people are not really free, the sanctions hurt the people more than the leadership. its kind of a long and cruel way to go about things. remember this point, because it will be an important topic when north korea gets discussed.

warren..

Wally_in_Cincy
03-24-2003, 12:58 PM
Gayle,

Here's some more evidence:

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. <font color="red"> He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head." </font color>


http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r

Warren_Lushia
03-24-2003, 01:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Dear Warren,


I hate to be redundant, since I just added to another post almost these same words before I read yours, but as an American, unless there were intentions which I was absolutely certain had not grown out of humanitarian concerns, there is no way that I could ever critisize my country during war time when there are so many brave young Americans fighting for my freedom and safety. It is bad enough that we have been deceived by Saddam, the French, the Russians, and Belgium, and even the UN Inspectors, but if there has ever been a time to stand up for America, THIS IS IT !

Gayle in Md. Would buy no damn pool table from Belgium either ! <hr /></blockquote>

gayle, with all due respect, you sound a little naive. what exectly happened over the last month where all these "facts" you alluded to came out? furthermore, what are these facts? outside of this war, germany, france, and russia are our allies. all of them have had dealings with iraq, AND SO HAVE WE! its a little unfair to criticize those nations and think we are totally innocent.

i noticed you are from maryland. do you realize where iraq got anthrax from? the ATCC, right there in your home state. if it was &lt;insert country here&gt; who sent it to them, you would be criticizing &lt;insert country here&gt;.

there are many nations with worse problems of human rights violations than iraq. afghanistan was one of them. head south and you have sudan. in both of these cases the usa could work with the people of the country to give them their freedom, which we attempted in afghanistan. this isn't the case in iraq.

warren..

eg8r
03-24-2003, 01:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
there are many nations with worse problems of human rights violations than iraq. <hr /></blockquote> Whatever. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/ This page is only a small example of what was happening over there. Saddam was slaughtering the Kurds to the North just like Milosevic was doing. On another note, who cares if there are others that are doing worse, right now we are fixing the problem in Iraq.
[ QUOTE ]
afghanistan was one of them. head south and you have sudan. in both of these cases the usa could work with the people of the country to give them their freedom, which we attempted in afghanistan. <hr /></blockquote>Very funny. You really thinking a little chit chat has fixed all those problems. It seems a little odd you did not include Milosevic. Do you also think we should have had a little chit chat with him also. Maybe we could invite all those that lived through the genocide and have them join the chit chat also. Lastly, the people of those countries were not the problem but more the leaders of those people.

eg8r

Warren_Lushia
03-24-2003, 01:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren_Lushia:</font><hr>

the united states of america is at a very unique position in the history of the entire world. we are the only true, singular, global super-power.

<font color="blue">This is not the first time. See Roman Empire, Alex the Great </font color>

<font color="red"> the roman empire was hardly global wally. do i really need to explain this? </font color>

with this realization, we need to take a look at how the rest of the world sees us. quite frankly, the rest of the world, for the most part, views the usa as a bully and a tyrant.

<font color="blue">And what is their justification for that? </font color>

<font color="red">well, that is important to distiguish. from the best of my knowledge, it is because of our foreign policy, which people view as a thinly veiled attempt at imperialism and domination, through force when necessary. </font color>

we should aggressively seek out measures to assure hussein poses no threat, we should seek out measures to assure hussein can no longer violate human rights.

<font color="blue">What should we have tried that hadn't already been tried? </font color>

<font color="red">many things. we could have worked with iraqis in the south and kurds in the north for instance. we could have pursued more agressive weapons inspections. i gotta ask ya wally, if you really feel so strongly that this is mostly about liberating the iraqi people from the evil's of saddam, why iraq and not another country? why did we seek turkish support when turkey itself is guilty of human rights violations against the kurds in northern iraq? why did this evil man used to be our ally? if we are worried about homeland security so much, why not go after nations in which not only are their human rights violations, but much more potential for terrorist breeding and occupation, ala sudan? why are we sitting on our asses about the conflict between india and pakistan, nations which potentially, if they were to consider the usa an enemy, use nukes on us? look at the big picture wally. </font color>


we should aggresively pursue all dimplomatic efforts to avoid military conflict, not wage a war against a nation which has already suffered enough.

<font color="blue">They have suffered enough. That's part of the reason we are there. </font color>

<font color="red"> many people suffer and we don't lift a finger. it aint that simple. </font color>

americans have a tendency to view our military might as some sort of sports team. when people cheer when we bomb the crap out of baghdad,

<font color="blue">Well, yeah, when I saw Saddam's palaces bombed I was happy. What's wrong with that? </font color>

<font color="red">you were happy? seriously? i dunno wally, i guess we see things differently. would i like to see saddam punished, killed, etc, for his actions? yes, i would. quite frankly, i was horrified at the tactics we used, bombing a city with 5 million people in it. you know, you can use another word to describe "shock and awe" and that is terror. i felt bad for the innocent people in that city.</font color>

i am sure most of you realize that it was not that long ago the iraq was considered our ally, and it was not that long ago osama bin laden was also our ally, receiving the full benefit of the american military in his defense against soviet occupation in afghanistan. did you ever sit back and wonder, why bin laden turned against the united states? did you ever sit back and wonder when this happened?

this has been well documented by historians and biographers who have studied bin laden. his aggressive stance against the usa came FROM THE GULF WAR!!! this was a war in which we had backing from the UN, in which we were NOT of the offensive, but rather the defensive.

<font color="blue">So it was a justified war and we helped him defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan and he still hates us. What's your point? </font color>

<font color="red">my point is, in order to understand how terrorists are bred, how they come into power, and most importantly, why they hate us so much, you need to look at things from a broader perspective. in this case, we helped out kuwait, but WE NEVER LEFT. that wasn't a UN presence in kuwait, that was the usa. some people see this as an attempt to occupy a region, as a threat to the other nations in the region. </font color>

just how the hell you think this war looks in the eyes of the world? do you not think this time we are creating even more potential terrorists? do you HONESTLY really feel any safer or more secure with the aggressive offensive stance we have taken in iraq? i sure as hell don't.

<font color="blue">I do. </font color>

iraq was our ally, and bin laden was our ally. both have come back to bite us in the ass. we gave bin laden support, weapons, training, and put the taliban in power, and 10 years later the trade centers were taken down. that is an example of our foreign policy at work folks.

<font color="blue">Yes warren, that's the way it works. Allies change over time. </font color>

<font color="red">true, but maybe we should put a little more thought into what we are doing AT THE TIME. perhaps helping afghanistan was the right thing to do, but allowing the taliban to gain power as well as bin laden shows you how our interests get mixed up. we really didn't give a crap about afghanistan or its people, we cared about conflict with the soviet union.</font color>

warren..

Wally_in_Cincy
03-24-2003, 02:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren_Lushia:</font><hr>

<font color="red"> the roman empire was hardly global wally. do i really need to explain this? </font color>

<font color="blue">No warren. I'm obviously not smart enough to understand. </font color>

<font color="red"> why are we sitting on our asses about the conflict between india and pakistan, nations which potentially, if they were to consider the usa an enemy, use nukes on us? </font color>

<font color="blue"> They are not that stupid. Saddam is.</font color>



<font color="red">you were happy? seriously? i dunno wally, i guess we see things differently. would i like to see saddam punished, killed, etc, for his actions? yes, i would. quite frankly, i was horrified at the tactics we used, bombing a city with 5 million people in it. you know, you can use another word to describe "shock and awe" and that is terror. i felt bad for the innocent people in that city.</font color>

<font color="blue">We went out of our way to avoid innocent loss of life. Hell the lights didn't even go out in Baghdad. </font color>

<font color="red">true, but maybe we should put a little more thought into what we are doing AT THE TIME. perhaps helping afghanistan was the right thing to do, but allowing the taliban to gain power as well as bin laden shows you how our interests get mixed up. we really didn't give a crap about afghanistan or its people, we cared about conflict with the soviet union.</font color>

<font color="blue"> Well let's see, we were wrong to stay in Kuwait but we were also wrong to not go into Afghanistan after the Russians left? You're contradicting yourself.

Personally I think we should have done more for Afghanistan but, in your words, </font color> <font color="red"> some people see this as an attempt to occupy a region, as a threat to the other nations in the region. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

I'm done. There's no point in pursuing this any further.

Gayle in MD
03-24-2003, 03:09 PM
Hi again Warren,
You Write "Facts" and I would just like to say once and for all, about "Facts".... that I get mine from the same sources that you get yours from, my friend,.... from journalists, from the newspapers, from CNN, Fox, ABC, MSNBC, the Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Republic, Time Magazine, and also C-Span, which is probably the most unbiased source of information that one can find,
so I'm really tired of this whole BS that goes on here about "Facts"....

It would take far too long, Warren, for me to write for you here, all the information which I have heard and read during these past few months which led to my present point of view.

I will simply say that the most compelling stories have been the ones that came from the mouths of people who have spoken about what life was like before they managed to escape from Iraq.

Also, I won't attempt to put a label on you when I don't agree with your views. I am not attacking you, I simply have a different idea about what it means to be a loyal American, and to stand behind my country, while we are being stabbed in the back by all these other ungrateful SOB's around the world that not only will not stand up for what is decent humane and right, but as they slink away, are trying to help a maniacal, sadistical piece of scum like Saddam to kill our people, who are there trying to perform their duty.

And, Warren, as for your facts, you are not dealing in your comments with the realities of today. What happened that led us to this point is of no importance at this time as far as I can see.

Sure, you can go back into history and you can pull up all kinds of information to prove any point you are trying to prove, but I could do the same thing if I wanted to take the time.

It seems that most people have watched, as have I, the French, Germans, Russians, Belgium, and a few others, trying to make whatever problems they could for us as we try to stand up to, and get rid of this idiot Saddam, and my opinion is that they have a lot of nerve, considering everything that's involved here.

I don't think we need ANY Americans, at this critical time, going around trying to put down AMERICA. There are enough jerks around the world only to happy to do that. America is the greatest nation in the world, and I can think of no other nation that has devoted itself to the high ideals to which our country has proven itself to be committed, nor of any other nation which has given so much to help the helpless others around the world who are suffering from maniacs like this one.

As for your anthrax paragraph, it was rather hard to decipher exactly what you were trying to say there, but I assure you, I didn't send Saddam any anthrax, lol.

The last paragraph you wrote, is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. There are many countries which need our help, and the help of all the other nations, I agree, and I am proud that it is our country that is presently helping the poor Iraqi people at this time, unlike the French, the Germans and the Russians, who are helping their oppressor, Saddam Insane.

Your friend
Gayle in Md,

Warren_Lushia
03-24-2003, 03:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
the united states of america is at a very unique position in the history of the entire world. we are the only true, singular, global super-power. <hr /></blockquote> As an astute historian yourself, surely you don't feel this is a "unique" period. There have been many many other "super power" countries/people. We could look back to Alexander the Great, the Egyptians, the Romans. This is not the first time in history.

<font color="blue">none of those are examples of global superpowers. regional superpowers yes. this is a unique time.</font color>
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
we need to take a look at how the rest of the world sees us. quite frankly, the rest of the world, for the most part, views the usa as a bully and a tyrant. <hr /></blockquote> and the one country that will help pay thier way. Who do these countries go to when they need help. Get real, we should look at all the ways these countries look at us, and if they did look to us with hate and contempt then they are hypocrites. They have no problem looking for monetary relief when times are rough. One great example is Nelson mandela. He states that the US is the most evil country of all time, however he says nothing about the 15 billion the US has just offered Africa for help with AIDS.

<font color="blue">this is a great example of ignorance. i hate to tell you this, but not everyone thinks like you do. some people harbor ill feelings towards this country because of your exact reasoning, because they feel the usa tries to buy its way out of many things. the difference between you and me, is i wanna promote world relations and security, you wanna tell people to kiss your ass if they don't praise you when you give them money. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
where the have been no imminent threats, we really should not be on the aggressive to wage a war. <hr /></blockquote>Is this not hilarious. I guess you forgot 9/11. What would have happened if some country with a desire to destroy America had funded this mission and supplied them with nuclear weapons. Suppose those nuclear bombs were snuck onto the plane and and set to explode on impact. This desire to sit back and wait is ridiculous.

<font color="blue">what is ridiculous is you could use your exact same line of thinking to justify anything the usa ever wants to do. </font color>
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
we should aggressively seek out measures to assure hussein poses no threat, we should seek out measures to assure hussein can no longer violate human rights. that is what the united nations is there for. sure, the UN aint perfect, but it WAS the best thing we had. <hr /></blockquote> Wow, this is a mouthful of crap. Show me one time in the history of the UN which they actually did something about a dictator committing genocide to his own people. Show me one time where the UN has actually done anything to even act like some sort of policing effort is being taken.

<font color="blue">don't be silly, man. this should be obvious. besides, why are you attacking the UN anyway, according to you they have the full blessing of the war on iraq? if you wanna say the UN needs to be modernized and undergo reforms, i'd agree. </font color>
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
with a country filled with weapons inspectors, facing international economic sanctions, what immediate risk do you think they impose? <hr /></blockquote> Who was policing their money, monetary transactions, meetings with Al-Qaeda? This is a joke. The weapons inspectors were not in Iraq to prevent weapons of mass destruction from being made. The inspectors were in there to make sure the weapons have been destroyed. These are two very different things. What happens in a factory when the inspector leaves? Do you think they continue doing the good for Iraq or do the the employees go back to making the weapons?

<font color="blue">the presence of weapons inspectors by the UN was also to assure no weapons were being made also, same as in north korea before they booted them out. </font color>
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
did you ever sit back and wonder, why bin laden turned against the united states? did you ever sit back and wonder when this happened? <hr /></blockquote> Does it really matter? He pioneered a few thugs to fly their planes into our towers. Whether he decided to do it 10 years ago or yesterday, it still happened. Whether at one time he was our ally or not, it still does not matter. He commanded the destruction and death of innocent people. What is your point here?

<font color="blue">my point is we need to understand the true enemies, and execute our foreign policy with a modicum of concern for the future. we don't do that. i'd like to remind you that saddam was our ally too, how could we support such a monster? cause it served our interests at the time. </font color>
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
just how the hell you think this war looks in the eyes of the world? do you not think this time we are creating even more potential terrorists? do you HONESTLY really feel any safer or more secure with the aggressive offensive stance we have taken in iraq? i sure as hell don't. <hr /></blockquote>I do feel safer. At least now, the monetary freedom that helped allow these terrorists to do what they want is gone. I am not saying Iraq was all the money but they are a portion and it will no longer be there. It is hard to run the Al-Qaeda and buy nuclear weapons and such without any money.

<font color="blue">this is very simple-minded thinking, and dangerous. it is dangerous because you think too much in terms of money, and this is an american perspective. some people don't think like that. bin laden had 300 million dollars and he don't give a crap if he has to live in a cave. it is naive to try and think everybody views money the same way as you do. alot of people are perfectly happy to live a meager existance as long as they have what they need, and have no problems sending any money they have towards causes they believe in. THIS is how al-quaeda gets money. you think the whole world thinks of things exactly like you. and if your so worried about a terrorist somehow looking to buy a nuclear weapon, do you really think over the last 12 years iraq would be the place to look? that's just ignorant. you can't beat the enemy (terrorists) without understanding them. </font color>



&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
if our troops engage in a bloody war with mass slaughter on both sides in the streets of baghdad, and then north korea decides they might be next and drops a nuke on hawaii or california, i guess it will be a little late to start criticising the way this was handled with my power of vote. <hr /></blockquote>It will also be ignorant to think that Korea gives a hoot whether we are fighting with Iraq or not. Korea will decide on their own if they want to do this, and it will not be retaliatory based on our war with Iraq. By the way, we are in Iraq mostly due to their desire to not disarm. The UN just does not want to go through with their own orders. The US has decided to do what it says, you seem to have a problem with that. Iraq was told in 91 to disarm or we will use force to disarm them. They NEVER proved to have disarmed, so we are using force. The UN did not have the guts.

<font color="blue">firstly korea is divided into 2 distinct parts and its very important to recognize this. encompassing the whole region and calling it korea is ignorant. and yeah i do think north korea "gives a hoot" as they are part of the "axis of evil", and i'm certain they are VERY interested in what is going on in iraq. to suggest otherwise is simply stupid.

and you can say it until you are blue in the face, the UN did NOT back the use of force, i guess you are hoping people won't read the resolutions, or will only read the parts you want them too. i find it funny that you like to pretend we have UN backing then like to put the UN down. its weird when someone can hold something in front of your face, and you refuse to acknowledge it is there. </font color>
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
if 5 years from now i can save 10 cents on a gallon of gas, it aint gonna make me feel any more secure knowing what we did to enable that to happen. our goverment is supposed to use our military to ensure homeland security, and in this case i feel just the opposite is what is going to happen. i am a true patriot. <hr /></blockquote> This is funny, you tried to slip in oil as possibly being the reason for this war. What a joke, a true liberal at work.

<font color="blue">i am not so naive and uninformed to think this war is simply about oil, nor do i think its about "freeing" the iraqi people. in the grand scheme of things, oil certainly plays a bigger role than liberation, cause we certainly seem to try and execute our powers of liberation to nations in which we have a potential financial interest in. the reason oil popped into my head was i watched bush address reporters yesterday, and the only time he smiled was when he mentioned securing the southern oil fields. he didn't smile once when mentioning liberating the iraqi people. did you watch this? i saw it with my own eyes. i was embarassed. maybe he should let ari fleisher speak for him all the time, cause at least fleisher is quick on his feet and appears intelligent. bush stammers and fumbles for words, and seems too keen to grasp the catch phrases he likes to use. he does ok in prepared speeches, but that is probably because someone else is writing them. at this time, i really wish he'd let someone else do the talking so we don't look so bad. i like fleisher.</font color>

warren..

nAz
03-24-2003, 03:27 PM
Heart-Warming Reassurances. Brought to you by: Ari Fleischer

from MSNBC:

quote:Hudson’s mother offered a heart-wrenching plea to Bush: “Please do something for my son,” Anecita Hudson said.
Asked about her appeal, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, “The nation’s heart and the president’s heart goes out to the families of those who serve, of those who have lost their lives and of those who are now missing or captured.”

Way to show sympathy you f*cking drone!

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: Ari Fleischer is a chode.

nAz
03-24-2003, 03:31 PM
Gayle try this place for some accurate facts /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif http://www.fair.org/

eg8r
03-24-2003, 04:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
none of those are examples of global superpowers. regional superpowers yes. this is a unique time. <hr /></blockquote> You are kidding me. Tell me, during the rise of the Roman empire what other country stood as tall? Alexander the Great ruled everything that crossed his way until his untimely death.

[ QUOTE ]
this is a great example of ignorance. i hate to tell you this, but not everyone thinks like you do. some people harbor ill feelings towards this country because of your exact reasoning, because they feel the usa tries to buy its way out of many things. the difference between you and me, is i wanna promote world relations and security, you wanna tell people to kiss your ass if they don't praise you when you give them money. <hr /></blockquote> You make me laugh. This is ridiculous. I guess you know everything about the world and your research has taken you all over the earth so as to get a good look and warm feeling about your knowledge. I do think this is a joke and soon you will wake up and say "Gotcha". If these countries thought the way you think for them, then they would turn the money away. Instead, much to your surprise, they come to us asking help. But you knew that already.

[ QUOTE ]
don't be silly, man. this should be obvious. besides, why are you attacking the UN anyway, according to you they have the full blessing of the war on iraq? if you wanna say the UN needs to be modernized and undergo reforms, i'd agree. <hr /></blockquote> Quit back pedalling and prove your point. You have failed to do so on every single point you have ever tried to blind me with. You say the UN "WAS" our best saviour, however you fail to give one example. I like how you turn it back to me and my attacks on the UN. If you could pull the blinders off, go back and read the crap you have replied with. You are the one that brought the UN into this when lying about international illegalities. You brought up the UN. I just proved we had their backing. I have never once stated a love or fondness towards the UN. You say they do good things, just name one. I have given very clear guidelines for what I was looking for. Name one example of the UN removing a dictator from control.

[ QUOTE ]
the presence of weapons inspectors by the UN was also to assure no weapons were being made also, <hr /></blockquote>Not this last time when the inspectors were let back in. This is an absolute farce. The weapons inspectors job was to verify the weapons had been destroyed.

[ QUOTE ]
my point is we need to understand the true enemies, and execute our foreign policy with a modicum of concern for the future. we don't do that. <hr /></blockquote> How do you know this. You have never even been in the same room when these decisions have come down. You do not know what is going on or what "agreements" have been made. You go on to say that Osama "started" hating the US after the invasion of Iraq. Osama hated Iraq at the time. The only reason the two even have any sort of dealins with each other is because of the common enemy, the US. They do not stick up for each other.

[ QUOTE ]
it is dangerous because you think too much in terms of money, and this is an american perspective. <hr /></blockquote> You have proved things need to be made simple. You have a tough time keeping track. It is not dangerous to feel safety that one source of income is now taken away.

[ QUOTE ]
it is naive to try and think everybody views money the same way as you do. alot of people are perfectly happy to live a meager existance <hr /></blockquote> Quite another liberal quote, no one here is talking about lifestyle. Why are you clouded. I did not bring up how the people live. What I did say was that Iraq was funding money to help these people commit terror. You somehow think I am talking about a beach house in the south of france. What a joke.

[ QUOTE ]
and have no problems sending any money they have towards causes they believe in. THIS is how al-quaeda gets money. <hr /></blockquote> No kidding you lifeline of intelligence. That is exactly what I just said but you had to hear it in your own words. The al qaeda get their money from people who believe in the cause, the iraqis (saddam) give it to them. Now that Saddam is gone the al qaeda does not get it anymore. Here lies the small bit of safety I can take from it.

[ QUOTE ]
and if your so worried about a terrorist somehow looking to buy a nuclear weapon, do you really think over the last 12 years iraq would be the place to look? that's just ignorant. you can't beat the enemy (terrorists) without understanding them. <hr /></blockquote> You crack me up. ROTFL Now you are going to give us a lesson in terrorist defense. Iraq is DEFINITELY the place to look. Not just nuclear but biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. You are fool to believe Iraq just stopped making this stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
firstly korea is divided into 2 distinct parts and its very important to recognize this. encompassing the whole region and calling it korea is ignorant. and yeah i do think north korea "gives a hoot" as they are part of the "axis of evil", and i'm certain they are VERY interested in what is going on in iraq. to suggest otherwise is simply stupid. <hr /></blockquote> Thank you for the geography lesson and the clarification. I also think everyone on this board understands that when talking about the "bad" korea we mean the north side. Korea is only interested in knowing we are using resources. Korea does not care about Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
and you can say it until you are blue in the face, the UN did NOT back the use of force, i guess you are hoping people won't read the resolutions, or will only read the parts you want them too. <hr /></blockquote> Even you stated 1441 recalled all the previous resolutions. They are all still in effect and they all point back to 678 which authorizes use of force.

[ QUOTE ]
in the grand scheme of things, oil certainly plays a bigger role than liberation, cause we certainly seem to try and execute our powers of liberation to nations in which we have a potential financial interest in. <hr /></blockquote> Another funny. You are on a roll. The country with the most to lose is France. You just like to pick the easy things to use. Oh look they have oil, that must be why we are fighting them.

eg8r

03-24-2003, 05:04 PM
Warren, I'll be brief:

Interesting point about N Korea bombing us out of parenoia.

Imminent threat? As long as we have the power to do something, I would rather not sit around with my thumb up my rear until Iraq gets all of its ducks in a row and becomes an iminent threat.

As for the Romans, at that point in history they had control over most of what they considered the civilized world. To me, that makes them a global super power. I think, at one time, the Romans did have the power to take out any other regime. JMO.

For the record, I agree with you that you should not just blindly back the president. I don't agree with all of your reasons but that's my perogative.

Vapros
03-24-2003, 05:45 PM
We must hope that you are better-informed about molecular biology than you are about world affairs. If there is any logic in your composition, it has escaped me.

We are in Iraq to do what someone should have done to Hitler in 1936, and with perhaps a lot more to lose.

03-24-2003, 05:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, this is a mouthful of crap. Show me one time in the history of the UN which they actually did something about a dictator committing genocide to his own people. Show me one time where the UN has actually done anything to even act like some sort of policing effort is being taken. <hr /></blockquote>

Milosevic and his cronies are being tried by the U.N. war crimes tribunal for crimes against humanity as we speak. Ironically, the U.S. does not acknowledge the authority of this tribunal.

03-24-2003, 06:19 PM
In this time of war, let us not forget that regimes have been changed and people have been liberated without violence. Here are some quotes by Ghandi:

Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and done by unarmed nations in the face of odds.

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.

Violent means will give violent freedom.

However much I may sympathize with and admire worthy motives, I am an uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes.

Destruction is not the law of humans. Man lives freely only by his readiness to die, if need be, at the hands of his brother, never by killing him. Every murder or other injury, no matter for what cause, committed or inflicted on
another is a crime against humanity.

03-24-2003, 06:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
On another note, who cares if there are others that are doing worse, right now we are fixing the problem in Iraq.<hr /></blockquote>

I am not going to compare human rights violations in regards to what Saddam has done. However, a great violator of human rights in the world is China(Tianamen Square, lack of free speech, etc...), and China is in possesion of no. 1 trade status.

However, in Bush's 2002 State of the Union the President stated "America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; and religious tolerance."
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html)
I think the key word in this statement is "non-negotiable."

It seems if the President was really a man of his word he would not encourage trade with countries that deny civil liberties, including China, and Saudi Arabia(which was the birthplace of fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers. )

eg8r
03-24-2003, 09:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Milosevic and his cronies are being tried by the U.N. war crimes tribunal for crimes against humanity as we speak. <hr /></blockquote> Yes I know this. Did you know that the US went into Yugoslavia with out the permission of the UN and removed Milosevic from control? This a great example of the spineless UN. With overwhelming evidence against and provided by Milosevic, the UN still can not come to a conclusion. One thing I don't remember were all the protestors against this use of force. Maybe the evidence was more overwhelming, I don't remember.
[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, the U.S. does not acknowledge the authority of this tribunal. <hr /></blockquote> You are correct. The US does not acknowledge the tribunal but only on one condition, under our Constitution Americans will be judged by Americans (I paraphrased and probably real badly but I am too tired to search right now). I think the first incident that this was brought up was a little while back there was a boy that went to another country and vandalized some cars. I believe Clinton was Pres at the time but whoever it was, they chose to allow the boy to be kaned by the foreign government. This does not happen very often.

eg8r

eg8r
03-24-2003, 09:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I am not going to compare human rights violations in regards to what Saddam has done. However, a great violator of human rights in the world is China(Tianamen Square, lack of free speech, etc...), and China is in possesion of no. 1 trade status.

However, in Bush's 2002 State of the Union the President stated "America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; and religious tolerance."
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html)
I think the key word in this statement is "non-negotiable."

It seems if the President was really a man of his word he would not encourage trade with countries that deny civil liberties, including China, and Saudi Arabia(which was the birthplace of fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers. ) <hr /></blockquote>How did Saudi Arabia come into this?

I hate doing any business with China, and I hate the fact that Clinton was in bed sooo much with the Chinese that we sold documents to the Chinese showing them how to build nuclear weapons and helped them further their space program. Before Clinton, the Chinese never had a successful rocket launch. Now look at them, they are ready to travel space. Clinton is praised for his foreign affairs but what has it done....NOTHING. There is still an issue with Israel/Palestine, we still have a problem with Korea, China is a worsening problem and Clinton left this country in a recession. Now Bush is being blamed for all this and not making sure each issue is resolved by the time the next election. In 8 years Clinton did nothing but get us deeper in trouble. Bush only has four years right now, and I think his foreign policy has been quite strained. I also do not think him having the cowboy stereotype helps much either.

eg8r

03-24-2003, 11:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
How did Saudi Arabia come into this? <hr /></blockquote>

Saudi Arabia is simply another country which we do a large amount of buisness with despite their horrid civil rights record.

[ QUOTE ]
I hate doing any business with China, and I hate the fact that Clinton was in bed sooo much with the Chinese that we sold documents to the Chinese showing them how to build nuclear weapons and helped them further their space program. Before Clinton, the Chinese never had a successful rocket launch. Now look at them, they are ready to travel space. Clinton is praised for his foreign affairs but what has it done....NOTHING. There is still an issue with Israel/Palestine, we still have a problem with Korea, China is a worsening problem and Clinton left this country in a recession. Now Bush is being blamed for all this and not making sure each issue is resolved by the time the next election. In 8 years Clinton did nothing but get us deeper in trouble. Bush only has four years right now, and I think his foreign policy has been quite strained. I also do not think him having the cowboy stereotype helps much either. <hr /></blockquote>

I am not laying blame entirely on Bush. However, seeing that he did make the statement "non-negotiable demands of human dignity" in the state of the union, I simply expect him to back up his words with action. Clinton allowed china to be awarded no. 1 trade status despite human rights violations.
I think this was a huge step in the wrong direction concerning foreign policy in this nation. If this country is truly concerned about the "non-negotiable demands of human dignity," than we should do something about the amount of trade we do with nations such as China.

03-24-2003, 11:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think the first incident that this was brought up was a little while back there was a boy that went to another country and vandalized some cars. I believe Clinton was Pres at the time but whoever it was, they chose to allow the boy to be kaned by the foreign government. This does not happen very often.<hr /></blockquote>

I am pretty sure this happened prior to the U.N. court. I also think the court is specifically designed for war crimes. The case which you are referring to happened in Singapore. The kid was studying abroad there, and did something stupid and got caned. I forget exactly what he did. However, once he found out the punishment for his crime he started the begging process to have the crime tried in the U.S.

From my understanding, the reason the U.S. does not acknowledge the validity of the U.N. court is because we don't want U.S. soldiers to be tried by the U.N. for war crimes if something goes awry in say Iraq(just an example.) There has been countless cases of soldiers stationed abroad that have been arrested for rape, and I think they could be held for trial in front of the U.N. tribunal as opposed to facing U.S. trial. I could be wrong about the latter.

As far as I know, I think the Milosevic trials are the first cases to be had in front on the U.N. I don't know how it is going, I haven't heard anything about it for awhile. It seemed to be a circus at first. Milosevic claimed that U.N. had no authority to try him and would refuse to speak at hearings. He eventually decided to represent himself. Milosevic is facing somewhere near a hundred charges of "Genocide," and "Crimes Against Humanity."

Warren_Lushia
03-25-2003, 03:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Hi again Warren,
You Write "Facts" and I would just like to say once and for all, about "Facts".... that I get mine from the same sources that you get yours from, my friend,.... from journalists, from the newspapers, from CNN, Fox, ABC, MSNBC, the Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Republic, Time Magazine, and also C-Span, which is probably the most unbiased source of information that one can find,
so I'm really tired of this whole BS that goes on here about "Facts"....

<font color="blue">hey gayle, i do have some resources other than you mentioned, but you bring up an important point. in this day and age, particularly with the internet, information about anything you want is widely available. so, anybody who chooses to can educate themselves. </font color>

I will simply say that the most compelling stories have been the ones that came from the mouths of people who have spoken about what life was like before they managed to escape from Iraq.

<font color="blue">i'm not going to argue that many people have suffered horrendous treatment in iraq under saddam's control. but when it suited our interests, this monster was our ally, as others have been. i think its a little bit propagand-ish for the usa to say one of its major goals is to liberate the people. saddam doesn't have many friends in the world, including his own region, but they are seemingly unanimous against the way the usa is going about things. </font color>



And, Warren, as for your facts, you are not dealing in your comments with the realities of today. What happened that led us to this point is of no importance at this time as far as I can see.

<font color="blue">sure its important. its important to try and ascertain true motives. its important to understand the implications of our actions for the future. its important, its VERY important. </font color>


It seems that most people have watched, as have I, the French, Germans, Russians, Belgium, and a few others, trying to make whatever problems they could for us as we try to stand up to, and get rid of this idiot Saddam, and my opinion is that they have a lot of nerve, considering everything that's involved here.

<font color="blue">gayle, your being a little unfair here. i dont think any of the countries you mentioned have a vested interest in saddam staying in control, nor does most of the world, including the middle east. but they do not agree with the means in which the usa is pursuing the matter. you can't say they are trying to help saddam when they agree to weapons inspections and supported the kuwaitis against saddam. these countries just did not agree that diplomatic efforts had been exhausted, and indeed felt the bush administration was too trigger happy. </font color>


As for your anthrax paragraph, it was rather hard to decipher exactly what you were trying to say there, but I assure you, I didn't send Saddam any anthrax, lol.

<font color="blue">gayle, i was telling you saddam got anthrax from the ATCC (american type culture collection) which is based in maryland (i believe rockville, but i don't feel like looking it up, you can check if your interested). </font color>

The last paragraph you wrote, is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. There are many countries which need our help, and the help of all the other nations, I agree, and I am proud that it is our country that is presently helping the poor Iraqi people at this time, unlike the French, the Germans and the Russians, who are helping their oppressor, Saddam Insane.

<font color="blue">its unfair to label those countries as supporters of hussein, and label our own as completely innocent. we supported the monster hussein when it served our interests. it might make you feel warm and fuzzy to think we are going in there to save the iraqi people, but that aint the reason. this was handled completely wrong. you might think i am unpatriotic, but this is hardly the case. you may think i somehow support hussein, but this is hardly the case. i am not sure why you harbor such strong feeling towards the countries you mentioned, i have friends and indeed neighbors from each one of them (ok, maybe not belgium). anyway, my goal here is not to make enemies, so i wish you the best.</font color>

your friend,
warren..

Warren_Lushia
03-25-2003, 04:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren_Lushia:</font><hr>

<font color="red"> the roman empire was hardly global wally. do i really need to explain this? </font color>

<font color="blue">No warren. I'm obviously not smart enough to understand. </font color>

<font color="green">wally, i didn't say you were not smart. i feel like i am making an enemy here which i considered a friend i would like to shoot some pool with, and given you close location, may well have happened. i just don't consider the regional dominance by the roman empire to come even close to the singular global power that the usa has. </font color>

<font color="red"> why are we sitting on our asses about the conflict between india and pakistan, nations which potentially, if they were to consider the usa an enemy, use nukes on us? </font color>

<font color="blue"> They are not that stupid. Saddam is.</font color>

<font color="green">perhaps, but gambling on a particular country's leader's stupidity seems quite dangerous. the leadership in north korea seems to be much more "stupid" and trigger happy. the leadership of other powerful nations are certainly taking delight in the apparent offensive aggressiveness the usa is taking. we are not building allies, we are not making any progress towards global security. i believe we are actually doing quite the opposite. we are losing friends and allies, for no good reason. diplomatic efforts could have been continued, but then bush would have no longer been in power. he wanted to do something NOW, even if it was not the best way to do it. he ha a limited period of time, perhaps a weakness of our system of electing those in charge. </font color>



<font color="red">you were happy? seriously? i dunno wally, i guess we see things differently. would i like to see saddam punished, killed, etc, for his actions? yes, i would. quite frankly, i was horrified at the tactics we used, bombing a city with 5 million people in it. you know, you can use another word to describe "shock and awe" and that is terror. i felt bad for the innocent people in that city.</font color>

<font color="blue">We went out of our way to avoid innocent loss of life. Hell the lights didn't even go out in Baghdad. </font color>

<font color="green">on that point you are correct, and this is one of the saving graces of this military campaign. the degree in which we can control missiles, bombs, etc is unlike any other war. but the rest of the war is going completely against what the public was led to believe. wally, i purposely did not bring something back to throw in your face. but look back at your earlier postings, when you told me to "write it down". i told you i would not rub those statements if your faces, and i haven't. but the people of iraq have backed saddam, and everything i feared came true. i did not want to be right, but i am. i see us soldiers on tv after being captured, looking extremely scared. i see resistance to a far greater degree than the president, or any of his people, wanted to to think of before the attack started.

of course you can argue that bush told us this war may be longer than some people predict, but he never mentioned that until after the first strikes on baghdad occured. kind of convenient huh? he never sat down and said "look, this is what we are in for" before the bombing started. he is banking on the feeling egator likes to think of as patriotisim, that once it is too late we will blindly back the president. </font color>

<font color="red">true, but maybe we should put a little more thought into what we are doing AT THE TIME. perhaps helping afghanistan was the right thing to do, but allowing the taliban to gain power as well as bin laden shows you how our interests get mixed up. we really didn't give a crap about afghanistan or its people, we cared about conflict with the soviet union.</font color>

<font color="blue"> Well let's see, we were wrong to stay in Kuwait but we were also wrong to not go into Afghanistan after the Russians left? You're contradicting yourself.\

<font color="green">no, i am not contradicting myself as much as i am trying to understand the delicaties of world relations. i am not sure which situation is more relevant, afghanistan or kuwait. we maintain an enormous military presence in both. many people view that as occupation, rather than liberation.</font color>

Personally I think we should have done more for Afghanistan but, in your words, </font color> <font color="red">

some people see this as an attempt to occupy a region, as a threat to the other nations in the region. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

I'm done. There's no point in pursuing this any further. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="green"> </font color>

<font color="green"> wally, my attempt here was not to make enemies. i don't want you as my enemy, nor do i want your other cincy friends (tom_in_cincy) for example, to be my enemy.

peace. and later</font color>

Wally_in_Cincy
03-25-2003, 07:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote johnnypanic:</font><hr> In this time of war, let us not forget that regimes have been changed and people have been liberated without violence. Here are some quotes by Ghandi:

Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and done by unarmed nations in the face of odds.

Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.

Violent means will give violent freedom.

However much I may sympathize with and admire worthy motives, I am an uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes.

Destruction is not the law of humans. Man lives freely only by his readiness to die, if need be, at the hands of his brother, never by killing him. Every murder or other injury, no matter for what cause, committed or inflicted on
another is a crime against humanity.



<hr /></blockquote>

That's because Ghandi was dealing with the British, who were somewhat civilized compared to Saddam.

eg8r
03-25-2003, 07:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I am pretty sure this happened prior to the U.N. court. <hr /></blockquote> It may have I do not know when the court came to existence.
[ QUOTE ]
I also think the court is specifically designed for war crimes. <hr /></blockquote> It is, the example I was giving was to show on a general basis, Americans will be tried in American courts. This is one of the first cases that was very public and an American was not tried here on US soil. War or not, that is the first exception that I have seen. Not that this has not happened before, there are plenty of Americans that spend nights in jail in Tijuana but they are not tried there, they are released.
[ QUOTE ]
There has been countless cases of soldiers stationed abroad that have been arrested for rape, and I think they could be held for trial in front of the U.N. tribunal as opposed to facing U.S. trial. I could be wrong about the latter. <hr /></blockquote> I don't believe so. They would be tried in front of the US military court.

Milosevic's trial has been a joke. Why he is still breathing is a true showing of the weak UN, court and all.

eg8r

eg8r
03-25-2003, 07:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle:</font><hr> It seems that most people have watched, as have I, the French, Germans, Russians, Belgium, and a few others, trying to make whatever problems they could for us as we try to stand up to, and get rid of this idiot Saddam, and my opinion is that they have a lot of nerve, considering everything that's involved here.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren:</font><hr> gayle, your being a little unfair here. i dont think any of the countries you mentioned have a vested interest in saddam staying in control, <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>France has an absolute dire need for Saddam to stay in control. The contracts France has signed with Iraq to get oil are written in such a way, that once a new government is brought in, that contract will be nullified. Saddam has also invested more of his money in any one single place in France. He is the leading stock holder in one of the largest corporations in France at $90 million. His countrymens money is floating all over France. France definitely stands to lose a great deal. I don't know much about the others.

eg8r

eg8r
03-25-2003, 07:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think this was a huge step in the wrong direction concerning foreign policy in this nation. If this country is truly concerned about the "non-negotiable demands of human dignity," than we should do something about the amount of trade we do with nations such as China.
<hr /></blockquote> Agreed.

Many politicians say many things during their inaugural speach. Bush is no different. There has been no change on many things. Right now he is making a change in Iraq. I guess he only works one thing at a time. I am sure his time will run out before he gets to all of it.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-25-2003, 07:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren_Lushia:</font><hr>

<font color="green">perhaps, but gambling on a particular country's leader's stupidity seems quite dangerous. the leadership in north korea seems to be much more "stupid" and trigger happy. </font color>

<font color="blue">All I'm saying is this. Kim Jong Il is a sicko and a megalomaniac but he's not stupid. He knows his first act of aggression will result in his palace and his army bases being turned into a parking lot. </font color>

<font color="green"> perhaps a weakness of our system of electing those in charge. </font color>

<font color="blue">I would not expect that to change anytime soon. </font color>

<font color="green">wally, i purposely did not bring something back to throw in your face. but look back at your earlier postings, when you told me to "write it down". i told you i would not rub those statements if your faces, and i haven't. but the people of iraq have backed saddam, and everything i feared came true. i did not want to be right, but i am. i see us soldiers on tv after being captured, looking extremely scared. i see resistance to a far greater degree than the president, or any of his people, wanted to to think of before the attack started. </font color>

<font color="blue">Go ahead rub it in if you want. I did not consider the "civilians" who are part of Saddam's cadre. These guys have 2 options:

1. Survive and be torn limb from limb after the war by the people they have been oppressing.

2. Try somehow to defeat the U.S. military. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy
03-25-2003, 07:46 AM
Eg8r,

The news broke yesterday that some Russian company had sold night vision goggles and jamming equipment to Saddam.

The first thing I thought about was this. All they have to do is say "Clinton sold missile technology to the Chinese. Which is worse?" /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

mickey2
03-25-2003, 09:06 AM
Some info about the The International Crime Court (ICC):

Many types of crimes were proposed to fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC. The least controversial involve war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. These include torture, enslavement, and persecution based on political, religious, ethnic, or racial grounds. Sexual crimes, including rape, forced pregnancy, and sexual slavery can also be prosecuted as crimes against humanity when the violence is deemed part of a broad or systematic attack on a population.

Note: A single soldier who raped a civilian, which sadly occurs in every war and army, therefore would not be sent to the ICC.

More controversial crimes were crimes of aggression, terrorism, and drug trafficking. While there was widespread agreement that the ICC should have the ability to prosecute these crimes as well, there was no consensus in Rome on how to define them. As a result these crimes will be dealt with in a more case-by-case fashion, first requiring approval from other bodies.

There is NO link to the question what happens to ‘normal’ US citizens committing a ‘normal’ crime abroad.
US citizens arrested abroad for committing a crime are already subject to prosecution by other countries. So, being tried in foreign courts is not a new development. In addition, the ICC will only intervene when the U.S. does not undertake a good faith effort to investigate or prosecute.
Example: If you are going to rob a bank in Italy and get caught you will be tried and arrested in Italy. This case would have nothing to do with the ICC!

Milosevic's trial:
The ICC has been created in part because the ad-hoc tribunals, like those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, are extremely expensive and have experienced numerous logistical problems. It takes enormous amounts of time and money to establish ad-hoc tribunals, and the delay in their creation means that evidence gets destroyed and those responsible remain at large.

What makes me wonder a little bit is why some posters in this forum post about the UN, UN resolutions, ICC and international law issues while they obviously do not even know the fundamentals. Please do not feel personally offended by this statement, take it as an encouragement to inform yourself. Check out http://www.un.org/Overview/brief.html if you want to get some basic information about the UN.

bluewolf
03-25-2003, 09:16 AM
We are there partly for national security and partly because we as a nation promised ourself that we would never again sit by passively while another 'hitler' committed his heinous acts of genocide and torture of the innocent.

I will sit back and watch and see what our administration can do about the situation. While you have a right to voice your opinion, you are speaking to the wind. It changes nothing.

Wont hear anything more on this from me so quoting me is a waste of your time /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Laura

eg8r
03-25-2003, 10:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The news broke yesterday that some Russian company had sold night vision goggles and jamming equipment to Saddam.

The first thing I thought about was this. All they have to do is say "Clinton sold missile technology to the Chinese. Which is worse?" <hr /></blockquote> I think Gayle was the first one to post this info on the board. Yes they did send it. The Russian government is backing away from it, but all this stuff comes from Russian companies and sent in the relief packages that the Russian government sent to the Iraqi people.

Which is worse??? I don't know. I would also to say both are equally bad for us. In the long run, the Chinese scare me more than the Iraqis. My only reasoning for this is because night vision goggles or not, the Iraqi military is not going to win this war. They will be removed from power. On the other hand, the Chinese will still sit by and wait their turn. Saddam is done now or in a short time, and all those goggles and such will amount to maybe a minor loss compared to what the Chinese now have the ability to do. One big issue with the Chinese that was cloaked was there inability to launch a rocket/missile into space. I don't really think this was the broad objective for the Chinese people. This intelligence has helped them with other things outside of space travel, with one ex the ability to launch a missile carrying a nuclear war head right into the middle of the US. The chinese were unable to do this before.

There is also one other thing I would like to say about the weapons that were sold to Iraq and Iran years back. Sure we did sell them, one thing that average American public does not know, is that all of these weapons come with a shelf life. There is not one single Stinger that the Iraqis are using right now that the US provided them. When the weapons were originally sold to the Iraqis, the batteries were only good for a few years, just long enough to get through the war at hand. All the missiles that were left over (and part of the original resolutions) have been retrofitted with Soviet batteries. The warheads are also not the same as what we sent them. This was documented back in the late 80s. In reality about all that is left of the weapons we sold them (the ones that have Warrens panties in a twist) are nothing of what we gave them. The only major components left are the wiring, outside shell and containers. This was all written in the original inspectors reports back in the early 90's. The weapons being used now only have US outer shells.

Of this data, I am privy because of where I work and the people that were fighting and selling during that time. One of the perks of working here are the Lunch and Learn type events.

eg8r

eg8r
03-25-2003, 10:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
US citizens arrested abroad for committing a crime are already subject to prosecution by other countries. So, being tried in foreign courts is not a new development. <hr /></blockquote> On the most part, they are sent back the US in custody and tried here on US soil.

eg8r

cheesemouse
03-25-2003, 10:47 AM
ergo,
you are delusional.....

the cheese likes short arguments... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
03-25-2003, 10:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
the cheese likes short arguments <hr /></blockquote> I understand a normal thought process would be too much at one time. That is alright, the smoke will clear and you can try again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

cheesemouse
03-25-2003, 10:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
the cheese likes short arguments <hr /></blockquote> I understand a normal thought process would be too much at one time. That is alright, the smoke will clear and you can try again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Just as in pool my thought process is to rid my mind of the clutter and shot one shot at a time ergo: your delusional......

eg8r
03-25-2003, 10:59 AM
AWWW that is sweet. Could you repeat it again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

cheesemouse
03-25-2003, 11:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> AWWW that is sweet. Could you repeat it again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Your delusional.....

P.S. You should be getting a raise soon with serious overtime.....

Wally_in_Cincy
03-25-2003, 11:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
<hr /></blockquote> On the most part, they are sent back the US in custody and tried here on US soil.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I think you're wrong. If you don't believe me drive on down to Mexico and get arrested. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

mouse defeats gator.

stickman
03-25-2003, 11:33 AM
I won't call you unpatriotic, but do disagree with your opinion. First, the conflict with Iraq is not in violation of international law. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, and we came to Kuwait's defense and expelled the Iraqi regime, they signed a cease fire agreement. They have failed to live up to the terms of that agreement. They have resisted diplomatic attempts to disarm them for over 12 1/2 years. The United States has all the authority needed to resume military actions under the cease fire agreement.

Saddam's regime is a threat to his own people, to his neighbors, and certainly to the United States. They hate the United States! It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe he would transfer WMD's to terrorist groups to be used against the United States.

The Un is a bad joke. Russia and France have huge trade contracts with Iraq. (Perhaps including military arms, as well as oil agreements) They have huge conflicts of interests. Libya heading the committee on human rights? Iraq heading the committee on disarmament? It should be obvious that the UN is not a viable vehicle to resolve this type of conflict. I only hope they will be helpful with the rebuilding of Iraq.

Iraqi's have suffered long, but they will only continue to suffer, under Saddam's rule. For this reason, and the fact that he will never relenquise his WMD's peacefully, he must be removed.

I don't view our military as a sports team. I fully understand the danger and sacrifice of our young military men and women. They have my greatest respect and support. May God bless them.

Jim

eg8r
03-25-2003, 12:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
P.S. You should be getting a raise soon with serious overtime..... <hr /></blockquote> Thank you. Just let me know before hand, maybe a date or something?

eg8r

cheesemouse
03-25-2003, 12:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
maybe a date or something?
<hr /></blockquote>

Sorry ergo, I don't date poolplayers, especially men poolplayers....hehehe /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
03-25-2003, 12:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry ergo, I don't date poolplayers, especially men poolplayers....hehehe <hr /></blockquote> Neither do you comprehend what your read, or even spell correctly. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I was asking when you might be so generous to offer the raise and OT. Also, take another look at my name, your eyes are playing tricks on you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

cheesemouse
03-25-2003, 12:49 PM
eg9r,
It's frustrating isn't it..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

bluewolf
03-25-2003, 01:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> ergo,
you are delusional.....

the cheese likes short arguments... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

That was great cheese, succinct to the point, how bout this one:

"Everybody has a right to be as ignorant as they choose"

Laura

eg8r
03-25-2003, 02:48 PM
No sir cheesey, I just consider the source. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

We are all here for a good time anyway. Right?

eg8r

cheesemouse
03-25-2003, 03:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> No sir cheesey, I just consider the source. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

We are all here for a good time anyway. Right?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

In that I concur...LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
03-25-2003, 03:08 PM
LOL, now go back to work. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Warren_Lushia
03-26-2003, 01:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
The news broke yesterday that some Russian company had sold night vision goggles and jamming equipment to Saddam.

The first thing I thought about was this. All they have to do is say "Clinton sold missile technology to the Chinese. Which is worse?" <hr /></blockquote> I think Gayle was the first one to post this info on the board. Yes they did send it. The Russian government is backing away from it, but all this stuff comes from Russian companies and sent in the relief packages that the Russian government sent to the Iraqi people.

Which is worse??? I don't know.

<font color="blue"> ahhhh, hello? let's see we sent iraq missiles and anthrax, russia sent them googles and batteries, and your not sure which is worse? what's next, we gonna start bitchin about japan selling them tv's?</font color>

I would also to say both are equally bad for us. In the long run, the Chinese scare me more than the Iraqis.

<font color="blue"> on this point, i would agree. but this is another reason we really should have had the backing of the UN and the support of the major players in europe (outside of britain) before launching an all-out war. and bush should really keep his mouth shut about european countries involvement with iraq. the last thing we need is russia and/or the rest of europe to align itself with china. that, sir, is a big danger. undermining the authority of the UN, going to war against the major players in the security counsel, blowing the crap out of the heart of a region which already harbors intense anti-american feelings, these things do not bode well for the security of america, and there will be reprecussions. you can call me anti-patriotic all you want, but i am honestly thinking about the best interests of the usa, and in that regard, this war was completely against our best interests. sure, i will agree, and i think most rational people will, that saddam is a monster, and he is dangerous. but we really should think things through a little better, and come up with a better way of removing him. </font color>


There is also one other thing I would like to say about the weapons that were sold to Iraq and Iran years back. Sure we did sell them,

<font color="blue">among other things. but you are touching on an important part of many of my arguements here. people get pissed off at me, and think i am unpatriotic and anti-american, and when they do, they through things in my face like oil contracts with russia, france, and germany, or horror stories of hussein's cruelty. i know these countries have had dealings with iraq, BUT SO HAVE WE. don't blindly condemn them and think we are innocent. i know hussein is a monster, but he has always been a monster, but when it served our interests, we backed him and considered him our ally. we were not trying to liberate the people of iraq then, nor are we now. "liberation" is a favorite way of trying to gain favor with the american public. i am not saying our goals may be necessarily bad, but that we went about it TOTALLY wrong, and the consequences of our actions will likely be severe. we really had a chance to progress towards world security, and now we have regressed and tossed in the toilet all the work that had been done.</font color>

In reality about all that is left of the weapons we sold them (the ones that have Warrens panties in a twist)

<font color="blue">panties? thats only on the weekend man, and you promised not to tell. it was my scooby doo boxers that are in a twist. </font color>

Of this data, I am privy because of where I work and the people that were fighting and selling during that time. One of the perks of working here are the Lunch and Learn type events.

<font color="blue">i'd be interested to hear more about this. but you do realize these guys would have every reason to cover their own ass right? and here is a question you might want to ask them: if what they are saying is true, why did they give iraq missiles that another country could simply give them new batteries to make them operational again, perhaps extending their shelf life indefintely? i'm sure the details behind the technology are much more complicated, but i think you get the gist. </font color>

warren..

Warren_Lushia
03-26-2003, 03:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote stickman:</font><hr> I won't call you unpatriotic, but do disagree with your opinion. First, the conflict with Iraq is not in violation of international law. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, and we came to Kuwait's defense and expelled the Iraqi regime, they signed a cease fire agreement. They have failed to live up to the terms of that agreement. They have resisted diplomatic attempts to disarm them for over 12 1/2 years. The United States has all the authority needed to resume military actions under the cease fire agreement.

<font color="blue">firstly, it is a violation of international law. go back and read the resolutions, it is quite clear. the UN defines international law, so i am quite surprised that you and others berate the UN while simultaneously quoting resolutions supposedly giving us the authority to wage this war, and violations on iraq's part for a reason. which is it? you can't selectively interpret what you want. the cease fire agreement was worded in such a way (read it yourself) so that no one could invade iraq or wage war without further UN approval. this is why the usa was aggresively seeking approval. when we didn't get it, or it was clear we wouldn't, we made up some loophole which is very weak to justify our actions, and was in clear violation of international law. </font color>

Saddam's regime is a threat to his own people, to his neighbors, and certainly to the United States.

<font color="blue">i don't disagree, but he aint the worse. but then you have ask yourself, why did we send him missiles and anthrax? the point here being, everybody knows the man is a monster, but when it suited our interests we gave him missiles. when it does not, we report the horror stories. this is an example of manipulating the public. no, i am not saying the horror stories are not true, but that they are revealed at a very convenient time. we were never concerned about liberating people or removing a monster, don't be so blind. you don't walk up to a playground bully and hand them a bat. </font color>

They hate the United States!

<font color="blue">jeeze, i can't imagine why! </font color>

It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe he would transfer WMD's to terrorist groups to be used against the United States.

<font color="blue">sure, i guess its not, if he has them. but i'm guessing terrorists don't need such weapons. they could after all, just use box cutters to take over airplanes and fly them into huge buildings. i know you think that is ridiculous, but it could happen. wait a second, it already did. how much sophisticated equipment have you ever seen terrorists use? that is not how they operate. you can be certain if a terrorist could get the sophistication you are talking about, we would have seen warning signs long before. a box cutter is not terribly modern.</font color>

The Un is a bad joke.

<font color="blue">huh? i thought we had UN backing? i thought we had UN authority? i thought the violations iraq was guilty of were UN mandates? you need to pick a side and stick to it. saying the UN is a joke while simultaneously saying the usa has the authority under the UN to invade iraq because iraq has violated UN mandates is ludicrous. its hard to debate with people who only want to hear what they want to. think for yourself man, read, see, then get back to me. </font color>

Russia and France have huge trade contracts with Iraq. (Perhaps including military arms, as well as oil agreements) They have huge conflicts of interests.

<font color="blue">golly gee whiz, thats news to me. of course they do, and we have had many interactions with iraq as well. france gave them nuclear resources, we (the usa) gave them missiles and anthrax, russia gave them goggles and batteries, so who is to blame? don't accuse other nations of having "conflicts of interest" until you take a look at your own. </font color>

Libya heading the committee on human rights? Iraq heading the committee on disarmament?

<font color="blue">i'd advise against directly quoting celebrities and assuming they know more about foreign relations just cause they are famous and popular, i've seen people on here condemn the dixie chicks -- i ask them why the hell you even care what the dixie chicks say, when did they become experts on foreign relations?! why is dennis miller, charlie daniels, james woods, etc, even worth your time of day to listen to? they are ENTERTAINERS, not experts on foreign policy or relations. they are not informed anymore than anyone, who gives a crap what they say? james woods is a good example of why you should not listen to celebrities, or, i should say "not listen" but not take their words as gold. listen, hear, but speak for yourself and try and avoid the manipulating bullshit as much as possible. </font color>
It should be obvious that the UN is not a viable vehicle to resolve this type of conflict. I only hope they will be helpful with the rebuilding of Iraq.

Iraqi's have suffered long, but they will only continue to suffer, under Saddam's rule. For this reason, and the fact that he will never relenquise his WMD's peacefully, he must be removed.

<font color="blue">ah, hello? have you even made an attempt to ascertain the facts? this is why i disagree with egator's insistence on blind backing of the president during war. trust me, the president was banking on this, that is why he chose to reveal the reality of the conflict, in terms of time, only after it began and was too late to go back. that is why a large number of people in the poll's egator likes to quote also thought this conflict would number in a few days. the american public was lead to believe this would be very quick, and that the iraqi's would welcome us. i tried to tell people all along, it would not be quick, and we would not be welcomed. the american "pro wrestling" attitude of kicking ass will result in our ultimate demise.

you don't have to listen to me, you don't have to agree. but please, on the holy grace of whatever happens to be holy to you, think for yourself. don't just assume those in charge know best.

you may think i sound like a typical liberal, but i am not. most would accuse me of being towards the right. but this war has set back world security into the stone ages. the thing is, in the stone ages we didn't have nuclear weapons. </font color>

I don't view our military as a sports team. I fully understand the danger and sacrifice of our young military men and women. They have my greatest respect and support. May God bless them.

<font color="blue">on that point, i agree, although i am not sure "god" is the correct word to bring in here. if he does exist, bless our troops please, and give the foresight to our people to understand their actions, for the future. </font color>

warren..&lt;-- "coaltion of the unwilling"

stickman
03-26-2003, 05:49 AM
The Un is a bad joke.

<font color="blue">huh? i thought we had UN backing? i thought we had UN authority? i thought the violations iraq was guilty of were UN mandates? you need to pick a side and stick to it. saying the UN is a joke while simultaneously saying the usa has the authority under the UN to invade iraq because iraq has violated UN mandates is ludicrous. its hard to debate with people who only want to hear what they want to. think for yourself man, read, see, then get back to me.</font color>

You have made my point on the UN security council. They can't be relied on! They approve strong mandates, but lack the resolve to inforce them. Or I should say, SOME of them do. Primarily, those that place personal gain above principle.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________



It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe he would transfer WMD's to terrorist groups to be used against the United States.

<font color="blue">sure, i guess its not, if he has them.</font color>

You have to be kidding! Surely you don't believe otherwise. I'd bet my life on the intellegence of our government, before I'd bet it on the honesty of Saddam. We'll have an answer to this question soon enough.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________



I fully understand the danger and sacrifice of our young military men and women. They have my greatest respect and support. May God bless them.

<font color="blue">on that point, i agree, although i am not sure "god" is the correct word to bring in here. if he does exist</font color>

If you doubt the existance of a God, I can understand your confusion. (Not a personal attack, just a personal opinion.) You have the right to believe, disbelieve, or not care, as you see fit. America's finest young men and women, like those currently in Iraq, have fought, risked their lives, and in some cases, given their lives for your right to openly express your opinion, and I respect that right, even if I don't agree with your opinion.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________


I'm not as skeptical and distrusting of my government and it's motives as you, but that is not an indication of my not thinking for myself, as you seem to think. I just disagree with your assessment, and believe that we'll agree to disagree. You're no more likely to change my mind than I am to change yours. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

bluewolf
03-26-2003, 06:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote stickman:</font><hr> The Un is a bad joke.
I'm not as skeptical and distrusting of my government and it's motives as you, but that is not an indication of my not thinking for myself, as you seem to think. I just disagree with your assessment, and believe that we'll agree to disagree. You're no more likely to change my mind than I am to change yours. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="brown[i]">Warren, it is one thing to state your opinion and another to go on ad nauseum, blow by blow. It amazes me that you were able to such in so many people.

but I still like you

Laura [i] </font color>

eg8r
03-26-2003, 06:34 AM
Warren, you are like that little dog my parents gave away when I was young, yet you still found you way back home. To you, I say welcome back. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I also would like to point out, that I think it is funny you have started a post with the subject heading that you chose. I commend you for noticing that your actions were speaking louder than your words and you felt the need to try and reaffirm your patiotism.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I think Gayle was the first one to post this info on the board. Yes they did send it. The Russian government is backing away from it, but all this stuff comes from Russian companies and sent in the relief packages that the Russian government sent to the Iraqi people.

Which is worse??? I don't know.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren:</font><hr> ahhhh, hello? let's see we sent iraq missiles and anthrax, russia sent them googles and batteries, and your not sure which is worse? what's next, we gonna start bitchin about japan selling them tv's?
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> ahhh, hello. LOL, you brought up sales to Iraq and that was not even part of my question. Since your clouded thought process does not allow you to comprehend what you read let me help you...The news broke yesterday that some Russian company had sold night vision goggles and jamming equipment to Saddam.

The first thing I thought about was this. All they have to do is say "Clinton sold missile technology to the Chinese. Which is worse?" . This sentence is talking about which is worse between Russian sales to Iraq and Clinton sales to China. Your brilliant self decided to answer with something about US sales to Iraq. Stick to the discussion at hand and you might do better (the discussion is branching somewhat). I know we sold missiles to Iraq, and you know it. I also know, that Iraq is not using one single missile we sold him in its original state. The batteries simply, were only good for 2 years. Since the missle sales were in the 80's, they are no good right now. These were sold to them to help them finish the conflict they were in at the time, and if they were not used they go bad. Sure you have not heard this before, or maybe you have (I understand you have secret covert intelligence with your "friends" in the military), ask your buddies if they know anything about the batteries in the sold missiles.
[ QUOTE ]
but this is another reason we really should have had the backing of the UN and the support of the major players in europe (outside of britain) <hr /></blockquote> I wonder who these other major playes are? Surely you don't count Germany, their military cannot even defend themselves. We have a stronger presence than their own military (maybe not in size but in force). I know you are not talking about France and Belgium, so maybe you mean Russia. Their strength is yet to be seen.
[ QUOTE ]
that, sir, is a big danger. undermining the authority of the UN, going to war against the major players in the security counsel, <hr /></blockquote> I am really beginning to think you are joke. The UN could not stand straight against Saddam, do you really think suddenly it will wake up and come against the US. The UN is a joke. I don't care about our backing before the war or not. This does not show the resolve or the usefulness of the UN. They do nothing in terms of removing bad dictators from command.
[ QUOTE ]
sure, i will agree, and i think most rational people will, that saddam is a monster, and he is dangerous. but we really should think things through a little better, and come up with a better way of removing him. <hr /></blockquote> For 12 years people have been thinking. Bush decided to finish it. If not, you and the UN would probably blow your top thinking of ways to remove Saddam.
[ QUOTE ]
panties? thats only on the weekend man, and you promised not to tell. it was my scooby doo boxers that are in a twist. <hr /></blockquote> Hey your forced me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
[ QUOTE ]
and here is a question you might want to ask them: if what they are saying is true, why did they give iraq missiles that another country could simply give them new batteries to make them operational again, perhaps extending their shelf life indefintely? i'm sure the details behind the technology are much more complicated, but i think you get the gist. <hr /></blockquote> You answered your own question...The technology is more complicated. We are not talking about Energizers here, and not everyone in the world makes them. Another point would be there very stringent specs that are called out in the drawings. The hardware in the missile is very sensitive and it does not take too much to burn it up. The batteries sold for the missiles are so different in nature than the rest of the batteries the supplier makes, that they have their own line. They are not purchased in bulk from a supplier who just picks a bunch up and hands them to us, each one goes through a rigid qual test before it is bought. I have come to be quite interested in the batteries in the missiles. On the last program I worked on (anti tank missiles) I was an SQE. My main points of interest were the seeker section of the missile and batteries became a second portion when problems began arising. It is ironic to know, even the company that makes the battery (and they have been doing it from day one) has trouble consistently making a "good" battery. Another point to be made, is since electronics are so sensitive, it is probably a good guess, that the boards and such have been changed also.

eg8r

Ward
03-26-2003, 09:03 AM
Wally

If is offensive to me to think that someone that is against the war is not patriotic. I spent 1964-1970 fulfilling my military obligation and spent 13 months of that time is S. Korea with the KATUSA to keep the N. Koreans from coming across the DMZ.

I am against this war at this time, I think it could have had a diplomatic solution if given enough time.

Please don't think I am not patroitic, I spent six years following one administration that did not have a clue and I believe this one is cut from the same cloth...

Later

cheesemouse
03-26-2003, 10:36 AM
Wally,
Before I would say someone is not patriotic I would be sure I knew that the term meant the same thing to each of us. There are as many definitions of patriotism as there are people on earth. I mention earth because as an American it is easy to forget that we are not the only patriotic peoples on this orb. Trying to define patriotism is like trying to explain ethics; it just can't be done it is different for all of us. We each have a feeling in our hearts. None of us can explain what makes our hearts swell, the tears flow when we see symbols of our nation, hear the drums and songs or watch the brave charge over the dunes.

I know I'm patriotic in my OWN way, that I love this country because of the liberties and freedoms I enjoy. I served my country during another undeclared war and I was thankful that other patriotic citizens held our governments feet to the fire, they didn't keep their mouths shut and we are better off for it. My duty as a good citizens of the USA is to protect the constitution and the bill of rights because they protect us from our government. Remember the ten most untruthful words in the American language "I'm from the government, I have come to help you". When my government says to me "I want you to give up some of your liberties so it can be more able to fight terrorism ( The Patriots Act ) I know I will never get those liberties back except with my blood. The good patriotic citizens should be alarmed that this government has ask us to do just that. Terrorism existed way before Sept. 11th, it will never end, they do not need to take your liberties to fight terrorism. Good old Ben Franklin said it best: "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

eg8r
03-26-2003, 11:05 AM
I must have missed this post earlier.

[ QUOTE ]
In this time of war, let us not forget that regimes have been changed and people have been liberated without violence. Here are some quotes by Ghandi:
<hr /></blockquote> Could you please give some examples of regimes similar to the Baath Party which have been changed without force?

Nothing to say on Ghandi. His philosophies are impossible in this day and age, and require equal participation from both sides. Try getting Saddam to do what he says.

eg8r

Warren_Lushia
03-26-2003, 02:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Warren, you are like that little dog my parents gave away when I was young, yet you still found you way back home.

<font color="blue">well i aint gonna deny that, but you could say the same thing about yourself. </font color>


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I think Gayle was the first one to post this info on the board. Yes they did send it. The Russian government is backing away from it, but all this stuff comes from Russian companies and sent in the relief packages that the Russian government sent to the Iraqi people.

Which is worse??? I don't know.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren:</font><hr> ahhhh, hello? let's see we sent iraq missiles and anthrax, russia sent them googles and batteries, and your not sure which is worse? what's next, we gonna start bitchin about japan selling them tv's?
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> ahhh, hello. LOL, you brought up sales to Iraq and that was not even part of my question. Since your clouded thought process does not allow you to comprehend what you read let me help you...The news broke yesterday that some Russian company had sold night vision goggles and jamming equipment to Saddam.

The first thing I thought about was this. All they have to do is say "Clinton sold missile technology to the Chinese. Which is worse?" . This sentence is talking about which is worse between Russian sales to Iraq and Clinton sales to China. Your brilliant self decided to answer with something about US sales to Iraq.

<font color="blue"> i realized when i wrote it you were gonna harp on this point, and not address the underlying issue. i am sure you know what i am talking about. for instance, i get scared when people start bitching about france, germany, or russia's involvement with iraq while categorically denying or nullifying our own involvement. while i gotta admit i had a good laugh at many of the french jokes, it scares me when i hear someone like gayle say what she did. we need to be real careful about criticizing other countries foreign policies before we take a good look at our own. and don't forget, those are our allies, even if they don't back this war.</font color>

Stick to the discussion at hand and you might do better (the discussion is branching somewhat). I know we sold missiles to Iraq, and you know it. I also know, that Iraq is not using one single missile we sold him in its original state. The batteries simply, were only good for 2 years. Since the missle sales were in the 80's, they are no good right now. These were sold to them to help them finish the conflict they were in at the time, and if they were not used they go bad. Sure you have not heard this before, or maybe you have (I understand you have secret covert intelligence with your "friends" in the military), ask your buddies if they know anything about the batteries in the sold missiles.

<font color="blue">you know, several times you have misquoted me or attributed to me things i did not say, and i ignored them because i gave you the benefit of discussing what you were really talking about. but, i guess i should use your own tactics against you. show me where i ever once said i had insider knowledge into the military?!?! show me where i once said i had some secret friends giving me some kind of information about military operations the rest of the world does not know about?!?! i do have friends in the military, but i have never discussed this war with them even once. that would not be fair to them, that isn't their job. you seem to have some knowledge of missile batteries and i said i'd be interested to hear more. why do you have to be so patronizing about it? </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
but this is another reason we really should have had the backing of the UN and the support of the major players in europe (outside of britain) <hr /></blockquote> I wonder who these other major playes are? Surely you don't count Germany, their military cannot even defend themselves. We have a stronger presence than their own military (maybe not in size but in force). I know you are not talking about France and Belgium, so maybe you mean Russia. Their strength is yet to be seen.

<font color="blue">ok, i'm gonna ask you not to read into this any more than what i say. i am not saying any of these countries have the military might of the usa, cause they don't. as far as the us is concerned, in terms of geostrategy and importance, a west-east line consisting of france, germany, poland, and ukraine would be the major players, throwing in russia as a very major player particularly considering the europe/asia bridge. do me a favor and do not start telling me how much stronger we are than those countries, i already know that. and i know the problems poland and ukraine have right now. but our relations with those countries is very important, and they are major players. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
that, sir, is a big danger. undermining the authority of the UN, going to war against the major players in the security counsel, <hr /></blockquote> I am really beginning to think you are joke. The UN could not stand straight against Saddam, do you really think suddenly it will wake up and come against the US. The UN is a joke. I don't care about our backing before the war or not. This does not show the resolve or the usefulness of the UN. They do nothing in terms of removing bad dictators from command.

<font color="blue"> the UN is not a joke, and you continously saying this does not make it true. i stand right there beside you and say it needs reforms, and i hope after this mess is over the UN regains its authority through reforms rather than either kicking out the usa or dismantling completely. we really set off a potential chain reaction here, but i'm still holding out positive hopes. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
sure, i will agree, and i think most rational people will, that saddam is a monster, and he is dangerous. but we really should think things through a little better, and come up with a better way of removing him. <hr /></blockquote> For 12 years people have been thinking. Bush decided to finish it. If not, you and the UN would probably blow your top thinking of ways to remove Saddam.

<font color="blue">bush decided to wage a war in front of worldwide opposition instead of exhausting diplomatic efforts or coming up with a better plan then this "shock and awe" military campaign under the supposed banner of liberating the iraqi people. i guess if i was in baghdad right now, even if i was pissed at hussein, i wouldn't feel like i was being liberated by all these bombs. remember how you felt when the trade centers were taken down? i bet one of those emotions was anger, and i bet that is how the iraqi's feel right now. this was not the way to do things. </font color>


&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
and here is a question you might want to ask them: if what they are saying is true, why did they give iraq missiles that another country could simply give them new batteries to make them operational again, perhaps extending their shelf life indefintely? i'm sure the details behind the technology are much more complicated, but i think you get the gist. <hr /></blockquote> You answered your own question...The technology is more complicated. We are not talking about Energizers here, and not everyone in the world makes them.

<font color="blue">so what? someone else besides the usa could make the batteries, perhaps even the iraqi's themselves. the point is we gave them missiles. and since you like to point out silly details in order to not answer the question, i'd like to point out to you that this is another example of you attributing to me something i never said prior to you implying i said it. i brought up the missiles and other weapons in afghanistan, you made the leap to iraq, i just went along and addressed the true point of the discussion. but since you don't afford me the same benefit, perhaps i should do the same. </font color>

warren..

eg8r
03-26-2003, 04:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
i realized when i wrote it you were gonna harp on this point, and not address the underlying issue. <hr /></blockquote> Well isn't that sweet. You were the one that veered and you are upset that I tried to reel you back in.
[ QUOTE ]
you know, several times you have misquoted me or attributed to me things i did not say, and i ignored them because i gave you the benefit of discussing what you were really talking about. but, i guess i should use your own tactics against you. show me where i ever once said i had insider knowledge into the military?!?! show me where i once said i had some secret friends giving me some kind of information about military operations the rest of the world does not know about?!?! i do have friends in the military, but i have never discussed this war with them even once. that would not be fair to them, <hr /></blockquote> When coming from me, from now on those types of posts are sarcastic. As far as your not talking to your friends about this war, I hardly feel it would be unfair. I think the real reason is that you might have to prove your patriotism to them also.
[ QUOTE ]
the UN is not a joke, and you continously saying this does not make it true. <hr /></blockquote> So then you believe if you continuously lie and say they are credible that will make them credible. They are a joke, I said it again (inching closer each time to getting my way /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif )
[ QUOTE ]
i stand right there beside you and say it needs reforms, and i hope after this mess is over the UN regains its authority through reforms rather than either kicking out the usa or dismantling completely. we really set off a potential chain reaction here, but i'm still holding out positive hopes. <hr /></blockquote> You have also yet to give one single example of the UN actually showing their strength. You have yet to show one time in which a dictator was removed from power after committing genocide, or any other atrocities.
[ QUOTE ]
bush decided to wage a war in front of worldwide opposition instead of exhausting diplomatic efforts or coming up with a better plan <hr /></blockquote> How much more could have been done. Honestly, give this a good thought. All else aside, did the US and regretfully the UN try every means. Saddam said 12 years ago he would disarm. Everyone has done everything possible including sitting around and waiting. Just for one second do you really think this time Saddam was going to disarm. This is not even about his ability to produce anymore (God forbid) weapons, all he was asked to do was get rid of the ones he already had. He never did this. Disarming would have been something simple to do especially with all the inspectors around. Heck the inspectors might have chipped in and helped. But...No, Saddam did nothing. You keep harping about doing more, but you fail to list a single thing we should have tried and did not try. Give it a rest, it has been 12 years and Saddam did nothing.
[ QUOTE ]
so what? someone else besides the usa could make the batteries, perhaps even the iraqi's themselves. <hr /></blockquote> Don't know if they can or cannot. The problem is getting the battery perfect the first time otherwise the electronics are ruined. There is no trial and error since we are only talking about a very limited number of missiles left.

One other issue about these missiles...We sold these to them quite a long time in hopes of helping them finish that war and seeing peace in that area of the world. The issues that are being brought up by others about Russia and France are talking about what those countries are doing right now. These countries are helping defend Iraq against the US. Russia wants to increase relations with the US and hopefully revive their starving economy. How do you expect this to happen if they are arming our enemy.

Here is a hypothetical situation with much less harmful outcome...Bear with me...You (Russia)have a buddy (the US) and you are trying to get in good with him because he has a lot of money and might be willing to help you out financially. Now, one day you get a knock on the door from the bank/IRS/whoever else (Iraq). The bank wants to get information from you to help their case in seizing all his property. You decide to help the bank with secret information that only you would know (your friend has confided this information with you and knows you are the only one that has this info). When your friend (the US) comes back and asks you why you gave the information away, you lie and say it was not you. No matter what the outcome is, do you think the friend is still going to be very optimistic about helping you after you helped the enemy ruin his livelyhood?

I know that this is a dumb example, but it is the same thing that is happening right now. There is proof the stuff has come from Russia. Russia does not deny the stuff was given to the Iraqis. All the Russian government is denying is whether the government was the group that paid for the stuff (goggles and such) to be sent to Iraq. So what we have is an "ally", a term used quite loosely, equipping our enemy to defeat us, or at the minimum gain some advantage.

This whole ordeal is different then our arms selling to Iraq or Iran, as we were not allies of those two during their war with each other.

eg8r

Warren_Lushia
03-27-2003, 03:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
you know, several times you have misquoted me or attributed to me things i did not say, and i ignored them because i gave you the benefit of discussing what you were really talking about. but, i guess i should use your own tactics against you. show me where i ever once said i had insider knowledge into the military?!?! show me where i once said i had some secret friends giving me some kind of information about military operations the rest of the world does not know about?!?! i do have friends in the military, but i have never discussed this war with them even once. that would not be fair to them, <hr /></blockquote> When coming from me, from now on those types of posts are sarcastic. As far as your not talking to your friends about this war, I hardly feel it would be unfair. I think the real reason is that you might have to prove your patriotism to them also.

<font color="blue">ahhhh ok maybe you are never serious then. and don't be a jerk when speaking to me, if you'd like me to be civil in response. it is NOT fair to ask those in active duty how they feel, because they have an OBLIGATION to follow orders and trust those in command. i will NOT ask them how they feel and put them on the spot, that is NOT fair to them. your type of mentality is exactly why some of the veterans from vietnam were treated like crap in our country, as if they had any say in the war. i support our troops, i have great respect for the men and women in our military, and don't try and tell me i don't. their job is to do what they are told, and not question it. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
the UN is not a joke, and you continously saying this does not make it true. <hr /></blockquote> So then you believe if you continuously lie and say they are credible that will make them credible. They are a joke, I said it again (inching closer each time to getting my way /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

<font color="blue">whoa, hold on a second, now you are accusing me of LYING?!?!?! what exactly are you afraid of that you have to resort to such accusations? man, you better lay off unless you want this thrown back in your face. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
i stand right there beside you and say it needs reforms, and i hope after this mess is over the UN regains its authority through reforms rather than either kicking out the usa or dismantling completely. we really set off a potential chain reaction here, but i'm still holding out positive hopes. <hr /></blockquote> You have also yet to give one single example of the UN actually showing their strength. You have yet to show one time in which a dictator was removed from power after committing genocide, or any other atrocities.

<font color="blue"> well heck, you said lots of things i'm not sure whether to take seriously or not, what you want me to do?! you, yourself said your being sarcastic, this seemed to be the most obvious example to me, one i didn't think i needed to explain, so i assume your trying to pull my leg.

the UN needed reforms, but it is the greatest thing we had going. if you want to talk about evil dictators, perhaps you better explain what you mean and list those that have been conquered with no UN involvement. hitler doesn't count, that was before the UN started. milosevic is being tried by UN courts, so that don''t count. hussein had weapons inspectors in his country (who were making progress) and was ordered to disarm by the UN. he would have NEVER allowed the USA to conduct its own weapons inspections, that is why the authority of the UN was so valuable. the mandates the usa is illegally trying to enforce were made by the UN. the usa tried desperately to get UN backing for the war against iraq, pretty strange to do such for a union that is supposedly a joke. undermining the authority of the UN was not a good move. you can call them a joke all you want, but they had the backing of every nation in the world (with the exception of taiwan (represented under china) and the vatican (doesn't want a spot). you calling them a joke not only isn't true, it makes you look ignorant. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
bush decided to wage a war in front of worldwide opposition instead of exhausting diplomatic efforts or coming up with a better plan <hr /></blockquote> How much more could have been done. Honestly, give this a good thought.

<font color="blue">i have you just choose to ignore it. i say more diplomacy, as they were making progress (weapons inspectors) you say "no kick ass!!!" i say work with the people of iraq to free themselves, to give them that power, you say "no let's kick their ass too". i say lets let the people know we are trying to help them, you say "no let's bomb the [censored] out of them and starve the cities and beat them into submission". you say we are trying to liberate the people and they will welcome us with open arms. i say, no they won't welcome us, they will get pissed and turn this into a street brawl. we are trying to gain control of a city (basra) by suffocating them, how many of them you think will say 10 years down the road we "saved" them. especially after we occupy their regions and their economy fails miserably (can't let them gain too much strength after all). i honestly think i have thought this out much more than you, and your a damn hypocrite at the same time. </font color>

All else aside, did the US and regretfully the UN try every means.

<font color="blue">no we did not. iraq was not an immediate danger, an immediate threat. because of the UN (the joke as you like to call it) there was such a stifling presence there that the world was secure. now we are bombing the crap out of them, slaying their citizens, no UN inspectors, this is freaking stupid. the pro wrestling mentality of the usa shouldn't extend into foreign relations and illegal wars. this aint for entertainment folks. </font color>

Saddam said 12 years ago he would disarm. Everyone has done everything possible including sitting around and waiting. Just for one second do you really think this time Saddam was going to disarm. This is not even about his ability to produce anymore (God forbid) weapons, all he was asked to do was get rid of the ones he already had. He never did this. Disarming would have been something simple to do especially with all the inspectors around. Heck the inspectors might have chipped in and helped. But...No, Saddam did nothing. You keep harping about doing more, but you fail to list a single thing we should have tried and did not try. Give it a rest, it has been 12 years and Saddam did nothing.

i am not going to defend hussein, but he didn't "do nothing" he did "just enough" we should have kicked his ass and made "just enough" what we were looking for in the first place, and been more aggressive on the intelligence front in this matter. we didn't.


&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
so what? someone else besides the usa could make the batteries, perhaps even the iraqi's themselves. <hr /></blockquote> Don't know if they can or cannot. The problem is getting the battery perfect the first time otherwise the electronics are ruined. There is no trial and error since we are only talking about a very limited number of missiles left.

One other issue about these missiles...We sold these to them quite a long time in hopes of helping them finish that war and seeing peace in that area of the world. The issues that are being brought up by others about Russia and France are talking about what those countries are doing right now. These countries are helping defend Iraq against the US. Russia wants to increase relations with the US and hopefully revive their starving economy. How do you expect this to happen if they are arming our enemy.

<font color="blue"> don't be stupid. france and russia are not helping iraq (or is it hussein, i forget, you need to remind me) wage this battle. you can't accuse russia of supplying goggles and then say they are bad when we gave them missiles.

russia right now is in a very bad state, and it is quite conceivable to me that goggles or batteries or whatever could be supplied to the iraqi's without the governments' knowlege.

but who cares in the big picture. we still should consider them our ally, in particular considering out own foreign policies, and our continued waffling on international issues. </font color>

Here is a hypothetical situation with much less harmful outcome...Bear with me...You (Russia)have a buddy (the US) and you are trying to get in good with him because he has a lot of money and might be willing to help you out financially. Now, one day you get a knock on the door from the bank/IRS/whoever else (Iraq). The bank wants to get information from you to help their case in seizing all his property. You decide to help the bank with secret information that only you would know (your friend has confided this information with you and knows you are the only one that has this info). When your friend (the US) comes back and asks you why you gave the information away, you lie and say it was not you. No matter what the outcome is, do you think the friend is still going to be very optimistic about helping you after you helped the enemy ruin his livelyhood?

<font color="blue"> the funny thing about your whole example is you imply the "good guy?" ie the usa is doing something illegal and the russians are doing something bad by being honest. how can i respond? </font color>

I know that this is a dumb example, but it is the same thing that is happening right now. There is proof the stuff has come from Russia. Russia does not deny the stuff was given to the Iraqis. All the Russian government is denying is whether the government was the group that paid for the stuff (goggles and such) to be sent to Iraq. So what we have is an "ally", a term used quite loosely, equipping our enemy to defeat us, or at the minimum gain some advantage.

This whole ordeal is different then our arms selling to Iraq or Iran, as we were not allies of those two during their war with each other.

eg8r

<hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> </font color>

bluewolf
03-27-2003, 06:28 AM
Hey, what if we meet somewhere kool. You two duke it out, I supply the karate pads and will be the ref /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Laura

eg8r
03-27-2003, 07:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
ahhhh ok maybe you are never serious then. <hr /></blockquote> Let me see if I can help you out. You cried on here that I was misquoting you and saying things that were untrue. In the quote you gave, I was saying you had secret knowledge and such. Get your head out of your butt and try to comprehend my response. The response I gave you, it was sarcasm, was only directed to the quote where I was saying you have secret knowledge or buddies on the inside. Further down your post you reference this sarcasm as me not being serious, oh my little thinker, I have been quite serious. I really don't think you think at all, and just post here at the seat of your pants. Everytime you are asked to provide information you crawl and hide and cry to you momma (this could be a theoretical momma, I am in no way stating that your real mother is here on this board somehow comforting you) about the missiles we sold to Iraq a long time ago.
[ QUOTE ]
. i will NOT ask them how they feel and put them on the spot, that is NOT fair to them. your type of mentality is exactly why some of the veterans from vietnam were treated like crap in our country, as if they had any say in the war. i support our troops, i have great respect for the men and women in our military, and don't try and tell me i don't. their job is to do what they are told, and not question it. <hr /></blockquote> This first section I have bold is my main direction to this response. Here is where you have started to have a lapse. If you can think back to how this all started, I said you need to "shut up" and follow the President during a time of war. Did this happen in Vietnam. I am all for the troops and talk regularly with family members that are being shipped out. Well enough of me proving how you are so wrong. Because my opinion is different than yours, you have taken the liberty of your sad self to compare my views to those that mistreated the troops after Vietnam. This is your shining moment of stupidity. Just so you know, that was not sarcastic, and i am sorry I need to explain such trivial things to you such as when I am sarcastic and when I am not.
[ QUOTE ]
whoa, hold on a second, now you are accusing me of LYING?!?!?! what exactly are you afraid of that you have to resort to such accusations? <hr /></blockquote> Yes sir, you are a liar liar liar. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I believe everytime you say the President violated the Constitution and the US violated international laws, then you are lying.
[ QUOTE ]
well heck, you said lots of things i'm not sure whether to take seriously or not, what you want me to do?! you, yourself said your being sarcastic, this seemed to be the most obvious example to me, one i didn't think i needed to explain, so i assume your trying to pull my leg. <hr /></blockquote> Wasn't this convenient. I post that your secret intelligence and in-the-know buddies was sarcasm and you were unable to understand that was the part that I called sarcastic. It is alright, I can hold you hand while you cross the street. Reading comprehension is a big thing and I understand it scares you.
[ QUOTE ]
the UN needed reforms, but it is the greatest thing we had going. if you want to talk about evil dictators, perhaps you better explain what you mean and list those that have been conquered with no UN involvement. hitler doesn't count, that was before the UN started. milosevic is being tried by UN courts, so that don''t count. hussein had weapons inspectors in his country (who were making progress) and was ordered to disarm by the UN. he would have NEVER allowed the USA to conduct its own weapons inspections, that is why the authority of the UN was so valuable. the mandates the usa is illegally trying to enforce were made by the UN. the usa tried desperately to get UN backing for the war against iraq, pretty strange to do such for a union that is supposedly a joke. undermining the authority of the UN was not a good move. you can call them a joke all you want, but they had the backing of every nation in the world (with the exception of taiwan (represented under china) and the vatican (doesn't want a spot). you calling them a joke not only isn't true, it makes you look ignorant. <hr /></blockquote> Once again you have skirted the issue and have not offered one single example. You state that Milosevic does not count. This is ridiculous. <font color="blue"> Milosevic is a shining example of the UN's inability to stand up and do its job. The US led NATO involvement/bombing of Milosevic was done prior to the UN involvment. The UN did not even step in to help until NATO agreed to stop bombing. What the UN is doing now, is after the US removed him from power. </font color> Because I know you cannot name a dictator that the UN has stood up to, why don't you just name an instance where the UN has stepped in to offer security.
[ QUOTE ]
i say more diplomacy, as they were making progress (weapons inspectors) you say "no kick ass!!! <hr /></blockquote> I say you are a joke. Show proof of progress by the weapons inspectors. I think 12 years to get rid of weapons in which Iraq agreed to have is way too long and too much diplomacy. The very issue is exactly that, Iraq did not disarm. Push all other issues aside, the main very basic issue was disarmament. Saddam had 12 years and did not do it.
[ QUOTE ]
we are trying to gain control of a city (basra) by suffocating them, how many of them you think will say 10 years down the road we "saved" them. <hr /></blockquote> Is this fast Larry...Come on now, this is the stupid types of word play he uses. We are not trying to gain control of Basra by suffocating the citizens, and that is what you imply and reinforce later in the sentence, years down the road we saved them. Have you watched any news outside of the US run media and seen the people flocking to the humanitarian aid that is slowing making its way into Iraq. How about how excited those people were when we brought them water. The Iraqi military shut their water off, not the US.
Neither of us are going to sway the others opinion on what is happening, but don't cloud your mind in thinking these people were very happy with the way things were under Saddams rule. The Iraqi's hated it. Sure some might hate the US coming in and putting their families at risk. The problem with this minority is that they are of the shallow thinking you fall privy to. Once Saddam is gone and the US military leaves, life will be better for them. The Iraqi people can govern themselves. This is the ultimate reward for what we are doing over there.
[ QUOTE ]
the UN needed reforms, but it is the greatest thing we had going. <hr /></blockquote> Where is your proof? Just give some examples. Even the UN weapons inspectors were hiding information of weapons in Iraqs possession. It was being put in the reports, just buried as deep as possible in hopes of not being seen.
[ QUOTE ]
no we did not. iraq was not an immediate danger, an immediate threat. because of the UN (the joke as you like to call it) there was such a stifling presence there that the world was secure. <hr /></blockquote> Funniest thing you have said. Give me an example of this stifling presence. What did they have 54 inspectors roaming across the land the size of California. What a joke.
[ QUOTE ]
don't be stupid. france and russia are not helping iraq (or is it hussein, i forget, you need to remind me) wage this battle. you can't accuse russia of supplying goggles and then say they are bad when we gave them missiles. <hr /></blockquote> Funny again. Russia is helping them with the war. You think the goggles and GPS stuff was sent as gifts for the kids to run around and play with. The US military believes it destroyed the GPS jammers but what about night goggles. The Iraqis did not have them before but they have them now. Now, when our soldiers are roaming around at night (your friends, my friends, family) are no longer in the safety of the darkness. This is how Russia is helping them.
[ QUOTE ]
the funny thing about your whole example is you imply the "good guy?" ie the usa is doing something illegal and the russians are doing something bad by being honest. how can i respond? <hr /></blockquote> Your problem is with reading comprehension. I never implied a good guy. What I did was show you (Russia) as a person in need of money. Your rich friend (USA) as the guy who might help you with your problem. Lastly the Bank (Iraq). No one mentioned as a good guy, in stark contrast the person you are referring to as being good has done something bad and that is why the bank is after them. You (russia), instead of helping the guy that can help you (in this case the US can help Russia), you go behind their back and help the other guy ruin your friend. (here we have Russia going against its friend the US and helping the other guy Iraq to defeat the US).
I guess you don't follow along very well so I did try to help clear it up. In the real world this happened. Russia wants to be our ally, however they have helped the enemy gain an advantage over us, in the end it might cost US soldiers lives.

eg8r

heater451
03-27-2003, 08:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> Hey, what if we meet somewhere kool. You two duke it out, I supply the karate pads and will be the ref /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Laura <hr /></blockquote>It could be a double-bill:

Warren vs. Eg8r can fight, leading up to the main event, Eric and Fast Larry.



====================

eg8r
03-27-2003, 08:23 AM
LOL, I don't have any beef with Warren and I guess he probably does not have any with me. We have not gone the extent that Larry did. I wonder what Larry was thinking when Eric hopped up there and wanted to chat. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

When I am on the board I am here as entertainment to myself. I feel relaxed when I post and mosey through and read the other posts. My first stop always on this board is to see how our dear friend Chris is doing. Next it is off to the main pool board. Lastly I go and respond to any of the posts on the non-pool side of the board. I do post/debate/argue, but it is all just in vain. In the end we all still go about our lives as we see fit. Hopefully one day we will meet and get to play some pool. This is why we are here in the first place (to talk about pool).

I have to give Warren a little bit of a hard time simply because he is a fan of UK. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Poor Wally is just as delusional. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif All hail UF, King of the SEC. Pleae be quiet, I know they got booted out of the SEC tournament and made an equally quick exit out of the NCAA tourney.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-27-2003, 09:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>

....I have to give Warren a little bit of a hard time simply because he is a fan of UK. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Poor Wally is just as delusional. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif ....<hr /></blockquote>

hee hee

http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/ap_photo/20030205/all/l734688.jpg

eat your heart out gator-boy /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
03-27-2003, 10:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
eat your heart out gator-boy <hr /></blockquote> Yuck, I cannot believe there have already been 100 pitiful years. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

heater451
03-27-2003, 01:41 PM
Have you ever seen "Big Trouble", with Dennis Farina and Tim Allen?. . .

(Not great, but has some funny parts)


======================

eg8r
03-27-2003, 01:51 PM
Nope. Why?

eg8r

heater451
03-27-2003, 03:48 PM
There's a 'hack' on Gator fans--you'd just have to see it.

Get it the next time you have a free rental at B-buster.


=========================

Warren_Lushia
03-27-2003, 04:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
ahhhh ok maybe you are never serious then. <hr /></blockquote> Let me see if I can help you out. You cried on here that I was misquoting you and saying things that were untrue.

<font color="blue">ahhhhh, you were the one who first started that, i just merely pointed out you were doing the same thing. i just said i'd might as well use your own tactics against you. sorry if you don't like it. </font color>

In the quote you gave, I was saying you had secret knowledge and such. Get your head out of your butt and try to comprehend my response. The response I gave you, it was sarcasm, was only directed to the quote where I was saying you have secret knowledge or buddies on the inside. Further down your post you reference this sarcasm as me not being serious, oh my little thinker, I have been quite serious. I really don't think you think at all, and just post here at the seat of your pants. Everytime you are asked to provide information you crawl and hide and cry to you momma (this could be a theoretical momma, I am in no way stating that your real mother is here on this board somehow comforting you) about the missiles we sold to Iraq a long time ago.

<font color="blue">YOU brought up missiles sold to iraq, not me. you can imply all you want that it was me, but it wasn't. i'm guessing you did this to show your vast knowledge of batteries, which i guess you learned over some lunch you had. since i really didn't care if if you thought i brought it up, instead of pointing it out, i merely took that as an opportunity to further show you our conflicts of interest in applying foreign policy, and that we need to be careful about criticising other countries. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
. i will NOT ask them how they feel and put them on the spot, that is NOT fair to them. your type of mentality is exactly why some of the veterans from vietnam were treated like crap in our country, as if they had any say in the war. i support our troops, i have great respect for the men and women in our military, and don't try and tell me i don't. their job is to do what they are told, and not question it. <hr /></blockquote> This first section I have bold is my main direction to this response. Here is where you have started to have a lapse. If you can think back to how this all started, I said you need to "shut up" and follow the President during a time of war. Did this happen in Vietnam.

<font color="blue">yep. at first. later people wised up, but under your logic they should have just shut up. </font color>

I am all for the troops and talk regularly with family members that are being shipped out. Well enough of me proving how you are so wrong.

<font color="blue">you believing i am wrong does not constitute proof. </font color>

Because my opinion is different than yours, you have taken the liberty of your sad self to compare my views to those that mistreated the troops after Vietnam. This is your shining moment of stupidity.

<font color="blue">i don't think this is stupid, i find your mentality dangerous. i support the troops, regardless of whether or not i support the president. they have a job to do, and part of their job aint trying to figure out if what they are doing is right or wrong. when they come back i'll still support them. if they wanna say they feel the war is wrong or right, and march for either cause, i'll support that right. i won't call them unpatriotic.

perhaps you could argue that it is important for them to feel what they are doing is right at the time. i won't argue with you there, but that is EXACTLY why i'm not gonna ask them to debate the pros and cons right now. do you understand my point? that is not fair to them. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
whoa, hold on a second, now you are accusing me of LYING?!?!?! what exactly are you afraid of that you have to resort to such accusations? <hr /></blockquote> Yes sir, you are a liar liar liar. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I believe everytime you say the President violated the Constitution and the US violated international laws, then you are lying.

<font color="blue">perhaps you need to look up the definition of lying. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
well heck, you said lots of things i'm not sure whether to take seriously or not, what you want me to do?! you, yourself said your being sarcastic, this seemed to be the most obvious example to me, one i didn't think i needed to explain, so i assume your trying to pull my leg. <hr /></blockquote> Wasn't this convenient. I post that your secret intelligence and in-the-know buddies was sarcasm and you were unable to understand that was the part that I called sarcastic. It is alright, I can hold you hand while you cross the street. Reading comprehension is a big thing and I understand it scares you.
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
the UN needed reforms, but it is the greatest thing we had going. if you want to talk about evil dictators, perhaps you better explain what you mean and list those that have been conquered with no UN involvement. hitler doesn't count, that was before the UN started. milosevic is being tried by UN courts, so that don''t count. hussein had weapons inspectors in his country (who were making progress) and was ordered to disarm by the UN. he would have NEVER allowed the USA to conduct its own weapons inspections, that is why the authority of the UN was so valuable. the mandates the usa is illegally trying to enforce were made by the UN. the usa tried desperately to get UN backing for the war against iraq, pretty strange to do such for a union that is supposedly a joke. undermining the authority of the UN was not a good move. you can call them a joke all you want, but they had the backing of every nation in the world (with the exception of taiwan (represented under china) and the vatican (doesn't want a spot). you calling them a joke not only isn't true, it makes you look ignorant. <hr /></blockquote> Once again you have skirted the issue and have not offered one single example. You state that Milosevic does not count. This is ridiculous. <font color="blue"> Milosevic is a shining example of the UN's inability to stand up and do its job. The US led NATO involvement/bombing of Milosevic was done prior to the UN involvment. The UN did not even step in to help until NATO agreed to stop bombing. What the UN is doing now, is after the US removed him from power. </font color> Because I know you cannot name a dictator that the UN has stood up to, why don't you just name an instance where the UN has stepped in to offer security.

<font color="blue">i already offered examples you just chose to ignore them. for instance, hussein is an example. you can argue they did not do enough, but you can't argue that they were not trying, and you can't try and tell me iraq would have accepted weapons inspectors under any other authority other than the UN. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
i say more diplomacy, as they were making progress (weapons inspectors) you say "no kick ass!!! <hr /></blockquote> I say you are a joke. Show proof of progress by the weapons inspectors. I think 12 years to get rid of weapons in which Iraq agreed to have is way too long and too much diplomacy. The very issue is exactly that, Iraq did not disarm. Push all other issues aside, the main very basic issue was disarmament. Saddam had 12 years and did not do it.

<font color="blue">the proof of progress was in the reports. if the progress was not fast enough, we should argue for more efficiency, more aggressiveness in the inspections. one man getting testy and impatient should not undermine 12 years of progress and over 50 years of UN authority. you wanna argue that the weapons inspectors were doing enough, or going fast enough, ok, then find a way to go faster. send 2000 weapons inspectors. there were many avenues of recourse in which to pursue the matter. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
we are trying to gain control of a city (basra) by suffocating them, how many of them you think will say 10 years down the road we "saved" them. <hr /></blockquote> Is this fast Larry...Come on now, this is the stupid types of word play he uses. We are not trying to gain control of Basra by suffocating the citizens, and that is what you imply and reinforce later in the sentence, years down the road we saved them. Have you watched any news outside of the US run media and seen the people flocking to the humanitarian aid that is slowing making its way into Iraq. How about how excited those people were when we brought them water. The Iraqi military shut their water off, not the US.

<font color="blue">oh really? where do you get this information from? yeah i'd be happy to get some food and water too, but that doesn't mean they are happy with ths usa. </font color>

Neither of us are going to sway the others opinion on what is happening, but don't cloud your mind in thinking these people were very happy with the way things were under Saddams rule. The Iraqi's hated it. Sure some might hate the US coming in and putting their families at risk. The problem with this minority is that they are of the shallow thinking you fall privy to.


<font color="blue"> minority? you aware of some poll that i am not? i see we have failed to capture the large cities thus far because they are resisting, the people there number in the millions. in the city of baghdad, i see the citizens bracing themselves for an all-out fight, even the ones who hate saddam. i told you what i thought was going to happen, and it did. you and wally were wrong. why do you think my thinking was so shallow? seems maybe i put a little more thought into it than you.
</font color>

Once Saddam is gone and the US military leaves, life will be better for them. The Iraqi people can govern themselves. This is the ultimate reward for what we are doing over there.

<font color="blue">hopefully that is true. but we have created a huge mess now, and who knows how long it will be before we know just what we did, the true implications. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
don't be stupid. france and russia are not helping iraq (or is it hussein, i forget, you need to remind me) wage this battle. you can't accuse russia of supplying goggles and then say they are bad when we gave them missiles. <hr /></blockquote> Funny again. Russia is helping them with the war. You think the goggles and GPS stuff was sent as gifts for the kids to run around and play with. The US military believes it destroyed the GPS jammers but what about night goggles. The Iraqis did not have them before but they have them now. Now, when our soldiers are roaming around at night (your friends, my friends, family) are no longer in the safety of the darkness. This is how Russia is helping them.

<font color="blue">what you fail to realize is that you can use the same arguements against many countries, INCLUDING OUR OWN!!! and as far as i know, night vision goggles are something anyone can buy, and not terribly new technology either. anthrax on the other hand, was not such a wise thing for us to supply iraq with. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
the funny thing about your whole example is you imply the "good guy?" ie the usa is doing something illegal and the russians are doing something bad by being honest. how can i respond? <hr /></blockquote> Your problem is with reading comprehension. I never implied a good guy. What I did was show you (Russia) as a person in need of money. Your rich friend (USA) as the guy who might help you with your problem. Lastly the Bank (Iraq). No one mentioned as a good guy, in stark contrast the person you are referring to as being good has done something bad and that is why the bank is after them. You (russia), instead of helping the guy that can help you (in this case the US can help Russia), you go behind their back and help the other guy ruin your friend. (here we have Russia going against its friend the US and helping the other guy Iraq to defeat the US).
I guess you don't follow along very well so I did try to help clear it up.

<font color="blue">lol, go back and read your story (which you clipped out). its just funny, cause in order for a bank or the IRS to seize property, you'd think the usa (in your story) must have done something illegal that the russians (in your story) knew about. its just ironic that you came up with that example, given our previous debates LOLOLOL </font color>

In the real world this happened. Russia wants to be our ally, however they have helped the enemy gain an advantage over us, in the end it might cost US soldiers lives.

<font color="blue">so might anthrax. </font color>

warren..

Warren_Lushia
03-27-2003, 04:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>

....I have to give Warren a little bit of a hard time simply because he is a fan of UK. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Poor Wally is just as delusional. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif ....<hr /></blockquote>

hee hee

http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/ap_photo/20030205/all/l734688.jpg

eat your heart out gator-boy /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

whoa whoa whoa!!!! wally, your in clear violation of the geneva conventions here, that is just cruel!!

warren..

eg8r
03-27-2003, 05:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> In the quote you gave, I was saying you had secret knowledge and such. Get your head out of your butt and try to comprehend my response. The response I gave you, it was sarcasm, was only directed to the quote where I was saying you have secret knowledge or buddies on the inside. Further down your post you reference this sarcasm as me not being serious, oh my little thinker, I have been quite serious. I really don't think you think at all, and just post here at the seat of your pants. <hr /></blockquote> [ QUOTE ]
YOU brought up missiles sold to iraq, not me. you can imply all you want that it was me, but it wasn't. i'm guessing you did this to show your vast knowledge of batteries, which i guess you learned over some lunch you had. since i really didn't care if if you thought i brought it up, instead of pointing it out, i merely took that as an opportunity to further show you our conflicts of interest in applying foreign policy, and that we need to be careful about criticising other countries. <hr /></blockquote> Are you playing dumb or what. This portion of the thread was referring to my being sarcastic about saying you had secret intelligence.
[ QUOTE ]
i don't think this is stupid, i find your mentality dangerous. i support the troops, regardless of whether or not i support the president. <hr /></blockquote> Will you please go back through all the posts that I have made and show me where I said I did not support the troops. I wonder what your mentality is sometimes. This whole thread was about you having to prove your patriotism because of something I said. I now ask you to show me something that I said, stating I did not support the troops.
[ QUOTE ]
i already offered examples you just chose to ignore them. for instance, hussein is an example. you can argue they did not do enough, but you can't argue that they were not trying, and you can't try and tell me iraq would have accepted weapons inspectors under any other authority other than the UN. <hr /></blockquote> Great your example is Hussein. My question was for you to show me an instance in time where the UN has removed a dicatator from rule, or where the UN has stepped in to offer security. You fail on the first part, the UN did nothing to remove Saddam. Instead the UN has dragged its feet and allowed Saddam to continue to kill his own people. Good choice Sherlock.
[ QUOTE ]
the proof of progress was in the reports. <hr /></blockquote> Boy wasn't that proof weak. LOL That is like saying the answer is in the book. Get real, the reports said nothing about Saddam disarming. If so, prove it.
[ QUOTE ]
you wanna argue that the weapons inspectors were doing enough, or going fast enough, ok, then find a way to go faster. send 2000 weapons inspectors. <hr /></blockquote> I have had more intelligent conversations with a high school student. Your answer is to increase the inspectors from 54 to 2000. Their job was to see proof that Saddam disarmed. You should only need 1 inspector to see that. Their job was not to hunt down the crap and see the weapons. No, that isn't their job, Saddam admitted to having the weapons. Their job was to see that the weapons were destroyed.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Is this fast Larry...Come on now, this is the stupid types of word play he uses. We are not trying to gain control of Basra by suffocating the citizens, and that is what you imply and reinforce later in the sentence, years down the road we saved them. Have you watched any news outside of the US run media and seen the people flocking to the humanitarian aid that is slowing making its way into Iraq. How about how excited those people were when we brought them water. The Iraqi military shut their water off, not the US.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote warren:</font><hr> oh really? where do you get this information from? yeah i'd be happy to get some food and water too, but that doesn't mean they are happy with ths usa. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> What information are you looking for. The US is not suffocating citizens or fighting them, the US is seeking out the military or those fighting back. Once again another response I would expect from a middle school kid.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> The Iraqi's hated it. Sure some might hate the US coming in and putting their families at risk. The problem with this minority is that they are of the shallow thinking you fall privy to. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote warren:</font><hr> minority? you aware of some poll that i am not? i see we have failed to capture the large cities thus far because they are resisting, the people there number in the millions. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Does one need a poll to see that the minority are those fighting back. You talk of millions of people. If they are resisting, then why are Iraqi military men forcing innocent citizens to don guns and fight the US or have their families shot. The citizens are not fighting, it is the military that is fighting back.
[ QUOTE ]
what you fail to realize is that you can use the same arguements against many countries, INCLUDING OUR OWN!!! and as far as i know, night vision goggles are something anyone can buy, and not terribly new technology either. anthrax on the other hand, was not such a wise thing for us to supply iraq with. <hr /></blockquote>
I did not say you could not, what I did say was that was the situation that was going on right now. Russia is our ally and they are supplying the Iraqis with tools to help the Iraqis fight the US/UK troops. With your childish thinking, if your friend offered to help you, you would stab him in the back and help his enemies first. You would not feel bad about it because, your friend might have done the same thing to someone else 20 years ago. Yes I did just put words in your mouth, and if you believe the crap you are arguing, then I hope your friends reevaluate their trust in you. I am sure the US is reevaluating its trust in Russia.
[ QUOTE ]
and as far as i know, night vision goggles are something anyone can buy, and not terribly new technology either. <hr /></blockquote> The availablility of the goggles is not the point. The point is that the Iraqis did not have them prior to, and the Russians provided it. The Russians provided the enemy a tool to help defeat the Russians ally. Boy you think this is fine, I sure hope no soldiers ever die with you by their side, I would question you for killing them first.
[ QUOTE ]
lol, go back and read your story (which you clipped out). its just funny, cause in order for a bank or the IRS to seize property, you'd think the usa (in your story) must have done something illegal that the russians (in your story) knew about. its just ironic that you came up with that example, given our previous debates LOLOLOL <hr /></blockquote> Oh such a fool. You just copied the quote above this most intelligent remark (I am being sarcastic about your intelligence). Yes, everyone knows we sold the weapons to Iraq, no secret. The story was to show that even though Russia needs their ally, they sold the enemy the tools to defeat their ally.

eg8r

eg8r
03-27-2003, 05:51 PM
LOL, I will have to check it out.

Thanks,
eg8r

Warren_Lushia
03-28-2003, 03:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote stickman:</font><hr>
<font color="blue">on that point, i agree, although i am not sure "god" is the correct word to bring in here. if he does exist</font color>

If you doubt the existance of a God, I can understand your confusion. (Not a personal attack, just a personal opinion.) You have the right to believe, disbelieve, or not care, as you see fit. <hr /></blockquote>

oops, i forgot earlier to explain what i meant by this comment. you should have every right to make such a statement, and i'm sure it was in good faith. i am a bit cautious about bringing religion into the equation, because, for example, bin laden and other extremists like to use religion as a tool for their "missions" and like to state that the USA is against the muslim faith. i *cringe* when i see bush bring up god in his war speeches, as i can see this being viewed by muslim's as evidence. the USA is supposed to be a multicultural society, with a separation of church and state. if george bush is speaking for all americans, he should leave religion out of it. how are you supposed to convince other people that the usa does not discriminate based on religion, when the president mentions it during war speeches, the pledge of allegience contains it, and even the law system, seemingly the most unprejudicial, requires "swearing on the bible". that is why i mentoned it, although i am quite glad you wish for the best for the troops from the god you believe in (for an individual to say this representing himself is fine!)

take care man....

warren..

stickman
03-28-2003, 02:30 PM
In that context, I understand your reply. I'm not a big church goer, and I'm not prone to preaching to others, but based on my own experience, it's difficult for me to understand people without faith in some sort of higher power.