Who do you blame for the September 11th stuff?.

Well it's certainly down to one of them.
It' said that nothing this bad has ever happened before and why do you think that is?, it's Bush, he's a bad guy.
I have thought about this for a while and it is Bush.

well, i didnt think the poll was fair, so ive added another appropriate choice.

:D

You have been listening to too much TV Xtstrike, it's very strange how this disaster has happened while Bush is in power and quite frankly seems to be using his powers to bully others.

nah, i dont watch telly very often, i just had a bit of a power trip and noticed the poll didnt suit me the way i wanted it to :D :rolleyes:

Abusive of powers there Strike, i shall phone up headsurfer at Ev1l.net .
Who's the clever ones who voted for Bush?.

xtstrike run! :D

:bomb::bomb::bomb::bomb:

I would say the real answer to this is more than one man.

Bush Sr.
Clinton
Bush Jr.

Sep 11 did not happen just because Bush Jr. was in office at the time. I mean the embassy bombing, the first attempt on the towers, the battleship in Yemmen. All before Bush Jr.

So you can't say it is just Bush Jr. It is an ongoing thing Starting at Bush Sr. I think. Perhaps even back to the Carter admin. Well hell. If you want to go back far enough whos fault is it. The Ottoman's or the Jews.

However specifically I would say Sep 11 itself is the result of the actions of those three men I mentioned above.

Regards,
Michael

I will agree with michaeln. Al-Qayeda was not built in a day. If you recall some history, it was some previous Presidents of USA who were funding them. They did not want that Russian forces should stay there in Afghanistan. It is just G.Bush Jr. who is blamed for all the things happened.

Well you two it sure does sound good.

I blame the people who hijacked Islam and the people who invented the crappy US foreign policy equally. It's not fair to simply blame the US for it.

What did Gore ever do? He is not even Jewish - I have nothing against Jews.

I hate the whole Bush Bunch. I still can't believe he was elected... boo... :rolleyes:

The war is coming...

If we had hydrogen cells in the 70s, we wouldn't be dependent on oil now. If we got rid of our dependence on oil we could tell the Middle East to go screw themselves. Problem solved. But since that's not the case, we have to go to war.

Funny how that works. :(

I Hate Bush TALK ABOUT A BOOB

But I think it's the foreign policy the US administration has had over the last 50 plus years that contributed to 9/11

So Washington in general is to blame and Bush IS JUST MAKING IT WORSE

I think America has to settle down and shut up and do what Iraq does and keep to it's own.

Originally posted by ned patter
I think America has to settle down and shut up and do what Iraq does and keep to it's own.

Ned I have to say this, if America did that where would England and all of Europe be right now. There are times when someone just has to do something!

Originally posted by ned patter
I think America has to settle down and shut up and do what Iraq does and keep to it's own. Well *somebody* needs to shut up! :mad:

It just comes down to someone making us shut up now doesn't it ned patter.

The attack did nothing to slow us down, nor kill our resolve.

Those who did this are the ones motivated in senseless killing.

No policy you disagree with, no previous administration forced the mass murder that took place.

Those that flew the planes, and sponsored the action directly are the ones who are to blame.

Me thinks it's because of poverty this all happened....well your gonna say...DUHHH...but if only the middle eastern people weren't so disadvantaged...this world would be different.

Xtstrike, thank you for the addition to the poll, truly.

There is tragedy occurring around the world everyday, people are subjected to worse that this on a daily basis and nobody seems to even notice. Places like East Timor had been occupied for years and slowly all the native inhabitants were being killed, America didn't even want to know about that .. of course there's no oil there .. Large multi national companies haven't got money invested there either. So you tell me who is responsible.
Wasn't it American that trained and supplied Bin Laden, and the Vietcong and various other countries that have all gone sour

Originally posted by TheDoctor
. . . . . So you tell me who is responsible. . . . . .Really. If you can't figure it out; there's really no need in trying to explain it to you. If you want to blame it on politics; then blame it on politics. But, politics weren't flying them planes.

Xtstrike,

Your blatant abuse of powers is going to cost you. We're going to have to cut your pay in half. As far as chicken goes, I think its time we double his pay.

Just my 2 cents.

I have to ask one question

Do you think the USA or the rest of the world would give a rats ass about Iraq, libya, Iran if it wasen't floating on oil???


I have to laugh when Bush put on this hurtfull face when he talks about the pain and the suffering of the people of Iraq lol

He or his adminastration dosn't give a damn about the people of Iraq.

What about all the slaugtering that was going on in Serbia,former Yugoslavia

No one gave a damn about these people................why???

Because they wern't floating on oil.

Thats what this whole thing is about but the white house hasn't the balls to say it.

How much support would Bush get from the American people if he told the truth LOL

NOT MUCH

Cheers

Neither the suffering of the people of Iraq is laughable, nor are the families of those lost sept 11th.

Trying to steer everything into a political discussion, or a medium to talk about what you don't like about the US still does not diminish the atorcity that took place on the 11th, or anywhere else there are atrocities, it's steering, and disrespectful to those lost.

Osama fer sure ... but too some extent , the people who created him and his likes in the first place as well :o

I blame Ned Patter for being a git and starting this thread in the first place.

Bush
Gore
Washington
Clinton
Osama Bin Bag Man I don't really see how George Washington could be blamed for any of this.

Originally posted by Samuel
Neither the suffering of the people of Iraq is laughable, nor are the families of those lost sept 11th.

Trying to steer everything into a political discussion, or a medium to talk about what you don't like about the US still does not diminish the atorcity that took place on the 11th, or anywhere else there are atrocities, it's steering, and disrespectful to those lost. That's exactly my point. Thankyou, Samuel.

*nothing to add

MANY (I'm talking milions, not just a couple of thousands) innocent people have died because of USA (the government, not the people) and their actions. The so called "terrorists" didn't do what they did just because it was fun. Although I think their action was very poor and feel with the people that lost friends and family, USA must have done something to make them react in such a way. So what has USA ever done?

1. They nuked the Japanese which caused over 200,000 deaths (women and children included) even though a couple of weeks before their nuking the Japanese emperor made a peace offer which USA ignored. This makes USA the ONLY country that has ever used nukes. Don't think for one second that the movie Perl Harbour is the true story, it's how the US military wants people to remember the history.

2. Iran vs. Iraq war. The only reason Iraq lasted as long as they did was because USA was providing them with everything they needed. This war resultet in over 1,000,000 deaths and for what? Iran had a few US hostages, but why didn't they go in themselves to free them? Was it worth killing over a milion people and ruining 2 countries? (if you say yes to this, then you have no respect for human life and probably think Americans are more worth than any other people)

3. Israel vs. Palestine. USA is providing Israel with modern military weapons such as Apache helicopters and such and poor Palestinians have to fight with left over weapons (mainly AK-47s) from Russia and such countries. Do you think this this fair?

4. USA's sanctions on Iraq has so far caused over a milion death of children that die of hunger and no meciation. Sure, Saddam has to be removed and the living condition in Iraq is very bad, but we can't give all the credit to Saddam, can we? Does Saddam or the rich leaders get affected by these sanctions? No, it's only the poor innocent people.

5. Saudi Arabia is a holy land for the muslims and USA has military bases there which they were asked to move and of course they didn't. It's like going to India and start killing/eating cows which is holy to them and after a while of course they're going to protest against it. Many people say this is the cause behind 9/11 terrorist attacks.

I can go on and on, the list is quite long...

I know many of you completely disagree with my post and probably just want to nuke half of middle east but I want to tell you that what I have written is only facts. I'm not a muslim, I'm not found of the US government and I don't want to see more innocent people die (regardless of their race or location). I have nothing against Arabs, nor do I have anything agains Americans, but I do have a big problem with wars since I spent 8 years of my life in one. Most of you don't even know and can't understand how it feels to have bomb planes fly over your house and you have to get up at 3-4am and leave everything you own and care about behind and run to shelters and just wait for one of the bombs to hit your house or close enough to kill you and your family. We're all humans, we all have feelings, it hurts us all to lose family and friends. Just think about how you've felt since last years attacks, people in many countries have felt worse for many more years and on top of that they don't have a house, they don't have medicine, they don't have food, they don't have running and clean water, some don't even have decent clothes and we're sitting here saying go to war and blow them away.

Just think about it, we don't get to choose what race or where we want to be born. Some of us are born in USA with rich parents, some in USA with drug addicted parents, some of us are born in Africa where our parents are butt naked, some of us are born in Asia, some in Eroupe, etc...

Anyways, you can now attack me as much as you want...

I blame greed.

How come that, when someone asks for legal advice, he gets a bunch of answers like "Don't ask here! We're no lawyers! Have you lost your mind?"

On the other hand, when it comes to foreign policy, 'everyone is a critic'.

;)

All seriousness aside, I think it was Ned Patter that is responsible for the attacks. :cartman:

I want to tell you that what I have written is only facts

That could not be farther from the truth. Your statements are YOUR VERSION of the facts. Not facts. They are opinions. As are any posts arguing with your OPINIONS.

That's the point that neither you nor your friend in the other thread seem to get. YOU are not be be all and the end all of information. You have NOT been put on this earth to 'educate' the rest of the world to the 'truth'.

You're pushing propaganda. Plain and simple. And it's annoying.

Originally posted by lightnin


That could not be farther from the truth. Your statements are YOUR VERSION of the facts. Not facts. They are opinions. As are any posts arguing with your OPINIONS.

That's the point that neither you nor your friend in the other thread seem to get. YOU are not be be all and the end all of information. You have NOT been put on this earth to 'educate' the rest of the world to the 'truth'.

You're pushing propaganda. Plain and simple. And it's annoying.

Here Here!!

About Pearl Harbour Saheed... We all know its a movie, we don't believe all that happened in it - after all it was based on the attack. It was more of a love story than anything. Where in history does it say that the Japanese asked for a truce??? I don't see that information in any books, and no they aren't all written by propagandist Americans. The problem with a lot of these acusations is you can only find them in one source. Does this make it true?? Just because someone published a book it should be considered truth?? Unless you have studied these things to exhaustion and written a dissertation showing all facts and where you got your information from, you have no basis for your argument. And one more thing - what does Pearl harbour have to do with this? If you were the US and you were losing several hundred soldiers a week for 4 years wouldn't you go for the weapon that would put an end to it? I know I would...

All these consipracy theory books are screwing with peoples minds and they are only written by a handful of people. If these conspiracy theory issues truely looked viable I guarantee you that the American media, or the BBC, or any meida source around the world would jump on it in a heartbeat. If there was proof to uncover these secret organizations or secret plans then people would investigate it.

You only believe these things in those conspiracy books because you already have an opinion in your mind and you look for any facts that may support it while dismissing all facts that may disprove it. Has anyone read something from an extraterrestiral scientist named Eric Von Donagan. He does TV shows and makes connections between little artifacts that look like airplanes, and says that extraterrestrials must have shown them these. This is exactly what you conspiracy theorists are doing. You're looking for some way to ack up your argument and when you do you research that little chunck of eveidence to death. That is not science, that is not investigation. Its deception.... And I hope you one day will see that not all of these stories you read have something concrete to back them up. As Hitler said before addressing a large crowd of German people, "The bigger the lie, the more believeable it is."

Personally my opinion is that none of us know the truth and for the most part never will. If you believe any of that fiction we call news as factual then I really don't know what to say.

Just because USA news says we didn't do some really bad thing doesn't mean that we didn't.

Just because Saudi news or Iraqi news says we did something doesn't mean that we did.

It is all BULL ****... Frankly I am tired of it. People in the US is fed lies about other countries causing the people of this country to hate them. Nuke them off of the face of the earth.

The people in those countries are fed lies about us causing them to hate us.

The truth is we are all sheep and the only people that knows the truth is the stupid people we put in power doing all of the killing.

Well that is my rant for the night. I don't really care if you agree with me, feel insulted or what. It doesn't matter.

Not like how any of us feel or our opinions is going to change forign policy anyway....

If only pee-wee herman was president....:D

God bless America.

*salute

Originally posted by (SH)Saeed
MANY (I'm talking milions, not just a couple of thousands) innocent people have died because of USA (the government, not the people) and their actions. The so called "terrorists" didn't do what they did just because it was fun. Although I think their action was very poor and feel with the people that lost friends and family, USA must have done something to make them react in such a way. So what has USA ever done?

1. They nuked the Japanese which caused over 200,000 deaths (women and children included) even though a couple of weeks before their nuking the Japanese emperor made a peace offer which USA ignored. This makes USA the ONLY country that has ever used nukes. Don't think for one second that the movie Perl Harbour is the true story, it's how the US military wants people to remember the history.

At the time the US didn't know any better

2. Iran vs. Iraq war. The only reason Iraq lasted as long as they did was because USA was providing them with everything they needed. This war resultet in over 1,000,000 deaths and for what? Iran had a few US hostages, but why didn't they go in themselves to free them? Was it worth killing over a milion people and ruining 2 countries? (if you say yes to this, then you have no respect for human life and probably think Americans are more worth than any other people)

3. Israel vs. Palestine. USA is providing Israel with modern military weapons such as Apache helicopters and such and poor Palestinians have to fight with left over weapons (mainly AK-47s) from Russia and such countries. Do you think this this fair?
Do you think it is fair for palestinians to bomb public places, killing innocent people?

4. USA's sanctions on Iraq has so far caused over a milion death of children that die of hunger and no meciation. Sure, Saddam has to be removed and the living condition in Iraq is very bad, but we can't give all the credit to Saddam, can we? Does Saddam or the rich leaders get affected by these sanctions? No, it's only the poor innocent people.
UN sanctions and corruption is the cause of this.


5. Saudi Arabia is a holy land for the muslims and USA has military bases there which they were asked to move and of course they didn't. It's like going to India and start killing/eating cows which is holy to them and after a while of course they're going to protest against it. Many people say this is the cause behind 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Note, if SA really wanted the US out, they would do it (ie, if you really want something done, you'll get it done).
btw, cows are killed in india right now, they've been protesting it for years now

I can go on and on, the list is quite long...

I know many of you completely disagree with my post and probably just want to nuke half of middle east but I want to tell you that what I have written is only facts. I'm not a muslim, I'm not found of the US government and I don't want to see more innocent people die (regardless of their race or location). I have nothing against Arabs, nor do I have anything agains Americans, but I do have a big problem with wars since I spent 8 years of my life in one. Most of you don't even know and can't understand how it feels to have bomb planes fly over your house and you have to get up at 3-4am and leave everything you own and care about behind and run to shelters and just wait for one of the bombs to hit your house or close enough to kill you and your family. We're all humans, we all have feelings, it hurts us all to lose family and friends. Just think about how you've felt since last years attacks, people in many countries have felt worse for many more years and on top of that they don't have a house, they don't have medicine, they don't have food, they don't have running and clean water, some don't even have decent clothes and we're sitting here saying go to war and blow them away.

Just think about it, we don't get to choose what race or where we want to be born. Some of us are born in USA with rich parents, some in USA with drug addicted parents, some of us are born in Africa where our parents are butt naked, some of us are born in Asia, some in Eroupe, etc...

Anyways, you can now attack me as much as you want...

just thought i'd point out some arguments....


edit: its a waste i had to use my 1600th post on a thread like this. the arguments can go on forever, and each thread will end up being closed sooner or later, after we start making personal attacks to each other. so how about we keep the thread on topic, and stop making personal attacks so that the mods (yes, you too :D) don't have to close the thread....

Originally posted by (SH)Saeed
... USA must have done something to make them react in such a way. So what has USA ever done?

1. They nuked the Japanese which caused over 200,000 deaths (women and children included) even though a couple of weeks before their nuking the Japanese emperor made a peace offer which USA ignored. This makes USA the ONLY country that has ever used nukes. Don't think for one second that the movie Perl Harbour is the true story, it's how the US military wants people to remember the history.


1. What does PH have to do with the tension in the middle east and responsibility of the WTC disaster?

2. Where are the facts to back up your statement about PH? What book, magazine, newspaper article, etc. did you read? I extremely curious.

I didn't know the military made that movie. :eek2:

FYI for ned the blasted people who took out wtc in 01' tried to bomb it in 98...didn't work too well...just though i'd tell you

Originally posted by TheDoctor
There is tragedy occurring around the world everyday, people are subjected to worse that this on a daily basis and nobody seems to even notice. Places like East Timor had been occupied for years and slowly all the native inhabitants were being killed, America didn't even want to know about that .. of course there's no oil there .. Large multi national companies haven't got money invested there either. So you tell me who is responsible.
Wasn't it American that trained and supplied Bin Laden, and the Vietcong and various other countries that have all gone sour

TheDoctor is EXACTLY right!!!

I'd blame it all on what Jean Chrétien said:

Western 'greed'...

;)

Originally posted by interactive
FYI for ned the blasted people who took out wtc in 01' tried to bomb it in 98...didn't work too well...just though i'd tell you

I was always under the assumption that they tried to bomb it (unsuccesfully) in '93? :confused:

Originally posted by netacore


1. What does PH have to do with the tension in the middle east and responsibility of the WTC disaster?

2. Where are the facts to back up your statement about PH? What book, magazine, newspaper article, etc. did you read? I extremely curious.


Seems to me the vast majority of his 'facts' are the product of an overactive imagination.

Originally posted by 311
I'd blame it all on what Jean Chrétien said:

Western 'greed'...

;)

Ya, although Chretien picked the wrong day to say that. :D

If only we all thought the same way. Wars are started by disagreements.

Bush and his boys just want to go to war, its pretty obvious...

Nuke them off the face of the earth????







Typical American :)

Originally posted by michaeln
Personally my opinion is that none of us know the truth and for the most part never will. If you believe any of that fiction we call news as factual then I really don't know what to say.

Just because USA news says we didn't do some really bad thing doesn't mean that we didn't.

Just because Saudi news or Iraqi news says we did something doesn't mean that we did.

It is all BULL ****... Frankly I am tired of it. People in the US is fed lies about other countries causing the people of this country to hate them. Nuke them off of the face of the earth.

The people in those countries are fed lies about us causing them to hate us.

The truth is we are all sheep and the only people that knows the truth is the stupid people we put in power doing all of the killing.

Well that is my rant for the night. I don't really care if you agree with me, feel insulted or what. It doesn't matter.

Not like how any of us feel or our opinions is going to change forign policy anyway....

Originally posted by edude
. . . . Typical American :)

You talkin ta me?? :mad:








:D

Don't sweat it...he's just...
















an atypical aussie...







:D ;) :D

osama

a typical aussie? lennon rings a bell here...i need a butler

I think he said "an atypical Aussie." :D

Back to topic:


Everyone always percives it as "America was attacked by terrorists"...But technically, America itself is one of the biggest terrorists of them all. You think Joe Schmoe-Laden, who is pro-Taliban, sees America attacking Afghan. as anything else?


Just my opinion.

Originally posted by Hostkookster


Ya, although Chretien picked the wrong day to say that. :D

Um, He never said that on 9/11. He said it this past July in an interview and the media published it on the day after 9/11 like crazy...:rolleyes:

Originally posted by CritticAge
If only we all thought the same way. Wars are started by disagreements.

That'd be no fun. :rolleyes:

It was more fun when Russia was a super power ahh the good old days.

We need an equal apposing force to keep those nuts in the White House in line lol
:D

Originally posted by JMD
We need an equal apposing force to keep those nuts in the White House in line lol

If Iraq has nuclear weapons, maybe they could be the opposing force. Or perhaps that's a bad idea. :rolleyes:

Easier way, boxing match..

Saddam Hussein Vs Bush (Senior)
Uday Hussein (saddam's son) Vs Bush (Junior)

Maybe a wrestling match? :confused:

Originally posted by edude
Maybe a wrestling match?

What about a marathon, since Bush Jr. runs and stuff? :)

I thought Uday Hussein hated Sadaam? That's what I read... something like Sadaam got in a fight with his Mom (Hussein's 2nd wife{I think}) and they were both kicked out of Iraq.

Originally posted by 311


Um, He never said that on 9/11. He said it this past July in an interview and the media published it on the day after 9/11 like crazy...:rolleyes:

What? No he said that this year on 9/11/02. And yes he's said it in the past...

You must live in Canada then eh? cause you're up on Canadian politics. :) Chretien has to go! He's already screwing Paul Martin for the next five years with a fixed budget.

Lets see if we can make this into a Canadian thread :D

Lets make peace and kool the things off...:D

Originally posted by ForumsAddict
Lets make peace and kool the things off...:D Damned Hippies!! :angry:


:uzi:Hippy






:D

Thing is that all of us are suffering in some way or another all our life...after all we are all human beings and our local environments contribute a great deal in setting up our ideas about the world around us. Being a muslim myself, i feel that the biggest problem some of the states like Iraq, Iran, SA, afghanistan are having is their leadership. If there were a proper democracy present in those countries, happenings like 9/11 could have been avoided and it would have been a better world to live in.

I also have to mention here that one cannot blame a whole nation for what only a small fraction of freaks do. Some of us may have a very bad picture of these countries after what has happened but ppl there are NOT be to be blamed but the leadership who supports them...

I know this will all be over soon within 1 to 2 years and I expect all of us to a little more patient and avoid such threads which initiate a sense of disliking for other countries whether it be the US or Iraq etc...

Lets spread the message of peace and hope this world gets rid of racial, religious, sectarian voilence. ;)

Originally posted by Hostkookster
Chretien has to go!

I too think so...

http://www.referendum.ca/default_chretien.asp

I voted yes...

Bush: The Anti-Christ.

just FYI for every one...one page bakc some dude posted about the factthat america was a terrorist cause we attacked that crap hole they call a country....well maybe its just me but the taliban (who was in control of afghan at the time of 9/11) didnt expect to get thier arse handed to them when they attacked the usa? i mean come on we are just supposed to sit here on our thumbs and do nothing right?

interactive
I have to agree with you that when it comes to Saddam..YES he has to be removed cuz he is another curse to this world but if US can opt for a peaceful resolution of the issue..they should give it a try...;)

Iraqis ARE SICK OF SADDAM who has given them nothing except hunger and deprivation... We have to understand here that US is not after the Iraqis but SADDAM who is indeed an evil to his own country and prob to the whole world....

Many times his own ppl tried to kick him out but he narrowly escaped and killed everyone who developed the plot..He is power hungry and would not spare members of his own family when it comes to power....

I just hope that things turn out to be good for the iraqi ppl who have suffered a lot during regime...Its high time US and other world takes action against him BUT it would be best to try the peaceful means without killing the innocents..;)

For those of you that brought up points about how "bad" American politics are, how the American military are "terrorists" I think I should bring up an interesting point here:

Do you think the world would be in better shape without America? Since in our "terrorist-like" ways we succesfully saved both France and England from Hitler during WWII. Not to mention probably every country bordering those two.

Furthermore, although I did not vote for Bush, he handled the Afgahn situation exactly how he should have. By blowing the crap out of Osama and all of his henchmen. Furthermore, since Pearl Harbor was a topic of conversation:

Yes we did use weapons of mass destruction against Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. What would you expect us to do? Sit down diplomatically and discuss the situation while Japan bombed the rest of our Navy? Although the amount of death the bombs caused on Japan is disgusting, we certainly showed the world what happens when you attack us. Then we did it again on Sept. 11, with a lot less innocent lives lost.

Although I'd much prefer Bush does not go into war with Iraq without our bigger allies, the fact remains America does not "answer" to the UN. At this point, after 9/11, I think a premptive strike on Iraq is certainly a good idea (and from the last poll I read, so do 70% of Amercians).

Just remember, while you call my country "terrorists" without us, you'd all be speaking German.

Just remember, while you call my country "terrorists" without us, you'd all be speaking German.

:laugh:

Originally posted by comphosting
For those of you that brought up points about how "bad" American politics are, how the American military are "terrorists" I think I should bring up an interesting point here:

Do you think the world would be in better shape without America? Since in our "terrorist-like" ways we succesfully saved both France and England from Hitler during WWII. Not to mention probably every country bordering those two.


AHH, lets not get too patriotic here.:D The US didn't have a choice for going to war. Japan attacked them and the US retaliated thus declaring war with Germany. America sat on their hands for the first 2 years. The war could have been over 2 years earlier! :D You guys stayed home and profited from it.

Yes without the American's intervention, Europe would be very different. Don't know about the rest of the world though. \

And Pearl Harbour - Truman ordered the nuke to end the war and stop American casualties, he didn't like that he was ordering it either. :D

We all know that people are pissed with the US's actions after the War because they took it upon themselves to become a world police force - and inadvertantly took on all of Europe's problems.

:uzi: rm -rf /bin/laden

Originally posted by ned patter
Who do you blame for the September 11th stuff?.

I dunno....where were you when it all went down?

-Bob

i was umm oh well i forgot i have to agree with comp totally....although im pro bush i think he did the right thing for the most part (thank god im not him)....and pealr harbor is old news people cant we dig up some recent dirt? i think that the majority of the english peeps (no offense) are still upset cause we handed them their butts in the revolution.

Originally posted by interactive
and pealr harbor is old news people cant we dig up some recent dirt? i think that the majority of the english peeps (no offense) are still upset cause we handed them their butts in the revolution.

I'm Anti Bush :stickout :stickout

sure that makes sense?...You call that recent dirt? Ok well since we're on that topic - The English and French handed the American's their butts in 1812.

Enough about that - recent stuff, I think if Bush doesn't "answer" to the UN about Iraq they are going to have a ton of foreign problems. Most of their powerful allies are going to abandon them (China, Russia, Germany). It makes for a world war atmosphere, and I think Bush is a loose cannon. He'll go to war at the drop of a hat. He's putting a bill through congress that simply states - if he wants to go to war, then he doesn't need government approval. <-- That is scary. He better not come knocking on Canada's door for support (like we want to give him any - blowing up our soldiers in Afghanistan) :D
Is there any wonder why Canada and the US are drifting apart? Its Bush! According to him - Canada doesn't exist. We gotta remind him about us up North to get recognition for anything we do for him. And now he's cutting off forestry, and steel trade with us, literally bleeding us dry?? I got 2 words for that - MANIFEST DESTINY. But thats just speculation...and means absolutely nothing.
This is why most Canadians are anti-Bush.:disagree: Lets hope he doesn't create an international catastrophe - and let cooler heads prevail. :)

Originally posted by Hostkookster
It makes for a world war atmosphere, and I think Bush is a loose cannon. He'll go to war at the drop of a hat.

World War III = Nukes = Finally, a use for that bomb shelter under my house. :o

Let's hope that doesn't happen. :(

Originally posted by TheMMIz
Xtstrike,

Your blatant abuse of powers is going to cost you. We're going to have to cut your pay in half. As far as chicken goes, I think its time we double his pay.

Just my 2 cents.

thats fine by me, half of nothing is nothing and double nothing is, well, erm, nothing :D

did people really vote those 50 times or has another mod been thinking along the same lines as me?? :eek:

I don't alter member's posts unlike some other moderators ;)




it's a jooooooooke!

We should pay the mods.

Originally posted by dreamHOBO
We should pay the mods.

Are you sure you want to do that? That'll open up some avenues for bribery et al. :D

ww3 doesnt mean nukes for definate.
now before i get flamed, i suggest you read a book called world war 3 written by a us general. it is by no means fact, its only a semi educated prediction. its not written as fiction though, if you get my meaning, its written as a genuine projection.
but anyways in that there is an agreement between the usa and the ussr not to use nuked unless the other party does and to stick to , and the americans said also that they wouldnt you nb weapons also unless provoked. in each case the weapons were only deployed once by each side, russia first using chemical weapons and getting bombarded and then didnt use them again. then when the allies turned the tide and china was suffering dissent the ruskies bombed birmingham with a single nuke, so the uk and usa vapourised minsk with 4 multihead nukes.
im not trying to offer this as proof, im just saying that if there ever was a conflict the fact that both sides know full well they could wipe out each other would make them stick to conventional weapons. plus one would hope they would honour the hague and geneva conventions although certain countries dont and have flagrantly violated them in the past (directed firmly at iraq , sorry but its fact). while some nukes could be used, theres a chance that the fear of the counter strike would prevent it.
just food for thought.

Originally posted by Chicken
I don't alter member's posts unlike some other moderators ;)




it's a jooooooooke!

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75280

I was robbed!

Originally posted by richy
while some nukes could be used, theres a chance that the fear of the counter strike would prevent it.
just food for thought.

Yup, Mutually Assured Destruction has worked wonders for the nuclear power community. :D

The problem with Iraq is not that they are a direct terroristic threat. It's not like the US can prove he is a terrorist in the same sense as Bin Laden but a terror to world peace none the less. The problem is that Saddam is psychotic enough to use weapons of mass destruction. It is likely he does not have them, as yet, simply because he has not used them.

But that is the problem with him (Iraq) when he obtains them he will use them. The UN has basically had no balls in dealing with his abuse of their resolutions for the last ten years. He's a world class leader that does not deserve power.

Hitler's WWII is not that far beyond our remembrance. Waiting for Saddam to develop his weapons is blind and foolish. America's lack of action at the onset of Hitler's blitzkrieg through Europe likely cost 10's of thousands of lives. And this is a lesson from history that none of us need to repeat whether the tyranny comes in the form of Saddam, Osama Bin Laden, or any one else.

Originally posted by ccreighton
The problem is that Saddam is psychotic enough to use weapons of mass destruction. It is likely he does not have them, as yet, simply because he has not used them.

Isn't that what the weapons inspectors are supposed to do? I heard Iraq is letting them back in, but he could also be doing that to prevent a consise UN resolution from being passed.

Originally posted by mind21_98


Isn't that what the weapons inspectors are supposed to do? I heard Iraq is letting them back in, but he could also be doing that to prevent a consise UN resolution from being passed.

Well I would like to think he would want to make a positive gesture at this time. Given the threat issued by Bush. I pray for peace but I certainly am not naive enough to believe someone with his history of genocide, domination, and ruthless tyranny can change quick enough to appease the world.

As for allowing the UN back in for inspections just remember when they were there at first, years ago, he complied like a whooped dog but then slowly and surely he began flexing his muscles to the point the UN inspectors felt threatened enough to evacuate.

Saddam has time to prove himself at any rate. Bush appears to be attempting to work with the UN in-spite of their inactions with Saddam. And secondly it will take some time to maneuver military force sufficient for the type of invasion being suggested. Bush is only working with the UN to allow the world to understand it must be a concerted effort for world peace but at no time should anyone think we cannot declare war on someone with or without UN blessing.

Someone commented earlier about the US chose to be the world police all I can say is thank God someone has the balls to try and keep the peace. We know world peace is truly vain thinking but at the least we can keep a balance.

Hostkookster - just a fyi the reason the french(frogs)/english won was cause they were togethor picking on a young nation and we sitll wont what a bunch of pansys....its like 2 19 year old's beating up a 5 year old take a guess at who would win?!

who told you that the iraqis are sick of saddam?

I'm iraqi and i'm not sick of saddam, i'd rather saddam than a radical based government, at least saddam is not radical based on any religion..

And iraq has never commited terrorism, please show me a fact when iraq has used terrorism against another nation?

Originally posted by ForumsAddict
interactive
I have to agree with you that when it comes to Saddam..YES he has to be removed cuz he is another curse to this world but if US can opt for a peaceful resolution of the issue..they should give it a try...;)

Iraqis ARE SICK OF SADDAM who has given them nothing except hunger and deprivation... We have to understand here that US is not after the Iraqis but SADDAM who is indeed an evil to his own country and prob to the whole world....

Many times his own ppl tried to kick him out but he narrowly escaped and killed everyone who developed the plot..He is power hungry and would not spare members of his own family when it comes to power....

I just hope that things turn out to be good for the iraqi ppl who have suffered a lot during regime...Its high time US and other world takes action against him BUT it would be best to try the peaceful means without killing the innocents..;)

Anyway...back on topic.

I blame







edude!!!



:D

Originally posted by interactive
Hostkookster - just a fyi the reason the french(frogs)/english won was cause they were togethor picking on a young nation and we sitll wont what a bunch of pansys....its like 2 19 year old's beating up a 5 year old take a guess at who would win?!

What?? :eek:
Ahh it was the Americans that attacked Upper Canada. The French and English kicked some ass down there and not because you were a poor weak nation - there is no excuse for that.:) We even burned part of the whitehouse - which is where it gots its name because they whitewased the place that was burned. :)
If you're speaking war wise failures and successes the American's failed to capture Upper Canada, and the English/French held them off thus Canada won.
Read your history man. :) It'll do ya good. :)

ok ok ok i admit it was all my fault.......
























I'm sorry :(

Originally posted by lightnin
Anyway...back on topic.

I blame







edude!!!



:D

Talking about 2 19 year olds beating a 5 year old, thats exactly what the U.S is doing to iraq, now isnt it?


Originally posted by Hostkookster


What?? :eek:
Ahh it was the Americans that attacked Upper Canada. The French and English kicked some ass down there and not because you were a poor weak nation - there is no excuse for that.:) We even burned part of the whitehouse - which is where it gots its name because they whitewased the place that was burned. :)
If you're speaking war wise failures and successes the American's failed to capture Upper Canada, and the English/French held them off thus Canada won.
Read your history man. :) It'll do ya good. :)

edude:smash:

Darth:smash:

Originally posted by edude
who told you that the iraqis are sick of saddam?

I'm iraqi and i'm not sick of saddam, i'd rather saddam than a radical based government, at least saddam is not radical based on any religion..

And iraq has never commited terrorism, please show me a fact when iraq has used terrorism against another nation?



Edude wish I could believe you - but Saddam has done more harm than good to the country of Iraq. And the whole middle east for that matter. Do you think he's starving over there with his aides in their huge palaces?? If Saddam is taken from power several middle east countries will breathe a sigh of relief.

hmm terrorism - lets see ahh yes that would be the short lived Gulf War during the invasion of Kuwait. Totally unprovoked, could have been settled in OPEC but Saddam had to go flex his miniscule muscles. Get Real!:rolleyes:

Thats not terrorism.........


Comon, terrorism is against innocent people, he fought iraqs army vs kuwait's army, you cant call that terrorism???


I have family living in baghdad and al mansoor to be exact...

They live a perfectly fine life, never had problems with the government, arent in poverty etc..

I exchange many letters/emails with them (YES, and the e-mails arent monitored by the government)......

I am really amazed what the western media says about iraq sometimes, most of it is not true, the only people he tortures are the ones who try and remove him by power, the man has a right to defend himself.

Which pres/leader/shiekh doesnt have huge palaces?

Originally posted by edude
Thats not terrorism.........


Comon, terrorism is against innocent people, he fought iraqs army vs kuwait's army, you cant call that terrorism???


I have family living in baghdad and al mansoor to be exact...

They live a perfectly fine life, never had problems with the government, arent in poverty etc..

I exchange many letters/emails with them (YES, and the e-mails arent monitored by the government)......

I am really amazed what the western media says about iraq sometimes, most of it is not true, the only people he tortures are the ones who try and remove him by power, the man has a right to defend himself.

Which pres/leader/shiekh doesnt have huge palaces?

Ok, so then how have the US been terrorists in Iraq if you have lived quite well according to what you just said???

Ofcourse, don't you think these daily raids dont kill innocent people? also the price of food as risen since the sanctions and the country does lack hospital equipment etc, but my family reguarly sends money back to family in Iraq :)

Originally posted by edude
Ofcourse, don't you think these daily raids dont kill innocent people? also the price of food as risen since the sanctions and the country does lack hospital equipment etc, but my family reguarly sends money back to family in Iraq :)

Ok, resonable explanation :)

Why do you think no other country has willingly sided with the Iraqi's (Don't say because of the US). He's as much of a menace to his people as he is to the rest of the world. If Iraq were a democracy Saddam would have been booted a long time ago. The rise in food costs are US sanctions yes but he could stop all that by complying with the UN resolutions that were passed in 1991. Saddam never did. He says the US sanctions are killing his people when it was the UN that passed this sanction resolution. So who's the perpetrator here? Saddam lost all respect from other countries after attacking Kuwait thus the intrusion of the US.

Yes but the U.S gave saddam the impression he that he could attack iraq and they would do nothing about it, dont forget how closely iraq worked with the U.S until saddam found out that U.S was supplying iran with weapons against iraq, so they could make both countries weak. Than relations broke up, U.S has just as much to do with the attack on kuwait as iraq does..

Legal ellections where held and saddam won by 99%...

Regarding allies:

Syria
Yemen (Yemen even in the gulf war had sanctions imposed on them after supporting iraq)
Libya
China
USSR
Germany
France
Venezula
Cuba

list goes on and on, all of these countries have had ministers recently visit iraq and give their support to saddam hussein.

Originally posted by Hostkookster


Ok, resonable explanation :)

Why do you think no other country has willingly sided with the Iraqi's (Don't say because of the US). He's as much of a menace to his people as he is to the rest of the world. If Iraq were a democracy Saddam would have been booted a long time ago. The rise in food costs are US sanctions yes but he could stop all that by complying with the UN resolutions that were passed in 1991. Saddam never did. He says the US sanctions are killing his people when it was the UN that passed this sanction resolution. So who's the perpetrator here? Saddam lost all respect from other countries after attacking Kuwait thus the intrusion of the US.

Legal elections were held how long ago???

Yes I know he was voted in - but are the people able to vote him out?

Yup, i've read about the Iran Contra scam the US pulled. What role did the US play in the attacking of Kuwait?

And guess i'm not up on my political science here. You're right about the allies. :) I think the better question to ask is who would militarily stand up? Talk is cheap - theres no better example than politics :)

Elections were held on March 27, 2000. He won by 99.96% ;)

its illegal not to vote, everyone must participate in voting in iraq.

Well, vote for the INC, ICP etc.. and you can remove him, but i guess no one did :)

The fact that so many people voted for someone other than the only truly viable choice (although I could easily suggest several others) just goes to show what a large percentage of people are complete morons so bent on disliking someone's position or stance that they are blinded from seeing the obvious.

I agree, seeing the obvious that it was Bush and not Bin Laden.

ignorance is bliss...

Originally posted by edude
Elections were held on March 27, 2000. He won by 99.96% ;)

its illegal not to vote, everyone must participate in voting in iraq.

Well, vote for the INC, ICP etc.. and you can remove him, but i guess no one did :)

Do you really think that it matter if he won in fair ellections?

Take a look to Cuba, Fidel has been winning for more than 20 years, its not a "global danger", do not have chemical weapons, and still its blocked by USA :rolleyes:.
Maybe because they don't like to remember Playa Giron :)

Originally posted by edude
Legal ellections where held and saddam won by 99%...

99% never happens unless someone's silencing/killing dissedents. :rolleyes:

Or you have a bug in the voting software ;)

Originally posted by mind21_98


99% never happens unless someone's silencing/killing dissedents. :rolleyes:

I agree, its not the matter how saddam was ellected here, but who is the U.S to go around the world and say, no you werent ellected properly get out etc...

Originally posted by Jedito


Do you really think that it matter if he won in fair ellections?

Take a look to Cuba, Fidel has been winning for more than 20 years, its not a "global danger", do not have chemical weapons, and still its blocked by USA :rolleyes:.
Maybe because they don't like to remember Playa Giron :)

Originally posted by edude
Or you have a bug in the voting software ;)

Heh. It'd be funky if Iraq had touchscreen voting. :D

Edude - I go back to my previous argument. Saddam has done more harm to his country than good.

He has biologically poisoned his own people, he has bombed his own people, and he has starved his own people! When you talk about people starving in Iraq because of the US - it is not the US that has placed sanctions on Iraq. It is the UN! So many people don't realize this and it is wrong to think otherwise. If Saddam had complied with the original 1991 Mandates made in the UN security council there would be no sanctions against Iraq. If you want to point a finger point it to Saddam.

%99!??! Either the people only see hatred against the US and they feel Saddam will save them, or the election was rigged. Why do i not find any mention of an election in the news?? If there was that is an unspeakable majority. Do the people really think that Saddam is ruling the country properly? He wants war and doesn't care about the casualties he causes. Another funny thing - why did 4 iraqi Generals meet in July to discuss ways of ousting Saddam. Does he really have %99 support? Was there really an election?

Saddam doesn't care about his people. Iran for example - he sent in 15 year olds to go fight in the war talk about desperate measures!

And no this is not American propaganda - this is clear and undisputed fact!

Anyone read the report by Tony Blair? 50 pages I believe of evidence that Saddam must go for the sake of the people or he will start a war with Israel if he becomes nuclear, and that will only lead to the anihalation of these 2 countries along with millions of innocent people and the deaths of thousand of others afterwards from radioactive poisoning. What would you rather have?

HAHAHHA!

Tony blair's evidence was just accusations, nothing to back it up, he wouldnt even reveal the source how typical....

You have it wrong, iraqis did not send 15 year olds, very wrong!

Iranians sent 15 year olds to run across iraqi mined soil, they told them if they would that they would go to heaven...... how typical!!

Saddam really cares about the young iraqi people, he wants them to be smart, hes proud of his people...

Education is a must and if you do not qualify for UNI you are thrown into the army..

I still want proof other than accusations like blair has, even his own parliament dont believe him...

Saddam wants war? this is what the western media wants you to think, saddam hasnt moved a finger for the last 10 years, its just the poor economic state in the U.S and lack of oil that the U.S want a war now.

:angry: In my opinion, Clinton could have kept us from reaching the 911 debacle by taking action after the incident in Yemen, but I don't want to start a Clinton debate here either.

What I did find interesting is that so many of you flamed Bush but yet supplied no evidence to backup your opinions. I think it would be quite interesting to read your comments on why you don't like Bush and what you are basing your judgements on.

Edude I would be very interested to read your response regarding the Iraq elections as well. In your opinion do you really feel that if the poll results were 99.9% in favor of Saddam that they were arrived at legitamately?

What proof and from what source would it take to convince you of Saddam's intentions?

I am just sitting here fully entrenched in the Bush doctrine but at the same time I would like to think I can maintain an open view and allow you the opportunity to present facts (with support) that could sway my opinions in this matter.

I am looking forward to your factual response to this matter.:idea:

Originally posted by MMemmer


I am just sitting here fully entrenched in the Bush doctrine but at the same time I would like to think I can maintain an open view and allow you the opportunity to present facts (with support) that could sway my opinions in this matter.

I am looking forward to your factual response to this matter.:idea:

Maybe you can ask as well for facts of the Chemical Weapons that Saddam suppose to have before to support an attack to Iraq.
Or ask for reasons of why Cuba has been blocked for more than 20 years, or proof that Bin Laden planned the attack to the WTC.

Or do you only ask for facts when you talk about other countries?

Id say it was the bush and bin-laden familys together, theve always been friends, the bin laden's are rich of teh construction company the bush family funded. Osama is rich becuase he owns companyus like the "Gum Arabic Corporation" in sedan, and its intresting that bush has regulated that lots of gum arabic be imported into the united states. Almost all soda and chips and gum products have it in it. Everytime you buy a bag of doritos 3d's you support bin laden.....

Take clinton's name off the poll, hes actually a real good guy, and honestly asmuch as he was made fun of when in office, he did a better job than any president we have had in a long time.

When clinton was in office he was running the country smoothly, taxes were at lows, everythihng was fine and happy.

Asoon as bush became president(and he cheated the election we all know since after the polls showed he didnt win they demanded recounts until he did) taxes all of a sudden rocketshot upward, chaos everywhere, corporate america running to differnt counties, bush is fo0kin shiz up.

Saddam didnt takeout the towers.
He might have weapons but one STRONG fact still remains:

Saddam hates the bush family, not america.
The bush family hates saddam, and thats why hes the new target. Saddam tried to assasinate the older bush multiple times, even when he wasnt president. I could go asfar as to see sadam trying to make the world a better place by hating bush, I hate bush too. Im not saying I like, Trust, support or anything like that about sudam, hes evil and a psycho, BUT the only reason hes the US Target right now is becuase bush wants his ass and he wants bushes.

:( Good response, but still no answer to my questions. In the mean time I shall respond to yours.

As a resident of Florida, within the United States, I have had the pleasure of making contact with many of the Cuban people who suffer the exile from their native isle. They fled because the dictatorship, standards of living, and the lack of representation within the government. I am in agreement with the US policy with toward Cuba and would take it one step further. We should limit our support and interaction with all countries around the world that maintain similar form of government to Cuba.

As to Chemical availability within Iraq, I do believe the sources (not at hand) that I have read describing the chemical attacks on the Kurd's within Iraq. (:rolleyes: Oh those aren't really Iraqi citizens or how could the election have yielded 99.9). Also, the family and friends that I know within the state of Isreal, confirmed to my satisfaction Saddam's prior use of chemical weapons 10 years ago.

I hope this satisfies your question. ;)

:idea: Ninji, it would certainly be interesting to know where your facts are from.

1) Clinton did raise taxes during his two terms in office just go back and review the bills that he passed.
2) Bush cut taxes, and lobbied for for larger and faster tax cuts.
3) The taxes that took effect within Bush's first year in office were not even determined by his administration, hmm, oh yes back to Clinton for those tax increases.
4) As a Florida resident (ashamed that our state can't get voting right) Gore had more than a fair shot when the votes were recounted, the election was confirmed. I can agree that the popular vote did not go Bush's way but president's within the US are not elected by popular vote, we have an electoral college for that, let that one go.
5) As for calling Clinton a good guy, if you define someone who cheats on his wife, tells bald face lies ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman") and bases a defense in court on the deffinition of the word "it" and "sex", then I guess that's your deffinition, not mine.

Still no substantiated responses to my questions.

You're hearing biased opinions, do not forget what happened in Playa Giron (what the american likes to call Bahia de cochinos).
Before to Castro, Cuba was governet by the Mafia, Rich American families, and a bastard dictator called Batista, most of the batista supported where exilied in USA, as well with a lot of delinquent that Cuba sent in 1978 (I'm not sure about the date here either).

About of stardan of living, what do you expect in an Island where the biggest industrie its turism and sugar?, at least, they have better education that most of the countries of America (included USA, if I'm not wrong they are second after Canada), education its free and you can go to the university without pay a penny.

If you don't know, I want to tell you that there are elections in Cuba every 4 or 6 years (I'm not sure of the exactly quantity of years).

Again, if you support the attack, you should want proof to kill another 500.000 persons, or is it enough for you what you read.
Unfortunatelly, if I said something bad about Israel, I'll taked as a Nazi, so, I prefer to avoid that topic.

Originally posted by MMemmer

5) As for calling Clinton a good guy, if you define someone who cheats on his wife, tells bald face lies ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman") and bases a defense in court on the deffinition of the word "it" and "sex", then I guess that's your deffinition, not mine.

Still no substantiated responses to my questions.

Little off-topic here :)

Didn't you cheated to your girlfried/wife ever? did that transformed you in a bad guy?, for me point of view, no.

BTW, I can't stand to muppet Bush as you may noticied

No I have never cheated on my wife in over 22 years of marriage!

Did I ever lie to a girlfriend, yes I did. Was it right, NO of course not but I am also not the same person I was then, I have gained 23 years of experience since then.

As to the Cuban elections, my Cuban sources who still maintain contact with their families in Cuba explain that the elections are not free but of course neither were Russia's when only the Polit Bureau and party members were allowed to vote.

In regards to the Batista regeime you are correct, I would not condone it but Cuba's standard of living was higher (I will agree that doen't make it right).

Regarding education, you are right my friend, American's could go along way to improve their education. For far to long America has taken a stance that if we ignore it, or if it does not effect me that it will go away but we live in a world that is rapidly shrinking and we do have to watch what our neighbor is doing.

Originally posted by MMemmer


In regards to the Batista regeime you are correct, I would not condone it but Cuba's standard of living was higher (I will agree that doen't make it right).



You're so wrong here, standar of living was higher only for a selected group of people. Cuba were the brothel of USA

The majority were living sunked in the missery, that's why the Fidel revolution was so popular.

Even if if were in other way, how would you take, if it where a country with more power than USA, think that Bush its a soulless dictator who won in at least suspicious election which should be removed?. How much simpaty would you feel about them? how much after they killed to some relatives or friend? Why USA should choose the path to other countries? Is it the way that USA its living the correct way? according to who?

:( Ok, another post without answers to my questions.

Well the Cuban nationals that I know would disagree with you but I think we should put this argument to bed as without additional resource material we could just :argue: about it all day.

As to the Bush election, that was ratified by our Supreme Court (against the obvious bias of Gore supporting judges), the results measured up in court, so let it go, Bush Won!:smokin:

On what basis do you say Bush is soulless, and you show a severe lack in understanding of the USA's government to refer to any of our Presidents as dictator's, even our worst ones don't fall under that title.

And YES I do think that the AMERICAN way of life is the best! I have had the opportunity to teach adults from around the world and bottom line the reason they want to be in the USA is because of the FREEDOM here.

Yes I do believe that Saddam has supported terrorisim and so he is guilty by association in my eyes. The sources I have chosen support this line of theory. I have repeatedly asked you for fact rather than opinion, if you cannot support your argument with fact then I feel that this debate is over. (And yes I offer my Cuban friends and family in Isreal, as the source for my factual discussion.) :argue: :wavey:

Originally posted by MMemmer
:( Ok, another post without answers to my questions.
Sorry, what question?


Well the Cuban nationals that I know would disagree with you but I think we should put this argument to bed as without additional resource material we could just :argue: about it all day.
As I said, biased opiniones, most of the cubans living in USA were batista supporters.


As to the Bush election, that was ratified by our Supreme Court (against the obvious bias of Gore supporting judges), the results measured up in court, so let it go, Bush Won!:smokin:

On what basis do you say Bush is soulless, and you show a severe lack in understanding of the USA's government to refer to any of our Presidents as dictator's, even our worst ones don't fall under that title.

Sorry, maybe I didn't explained very well, what I meaned, its if it were a country with more power than USA who think that Bush its a soulless dictator (we know that there isnt a country with more power than USA), I was trying to make a picture of a situation.


And YES I do think that the AMERICAN way of life is the best! I have had the opportunity to teach adults from around the world and bottom line the reason they want to be in the USA is because of the FREEDOM here.

And you are? the owner of the truth?


Yes I do believe that Saddam has supported terrorisim and so he is guilty by association in my eyes. The sources I have chosen support this line of theory. I have repeatedly asked you for fact rather than opinion, if you cannot support your argument with fact then I feel that this debate is over. (And yes I offer my Cuban friends and family in Isreal, as the source for my factual discussion.) :argue: :wavey:

Show me facts to kill 500.000 persons, not what you believe.
You're the one supporting an attack to other country, not me.
In all your post you didn't showed a single one, so, keep trying.

:agree: Well then how about if we just agree to :disagree: disagree and hope that this thread gets closed soon.

One thing in closing, you keep repeating about killing 500,000 people, care to explain what that is all about?

Yes, by the way you are correct many of the Cuban families that I know were Batista supporters, however I only know them as the good and decent people who are my neighor's and colleagues today.

Well anyway we can let our reader decide from this point forward!:laugh:

Originally posted by MMemmer

One thing in closing, you keep repeating about killing 500,000 people, care to explain what that is all about?

Yes, by the way you are correct many of the Cuban families that I know were Batista supporters, however I only know them as the good and decent people who are my neighor's and colleagues today.


500.000 person were killed in 1991 when USA attacked Iraq + millions died because the blockade.

BTW, I never said that Batista supporters are bad people, they just have a biased opionion about Fidel and how were the people living in Cuba before Fidel.

In the last May 1st, Fidel gathered 1.400.000 persons on the Victory Plaza (plaza de la victoria), I wonder how many presidents can do that actually, specially, if you take in mind that Cuba have only 11.000.000 of inhabitants.

One last question, Will you supply me with your source for those numbers that you keep purporting? I really don't believe them and would like some eveidence of where you are sourceing them from.

Also, but how can you blame that war on the USA, Iraq started that action with their invasion of Kuwait and please don't reference that Iraq was lead to believe that it would be ok!:eek:

Recently in an interview on 60 minutes, Leslie Stahl asked Madeleine Albright: "I understand that 500,000 Iraqi children have died due to our sanctions ... was it worth it?" Albright replied, "It was worth it."

About the total death in the war, I can't find the sources now, but you can easily found it, this is internet :), just to take to give you a picture, 20.000 CIVILIANS were killed only when USA bombed Bagdad.

About the war Iraq-Kuwait, I wonder why USA didn't helped to Zaire when was attacked by Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi.
Do it really care to USA about human lifes? or only cares about the oil?

BTW Iraq had long considered Kuwait to be a part of Iraq

Well it appears obvious that the majority of the world did not agree with the idea of Kuwait belonging to Iraq.

As to Zaire I would have supported the US involvement there!

Regarding the #'s dead I will have to research that. As to your propaganda vs my propaganda, I think you have to look at the situation and take a feel for it vs whnat any government tells us.

Well this conversation has been real but I can't say that it has been real fun. But the whistle is blowing and I am out of here.
May the rest of your day be pleasant albiet boring without my diatribe.:stickout

Originally posted by MMemmer
Well it appears obvious that the majority of the world did not agree with the idea of Kuwait belonging to Iraq.



Iraq-Kuwait Relations Prior to the 1990 Invasion.

1961- Iraq (President Qasim) threatens Kuwait, invoking old Ottoman claims. Britain supports Kuwait and Iraq backs down.
1973, March- Iraq occupies as-Samitah, a border post on Kuwait-Iraq border. Dispute began when Iraq demanded the right to occupy the Kuwaiti islands of Bubiyan and Warbah. Saudi Arabia and the Arab League convinced Iraq to withdraw.

1980-1988- Kuwait supports Iraq in the First Persian Gulf War with Iran.


Iraq continued to be subjected to stringent economic sanctions imposed by UN Security Council resolutions after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The sanctions have crippled the country's economic infrastructure and have contributed to a deteriorating economic situation, increased unemployment, rising malnutrition and mortality levels and widespread corruption. In 1999, UNICEF estimated that sanctions had contributed to the deaths of some 500,000 children under the age of five.

Amnesty International

Some Interesting articles :)
http://www.free-minds.org/us-terror.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/iraq-j16.shtml
http://www.rmbowman.com/isss/iraqsp.htm

500.000 person were killed in 1991 when USA attacked Iraq + millions died because the blockade.

Jedito The US did not kill 500,000 of the people of Iraq. You sure?? That is 1/4 of the Germans who died in the first world war! And you say they killed 500,000 people in 6 days?? Get Real!!

The UN posed sanctions on Iraq not the US - thus you are clearly mistaken in your logic. Blame Saddam with that %100.

So Edude you agree with me that Saddam could have saved his people these last 10 years from these UN sanctions because you didn't argue my point. Correct?? Or are you trying to avoid that topic. What did Saddam have to keep secret for 10 years? And Edude where did you get that %99.96 vote?? Please show me where you got that information - or are you just pulling it out of your ass??

Did you actually read the the whole 50 page article?? Or are you just BSing me?

Jedito - Saddam does have chemical weapons, Edude how can you explain the 20 or so presidential palaces in Iraq that are off limits to UN weapons inspectors? When the weapons inpectors originally went into Iraq Satellite pictures caught weapons being moved from location to location. Sound funny to you??

Yes Saddam did poison his own people allbeit the Kurds but they are still in the country. Don't know about you but i'd call that genocide. Yes he did send in 15 year olds to fight! That was a brutal battle, he ran out of soldiers. I'm sure Iran did the same thing.

Jedito, Iraq may have had its "eye" on Kuwait for a while but that doesn't give them the right to invade a completely helpless nation. When the US came in the Iraqis destroyed all of the oil wells on their way out and into Iraq. It poisoned the sky for years - full of thick black smoke. Does Saddam truely care for his people?? If it appears he does it is a simple illusion. This man does not care about the people - he cares about staying in power so he can continually live in the grandeur that he currently experiences. Why are a lot of the Iraqi's so poor? The Iraqi economy is more than capable of bringing these people out of poverty. But why hasn't it happened? Because Saddam is putting tons of money and resources into his weapon programs. And where might these places be hiding - In the Iraqi palaces that are off limits to everyone.

The US has no need for Iraqi oil! I expect if the US invade they won't be staying there very long and they won't be looking for cheap oil when they can get it at home or even Canada. The US doesn't get much Iraqi oil if any.

What the US is afraid about is a nuclear or biological war being waged between Israel and Iraq because Saddam is weeks away from aquiring Nuclear weapons and Israel is already nuclear. When Saddam attacked Israel with his Skud missiles the Israelis sat on their hands at the request of the US. They adamantly told the US that next time they are attacked they would fight back without any restraint. I don't know about you but do you guys want a Middle Eastern Nuclear war? That will create a middle east nuclear winter - destroying all life within several hundred miles with a lasting effect of several decades. Look at Chernobyl - that wasn't even an explosion and people who live within 200 miles of it are still affected by the radioactive material in the atmosphere.

Hostkookster
Instead of talk crap, why don't you check about information?
The Bomb in Hiroshima killed 200.000 person, and only in seconds, the WTC attack killed 3.000 person in hours, what the hell are you telling me about a 6 days war?
Only in the bombing to Baghdad died 20.000 civilians.
If I'm not wrong the official information its 120.000 soldiers dead and 380.000 civilians.

The UN unfortunatelly its not independent anymore (was it at any time?), US imposse their preasure all over it, as I said over and over again, they do it even to blockade to a helpless country like Cuba.

Panama its not USA territory, neither its Haiti and those countries have smallest armies than Kuwait, and USA invaded them. What are you talking about?

About the chemical weapons, what proof do you have? or because you think it in that way its a proof now?
Geez, do you think that if USA have any proof wont they show it worldwide to get the aprovation to the attack? they don't have a single evidence, neither they do have about Bin Laden and the WTC, and they invaded and killed thousands of people in Afghanistan, oh.. the war in afganisthan was short as well, so, according to your calculations, died 2 or 3 persons only :rolleyes:

Jedito, Iraq may have had its "eye" on Kuwait for a while but that doesn't give them the right to invade a completely helpless nation.
You may know a lot of middle-east history to came with that asseveration.

When the US came in the Iraqis destroyed all of the oil wells on their way out and into Iraq. It poisoned the sky for years - full of thick black smoke.

Why don't you ask which its the only country of the 8-Group that didn't singed the enviroment protection agreement?
US used uranium in their bullets in the Desert storm, and you care about the smoke? get real!


Does Saddam truely care for his people?? If it appears he does it is a simple illusion. This man does not care about the people - he cares about staying in power so he can continually live in the grandeur that he currently experiences. Why are a lot of the Iraqi's so poor? The Iraqi economy is more than capable of bringing these people out of poverty. But why hasn't it happened? Because Saddam is putting tons of money and resources into his weapon programs. And where might these places be hiding - In the Iraqi palaces that are off limits to everyone.
Care to explain me how Iraq its capable to bring the people out of misery when they have been blokeade for 10 years?

And before that, was pushed by USA into a war agains Iran

Bush!:cartman:

Originally posted by Jedito
Hostkookster
Instead of talk crap, why don't you check about information?
The Bomb in Hiroshima killed 200.000 person, and only in seconds, the WTC attack killed 3.000 person in hours, what the hell are you telling me about a 6 days war?
Only in the bombing to Baghdad died 20.000 civilians.
If I'm not wrong the official information its 120.000 soldiers dead and 380.000 civilians.

The UN unfortunatelly its not independent anymore (was it at any time?), US imposse their preasure all over it, as I said over and over again, they do it even to blockade to a helpless country like Cuba.

Panama its not USA territory, neither its Haiti and those countries have smallest armies than Kuwait, and USA invaded them. What are you talking about?

About the chemical weapons, what proof do you have? or because you think it in that way its a proof now?
Geez, do you think that if USA have any proof wont they show it worldwide to get the aprovation to the attack? they don't have a single evidence, neither they do have about Bin Laden and the WTC, and they invaded and killed thousands of people in Afghanistan, oh.. the war in afganisthan was short as well, so, according to your calculations, died 2 or 3 persons only :rolleyes:

What statistic are you talking about with 380,000 people and 120,000 soldiers? Is this the Gulf War? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Have you read the 50 page report by Tony Blair? If not i suggest you read it. It has all of the evidence you'll need to convince yourself. Saddam has used chemical weapons before against the Kurds. And why has it taken 10 years for Saddam to comply with the UN resolutions?? That is the part that I don't understand. He must have been hiding something.

No the US does not influence the UN. There is a concencus among countries and these countries vote on resolutions. I'm sure you're familiar with these proceedings. Countries can vote however they like. The US does not have influence over a countries decision to support or not support. That is the whole point of voting so everyone has a voice. Once again if you want to blame the sanctions on the US, they were not imposed by the US, they were voted upon in the General Assembly where a majority voted in favour of this resolution. If the US influences the UN then why hasn't their most trusted allies stood up and say "i'm in". If the US truely influenced their opinion on the UN there would be no UN. Countries would leave if they sensed a bias.

Could you please explain to me how the US "pushed" Iraq into a war with Iran.

Hiroshima was a nuclear bomb - used to stop an awful war. They didn't use nuclear bombs in Iraq. The US pushed their way 50 miles from Bagdad and then were called off.

Hmm, Bin Laden. Hasn't he benevolently and passionately taken responsibility for the WTC attacks?? Or has he just taken credit for the work of another terrorist mastermind? Highly doubtful! The reason why the US refuses to give evidence in this matter is because you don't want to go tipping off the people you're trying to pursue. You obviously don't watch much television - everyday the CIA or FBI is identifying another Al Qaida terrorist. Are the US just making up these acusations out of thin air?
Of the Evidence we don't know about - I'm guessing Bush is keeping quiet for the same reason. You don't want you enemy to know what you know. My Guess is he is displaying the information secretly to these other countries that would support such an attack.

Jedito can You explain why Saddam should continue to be the Iraqi ruler? Quite frankly I can't see any benefits.

Thousands of people died in Afghanistan?? I'd be interested in the statistics of this if you can find them. I know that the Afgan bombing was very precise. Yes they missed a couple times but not to the time of severall thousand. And guess what took place there recently - a democratic election. :) So you can't call the US bad if they are trying to rebuild Afghanistan. They didn't bomb them and then leave them in their misery. Another example - After leading a coalition force into Bosnia a 6 years ago they decided they would only stay for 10 months - well they are still there trying to bring peace to that region.

About the comment earlier about why Iraq wanted Kuwait. Iraq is essentially landlocked, and Kuwait would have provided them with a perfect outpost to export oil. Instead they have to go through Basra on the Shatt-al Arab waterway for traffic into the Perisan Gulf. At that time as well Iraq had a cash shortage because oil prices had dropped from $20 to $14 per barrel. Saddam demanded ownership of the entire Rahmailah oil field to pay for damages from over-producing. Invading Kuwait solved both of these problems very easily. One reason why people fear Saddam. He has an imperialistic nature to him, and if he wants something he'll go after it.

Originally posted by Jedito

Why don't you ask which its the only country of the 8-Group that didn't singed the enviroment protection agreement?
US used uranium in their bullets in the Desert storm, and you care about the smoke? get real!


No I care about how 1.1billion gallons of oil were spewing out of Iraqi oil wells because he decided to destory them so the US wouldn't benefit from them. This damaged the economy even more let alone a war that with the US that was almost non-existant it happened so fast. Not a very smart move by Saddam.

And Uraniam bullets - Is there proof? Or is this just another one of those conspiracies you find in that book? I read a little bit of that book you recommended and I found absolutely no value of the information in there. They're all outragious conspiracies that annoy the hell out of me because the proof given in these conspiracies is based on opinion.

Well I have to say this is certainly not the fault of Bush.

The operation would have taken over 12 months to coordinate, and if my memory serves me right (I don't follow US pollitics) Bush had only been in office a short time before 9/11?

Someone pissed them off way before Bush got the chance to :)

380.000 + 120.000 = 500.000 another thing that you don't understand, wonder why I'm not surpiresed.

BTW, it was my mistake, it weren't 500.000, it were 250.000, and huge quantity, I think that you may agree, 500.000 childrens died after the war because the blockade.

I didn't read the report of tony blair, and I don't care it neither, its a biased report of one of the countries promoting the attack, a proof could be better than a report of one of the sides. That report it worth in the same way that saddam saying that they don't have any weapon.

About the UN, seems like you're too naif or you want to play to be one, if you think that US do not put preassure in other countries, I suggest to open your house door, and walk the world, because you know nothing about it. I explained near 10 times in 2-3 thread were you participated how US put preasures in countries, if you want to read it again, do a search, if you want to ignore it, its ok, leave in your little lie and be happy.

About the Iran-Iraq war, if you don't know how to USA pushed to Iraq to the war, you know nothing, and I'll step this point, because it doesn't matter, you're talking because talk its cheap.


Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF (retired)

In 1897 and 1898, Britain used assassination, intrigue, and threats to carve out a piece of Iraq and rule it through the Sheikh of Kuwait. In 1920, after World War I, Britain, France, and the U.S. seized the rights to 95% of the oil in Iraq. By 1932, Britain had expanded Kuwait from a small village on the Gulf into a colony occupying the entire coastline of the Persian Gulf from Arabia to Iran, completely shutting off Iraq from access to the Gulf. For the next half a century, British intelligence murdered almost every Iraqi leader and king, because they called for the return of Kuwait. By 1958 the U.S. was an equal partner with Britain in the coups and assassinations. Together they backed a coup against King Faisal II ( who had himself been installed by the British). He was killed and replaced with Abdel Karim Qassim. But he too called for the return of Kuwait, so CIA chief Allen Dulles ordered his assassination. After the job was botched a couple of times, the CIA gave the assignment to one of its promising young assassins — Saddam Hussein. With the help of a CIA airlift, he succeeded. By 1968, Saddam Hussein was in complete control and, under CIA direction, killing trade unionists, radicals, and Communists.

In 1977, US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein, the Emir of Kuwait, and a Saudi representative, and proposed that Iraq invade Iran, seizing the Khuzestan oil fields. In 1982, US FBI chief William Webster met with the Emir of Kuwait and plotted the seizure of Iraqi oil fields and the slant-drilling with which Kuwait and western oil companies stole $14 billion worth of Iraqi oil.

Right up to the time of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, US Department of Defense training manuals sang the praises of Saddam Hussein, noting how he had vastly improved education, medical care, and the standard of living of his people. His regime was called one of the most enlightened, progressive governments in the region. This was in an official DoD document used in the education of high-ranking officers of all the military services.

But there was a problem. The Berlin wall had come down. The Soviet Union had collapsed. And the American people were clamoring for a peace dividend. They had to find another bad guy — fast. In May 1990, a National Security Council white paper stated that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were (and I quote) "the optimum contenders to replace the Warsaw pact as the rationale for major military expenditures."

Two months later, on July 20, 1990, General Schwarzkopf conducted training exercises simulating exactly the contingency of an Iraqi attack on Kuwait. Five days later, April Glaspie gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait. A week later, he did. Almost immediately, the U.S. deployed as many troops and twice as much materiel as was moved for the Normandy invasion. Do you think this was done without advance planning?

This was the war they wanted, the war they planned for, the war they instigated, the war they salivated over. This was the war that would demonstrate the capabilities of the smart bombs made by our weapons manufacturers. It was better than a hundred trade shows. This was the war that would prove that George Bush was not a wimp. This was the war that would make billions for the oil company owned by the president’s son, George Bush, Jr., who had exclusive rights to offshore oil in the Gulf.

Saddam was suckered into our trap. And he fell for it. He crossed the undefended border of Kuwait, and in response our government dropped 300 to 400 million pounds of high explosives on Iraq. This onslaught destroyed tens of thousands of buildings and essentially every bridge, power plant, and industrial facility in the country. It killed a quarter of a million Iraqis, including at least 100,000 civilians, of which half were children. Now here we are eight years later, and the shocking death toll from the Gulf War has been dwarfed by that from our continuing war against Iraq. Not only have we failed to rebuild what we destroyed; we have imposed economic sanctions which have prevented the Iraqis and everyone else from doing so.


Probably you'll say that its another conspiracy, yeah yeah, believe what you want to believe.

Originally posted by Hostkookster



And Uraniam bullets - Is there proof? Or is this just another one of those conspiracies you find in that book? I read a little bit of that book you recommended and I found absolutely no value of the information in there. They're all outragious conspiracies that annoy the hell out of me because the proof given in these conspiracies is based on opinion.

Do you live in a cage?, and don't lie, you didn't read that book, that book its supported by official documentation, and you're saying that its based in opinions.

Hmm, Bin Laden. Hasn't he benevolently and passionately taken responsibility for the WTC attacks?? Or has he just taken credit for the work of another terrorist mastermind? Highly doubtful! The reason why the US refuses to give evidence in this matter is because you don't want to go tipping off the people you're trying to pursue. You obviously don't watch much television - everyday the CIA or FBI is identifying another Al Qaida terrorist. Are the US just making up these acusations out of thin air?
Of the Evidence we don't know about - I'm guessing Bush is keeping quiet for the same reason. You don't want you enemy to know what you know. My Guess is he is displaying the information secretly to these other countries that would support such an attack.

Yes, you live in a cage.

Originally posted by Tux-e-do
Well I have to say this is certainly not the fault of Bush.

The operation would have taken over 12 months to coordinate, and if my memory serves me right (I don't follow US pollitics) Bush had only been in office a short time before 9/11?

Someone pissed them off way before Bush got the chance to :)

Don't forget that bush have a father with the same last name ;)

Originally posted by Jedito
380.000 + 120.000 = 500.000 another thing that you don't understand, wonder why I'm not surpiresed.

BTW, it was my mistake, it weren't 500.000, it were 250.000, and huge quantity, I think that you may agree, 500.000 childrens died after the war because the blockade.

I didn't read the report of tony blair, and I don't care it neither, its a biased report of one of the countries promoting the attack, a proof could be better than a report of one of the sides. That report it worth in the same way that saddam saying that they don't have any weapon.

About the UN, seems like you're too naif or you want to play to be one, if you think that US do not put preassure in other countries, I suggest to open your house door, and walk the world, because you know nothing about it. I explained near 10 times in 2-3 thread were you participated how US put preasures in countries, if you want to read it again, do a search, if you want to ignore it, its ok, leave in your little lie and be happy.

About the Iran-Iraq war, if you don't know how to USA pushed to Iraq to the war, you know nothing, and I'll step this point, because it doesn't matter, you're talking because talk its cheap.

Probably you'll say that its another conspiracy, yeah yeah, believe what you want to believe.

I said I read through "part" of the book and put it back on the shelf. Looking through it I found within a couple minutes claims that I could clearly disprove. Unfortunately they focus on little pieces of eveidence that back up their claim while ignoring other evidence that would otherwise cast doubt upon it.

Ok, yes i did say the US puts pressure on other countries in my earlier threads however that has no precedent in the UN. The US may economically pressure us but they would have to report to NAFTA for such behavior. Like i said in my previous post - if the UN became a place where the US ruled there would be no UN.

You still haven't explained to me why Saddam didn't comply with UN resolutions. 500,000 people dying is not the issue here. Saddam is and his unwillingness to cooperate with the UN. That is what killed the people. He brought these resolutions upon the country after the Gulf War.

I don't agree with everything Tony says in that report, however many things are apparent.

I do not live in a cage - I read the paper every morning, I'm well informed of world events, i'm currently taking a political science class.

For conversation sake - By looking at Saddams military, and imperial past would you be comfortable saying that he isn't a threat at all? Even it you lived right next to him. Or if you lived in Israel. Look at it from this perspective. I know i'd be getting as far away from that man as possible.

Hmm, the article is written by a former USAF pilot. some of those things are true, others are somewhat out there - however i go back to what i said several times before.

This is one account and one account only. If other people stood up and said yes I can account for that too - then it would be more believable. Its like a science experiment - obviously the more times you do it and receive the same results the more credible it is.

guys, if your knowledge of web hosting would equal that of world history, current political facts and future alternatives, the whole web hosting industry would be down the drain in less than five minutes...

HAH!!!

IRAQ NEVER USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST ISRAEL, HOW DO ISRAELI's KNOW?

OH I FORGOT THEY JUST HATE IRAQ AND SADDAM BECAUSE WE PAY PALESTINIAN FAMILIES OPPS.....

THATS NO REPUTABLE SOURCE!!!

Whats the proof of using chemical weapons on kurds? because the kurds say so? well saddam has kept the kurds under control, look what turkey does to the kurds, i dont see america going to help the kurds in turkey!


Originally posted by MMemmer
:( Good response, but still no answer to my questions. In the mean time I shall respond to yours.

As a resident of Florida, within the United States, I have had the pleasure of making contact with many of the Cuban people who suffer the exile from their native isle. They fled because the dictatorship, standards of living, and the lack of representation within the government. I am in agreement with the US policy with toward Cuba and would take it one step further. We should limit our support and interaction with all countries around the world that maintain similar form of government to Cuba.

As to Chemical availability within Iraq, I do believe the sources (not at hand) that I have read describing the chemical attacks on the Kurd's within Iraq. (:rolleyes: Oh those aren't really Iraqi citizens or how could the election have yielded 99.9). Also, the family and friends that I know within the state of Isreal, confirmed to my satisfaction Saddam's prior use of chemical weapons 10 years ago.

I hope this satisfies your question. ;)

Well living in iraq for 10 years + relatives in iraq supports my argument...

SADDAM does not support terrorism, all he is after is oil and wealth, he doesnt care about killing americans, he hates bin laden...

Bin laden has spoken against saddam many times..

saddam and his families, just like everyone else want wealth and power, i see nothing wrong with it..

Originally posted by MMemmer
:( Ok, another post without answers to my questions.

Well the Cuban nationals that I know would disagree with you but I think we should put this argument to bed as without additional resource material we could just :argue: about it all day.

As to the Bush election, that was ratified by our Supreme Court (against the obvious bias of Gore supporting judges), the results measured up in court, so let it go, Bush Won!:smokin:

On what basis do you say Bush is soulless, and you show a severe lack in understanding of the USA's government to refer to any of our Presidents as dictator's, even our worst ones don't fall under that title.

And YES I do think that the AMERICAN way of life is the best! I have had the opportunity to teach adults from around the world and bottom line the reason they want to be in the USA is because of the FREEDOM here.

Yes I do believe that Saddam has supported terrorisim and so he is guilty by association in my eyes. The sources I have chosen support this line of theory. I have repeatedly asked you for fact rather than opinion, if you cannot support your argument with fact then I feel that this debate is over. (And yes I offer my Cuban friends and family in Isreal, as the source for my factual discussion.) :argue: :wavey:

I got the number of %99.96 vote for INA (iraqi national news agency), i speak alot with my relatives and freely about the government :)

I will try and search on the internet but i cant guarantee i will find it.. Look i admit saddam was stupid to attack kuwait, i am not a saddam supporter, i just dont want innocent people to die..

Our currency was three times stronger the pound back than..

3 pounds = 1 iraqi dinar! saddam through away our wealth with a stupid attack.. ..

But other than that attack i dont see anything wrong with what hes doing in the country! which article?

SHOW ME PROOF OF SENDING 15 year OLDS TO FIGHT, HE NEVER DID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And i know, since i have relatives in the army, my Cousin is a Airplane engineer (military).

Take a look what turkey does to the kurds, does U.S do anything? noooooo because turkey is a supporter of the U.S!

Originally posted by Hostkookster


Jedito The US did not kill 500,000 of the people of Iraq. You sure?? That is 1/4 of the Germans who died in the first world war! And you say they killed 500,000 people in 6 days?? Get Real!!

The UN posed sanctions on Iraq not the US - thus you are clearly mistaken in your logic. Blame Saddam with that %100.

So Edude you agree with me that Saddam could have saved his people these last 10 years from these UN sanctions because you didn't argue my point. Correct?? Or are you trying to avoid that topic. What did Saddam have to keep secret for 10 years? And Edude where did you get that %99.96 vote?? Please show me where you got that information - or are you just pulling it out of your ass??

Did you actually read the the whole 50 page article?? Or are you just BSing me?

Jedito - Saddam does have chemical weapons, Edude how can you explain the 20 or so presidential palaces in Iraq that are off limits to UN weapons inspectors? When the weapons inpectors originally went into Iraq Satellite pictures caught weapons being moved from location to location. Sound funny to you??

Yes Saddam did poison his own people allbeit the Kurds but they are still in the country. Don't know about you but i'd call that genocide. Yes he did send in 15 year olds to fight! That was a brutal battle, he ran out of soldiers. I'm sure Iran did the same thing.

Jedito, Iraq may have had its "eye" on Kuwait for a while but that doesn't give them the right to invade a completely helpless nation. When the US came in the Iraqis destroyed all of the oil wells on their way out and into Iraq. It poisoned the sky for years - full of thick black smoke. Does Saddam truely care for his people?? If it appears he does it is a simple illusion. This man does not care about the people - he cares about staying in power so he can continually live in the grandeur that he currently experiences. Why are a lot of the Iraqi's so poor? The Iraqi economy is more than capable of bringing these people out of poverty. But why hasn't it happened? Because Saddam is putting tons of money and resources into his weapon programs. And where might these places be hiding - In the Iraqi palaces that are off limits to everyone.

The US has no need for Iraqi oil! I expect if the US invade they won't be staying there very long and they won't be looking for cheap oil when they can get it at home or even Canada. The US doesn't get much Iraqi oil if any.

What the US is afraid about is a nuclear or biological war being waged between Israel and Iraq because Saddam is weeks away from aquiring Nuclear weapons and Israel is already nuclear. When Saddam attacked Israel with his Skud missiles the Israelis sat on their hands at the request of the US. They adamantly told the US that next time they are attacked they would fight back without any restraint. I don't know about you but do you guys want a Middle Eastern Nuclear war? That will create a middle east nuclear winter - destroying all life within several hundred miles with a lasting effect of several decades. Look at Chernobyl - that wasn't even an explosion and people who live within 200 miles of it are still affected by the radioactive material in the atmosphere.

Originally posted by Hostkookster


I said I read through "part" of the book and put it back on the shelf. Looking through it I found within a couple minutes claims that I could clearly disprove. Unfortunately they focus on little pieces of eveidence that back up their claim while ignoring other evidence that would otherwise cast doubt upon it.
And you base your opinion of an entire book because you read "part" of it, oh-well.


Ok, yes i did say the US puts pressure on other countries in my earlier threads however that has no precedent in the UN. The US may economically pressure us but they would have to report to NAFTA for such behavior. Like i said in my previous post - if the UN became a place where the US ruled there would be no UN.

So countries have president with balls, like Fidel, but most of them fall into the USA preasure. Like Argentina did the last march, as I said, go out of your have, stop to watch television, walk the world, and you'll see that the world its so different of what Hollywood say.


You still haven't explained to me why Saddam didn't comply with UN resolutions. 500,000 people dying is not the issue here. Saddam is and his unwillingness to cooperate with the UN. That is what killed the people. He brought these resolutions upon the country after the Gulf War.

Do I have to? do you know why startered the WW II? because the constantly humillation of the German people after the WW I.


I don't agree with everything Tony says in that report, however many things are apparent.

And do you questions the book about the Pentagon attack, geez, can be you more partial?


I do not live in a cage - I read the paper every morning, I'm well informed of world events, i'm currently taking a political science class.

You read the media that tell you what you want to believe, see movies of the biggest media machine (Hollywood), which try to make you believe that all the germans were bad people on WWII, after that all russian were bad people, and all vietnamise were bad people, and all cubans were bad people, the same that want to make you believe that there are 22.000.000 of Saddams in Iraq, and they lives worth less than American lives, that's your cage.


For conversation sake - By looking at Saddams military, and imperial past would you be comfortable saying that he isn't a threat at all? Even it you lived right next to him. Or if you lived in Israel. Look at it from this perspective. I know i'd be getting as far away from that man as possible.


Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF (retired)

...This was the war that would make billions for the oil company owned by the president’s son, George Bush, Jr., who had exclusive rights to offshore oil in the Gulf.

Among the ordnance we used on Iraq were some 500 tons of depleted uranium bombs and artillery shells. The radioactive dust covering the southern part of Iraq has caused birth defects and cancer rates to soar. As if that weren’t enough, we periodically continue to drop bombs and cruise missiles on that devastated nation.

Who are the bad guys here? Ex-CIA agent Saddam Hussein is no saint. But he is only one pawn in a century-long history of western intrigue, torture, murder, and callous disregard for the people who live in what was once a proud nation.

Is it any wonder we are considered the great Satan? Is it any wonder we are hated? Is it any wonder we are the target of terrorists?

We are gathered here to oppose our government’s war against the Iraqi people. But we must not see it as an isolated incident, for it is not. It is but one piece of a bloody history in which foreign policy has been conducted and wars have been fought on behalf of the financial interests of multinational corporations. It is time for a change.

We must build an America at peace with the world … and with its own people. We must build an America that leads the world – not by dominating and manipulating other nations, but by earning their respect and admiration.

We must build an America that strives not to be king of the hill, but to be a responsible member of the family of nations. We must build an America that leads the world – not with military might, but with its vision, its compassion, its democracy, its productivity, its standard of living, its treatment of its own people, and its goodness. That’s the kind of America we want.

I would like to conclude by proposing seven concrete changes we need to make in our government and its policies.

1: We can no longer accept a government which allows us to be number one among industrialized nations: number one in child poverty, number one in the gap between rich and poor, number one in unimmunized children, number one in teen pregnancy, number one in deaths by gunfire, number one in poverty among the elderly, number one in citizens without medical coverage .…. and yet has a trillion dollars worth of new weapons on the books at a time when we just ran out of enemies. It’s time for our priorities to change. Are you with me? Is it time?

2. We can no longer accept a government which promotes and subsidizes arms sales around the world, especially to dictators who use our weapons to control their own impoverished people. Our government didn’t listen to Oscar Romero who pleaded for us to stop sending weapons to El Salvador. Bill Clinton campaigned against the arms trade ... and then doubled it. It’s time to stop pandering to the merchants of death. Are you with me? Is it time?

3. We can no longer accept a government which uses our money to train death squads in the techniques of torture, intimidation, and assassination. The School of the Americas must be closed. Are you with me? Is it time?

4. We can no longer accept a government which gives Most Favored Nation status to the butchers of Tianenmen Square and places an illegal secondary embargo on the impoverished people of Cuba. We must repeal the Helms-Burton law, end the embargo, and establish normalized relations with Cuba. Are you with me? Is it time?

5. We can no longer accept a government in which our relations with the rest of the world are held hostage by the likes of Jesse Helms. We can’t free East Timor unless we first free North Carolina! Are you with me? Is it time?

6. We can no longer accept a government which promotes instability, insurrection, tyranny, torture, terrorism, and murder around the world in our name and with our money through the Central Intelligence Agency. Once and for all, the CIA must be abolished. Are you with me? Is it time?

7. We can no longer accept — we will no longer accept — a government which sends our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so our oil companies can sell the oil under their sand. Do we want our children and grandchildren used as cannon fodder for multinational corporations? Do we? Do want them to be used as hired killers for Folgers, Chiquita Banana, and Exxon? Do we? Better to send them around the world to feed children and rebuild shattered cities. It’s time for us to be the good guys once again. No more Iraqs. No more El Salvadors. No more gunboat diplomacy ... anywhere! Are you with me? Is it time?

We want peace, and we want it now! Are you with me? Is it time?

Then let’s do it. Make them hear us in these buildings, and all the way to Washington. What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Now! Are you with me? Is it time?

Amen, thank you, and God bless you!
January 16, 1999


I wonder why the two biggest enemy of USA are 2 ex-CIA agents, or should I say 2 CIA agents?


Just to let you know, the School of America its the militar school, where USA trained all the dictatorship at least in all South America.

Depleted Uranium Weapons, The Facts !

------- Is the suffering of the Iraqi people a price worth paying?
Madeleine Albright says Yes.

In 1996 Albright was the US ambassador to the United Nations.
In an American TV interview, she was told that 500,000 Iraqi children were thought to have died. ! -------



Depleted Uranium Weapons
http://www2.gol.com/users/bobkeim/Iraq/duintro.html

Here is one of the Gulf War's worst secrets:

The hard outer covering of a lot of the ammunition used against Iraq was made from nuclear waste. This nuclear waste is Depleted Uranium, which is often called DU.

Both the USA and Britain used these weapons against Iraq. However, the Allied soldiers and the people of the Allied countries did not know that Depleted Uranium weapons were being used.

Why was DU used ?

DU is cheap because it is a waste product from the process of making enriched uranium.
DU is very hard: it can easily make a hole in a tank, so it is an effective covering for weapons;


What's the problem?

DU is dangerous to human life and health.

In 1996 the United Nations subcommission on Human Rights said that DU was a weapon of mass destruction, like napalm or cluster bombs.




DU weapons:
the effects in Iraq
http://www2.gol.com/users/bobkeim/Iraq/duiraq.html

An increase in cancers and deformed babies
The Gulf War, when Britain and America used Depleted Uranium weapons against Iraq, was in January and February, 1991.
By early in 1992, there was an alarming increase in the number of babies that were born with deformities, and the number of people with cancer, especially young children. Doctors did not understand why this was happening. It was not until 1993 that the use of DU weapons against Iraq became known.

Very high radiation levels

In the city of Basra, the radiation level in plants and animals is as much as 84 times the level that the World Health Organization says is safe. One of the doctors at Basra General Hospital has taken photographs to record all the babies who have been born with deformities. The pictures are horrifying: babies without eyes, without brains, without arms, without legs, without sex organs, babies with internal organs on the outside of their bodies.....


Since the Gulf War, the number of cancer cases in Iraq has increased by up to 10 times. If cancer cases continue to increase at the same rate, it is estimated that 44% of Iraq's people will have cancer within ten years.
Dying children can't get treatment
There is little that the medical system in Iraq can do because it has been destroyed by the war and the UN sanctions. Until recently even cancer drugs were banned because they contained tiny amounts of radioactive material.


Ray Bristow, a British Gulf War veteran with cancer went back to Baghdad. He could hardly believe what he saw there

' "I am a medic, trained to react with practicality, not emotion; I was surrounded by children dying of leukaemias and cancers who had access to no [treatment] or minimal treatment and all I could do was cry uncontrollably."

Many people cry in Iraq !

Esra is 17 years old. She lies in a hospital bed. She knows that she is dying of cancer. She cannot move, but she can cry. She has been crying for three weeks. She doesn't want to die. She wants to get well, to leave hospital and go home. She wants to live.
Two-year-old Ali does not even have a bed because there are not enough beds.

"This patient is beyond help, there is nothing we can do," the doctor said.

Ali's mother sits on the floor at the entrance to the hospital. She holds her dying child in her arms and cries.


DU weapons:
the effects on Allied soldiers !

Did some Allied governments try to hide the facts?
http://www2.gol.com/users/bobkeim/Iraq/duvets.html

Problems for Gulf War veterans
After the Gulf War, large numbers of Veterans became ill, or they had babies with deformities or rare diseases. At first nobody knew what caused this to happen, but some people began to ask whether the Gulf War was the cause of the problems.

Some people, in countries like the USA, Britain and Canada, tried to find out more about their health problems. However, they found that it was very difficult to get more information -- and it seems that their governments did not like what they were doing.


In the USA


Amy West, had a baby after her husband returned from the Gulf War. The baby was born with a rare lung problem. Soon afterwards, Amy heard about two more babies, both children of Gulf War veterans, who were born with the same condition.

Amy decided to investigate, so she called people in her local area who had been in the Gulf War. 251 of those families had new babies: 67% of the babies were born with something wrong with them.

An old friend, who was a doctor, helped Amy to put her results together and she sent them to a special committee on Gulf War illnesses. The committee said that her results were "unscientific". Her friend, the doctor, told her that he was very sorry but he could not continue to help her - and he couldn't tell her the reason why.


Professor Asaf Durakovic used to be Chief of Nuclear Medicine at the Veterans' Administration Authority a US government department. He worked with sick veterans from the Gulf War. He was horrified when he found out that Depleted Uranium had been used to make weapons, and tried to start a campaign to help veterans who had become ill because of the use of DU weapons.

Immediately, he had problems: the records and samples of his DU patients were often "lost"; the two doctors who carried out tests for him lost their jobs; Dr Durakovic's car was sabotaged twice; he began to receive anonymous telephone calls. In 1997, Dr Durakovic wrote to President Clinton, asking for an enquiry into the problems caused by DU.

Two months later he was fired.



In the UK

Ray Bristow was a medical technician who became sick after he returned from the Gulf War. He is one of a group of Veterans who want the government to test them for DU. Like West and Durakovic, Bristow found that it was difficult to get information from the authorities, and that medical records for Gulf War veterans were frequently "lost".

In December 1998, Bristow and another sick veteran, Colin Purcell Lee, went to Baghdad to attend a conference on the effects of the DU weapons used by the Allies. They were called traitors by a senior member of the British Government.

While they were away, their homes were raided by police from the Ministry of Defence, who took their computers and computer disks. They think the police were looking for a document that proved the Ministry of Defense was secretly very worried about the effects of DU weapons.

Since that time, the Ministry of Defence has agreed to give Gulf War Veterans DU tests



In Canada

Professor Hari Sharma is Professor Emeritus in Chemistry at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. He is very well resepected in his field.

In March 1999, sick veterans from Canada, the USA, the UK and Iraq sent blood samples to Professor Sharma, to be tested for DU. All the tests were positive, and some of the people had more than 100 times the safe amount of DU in their bodies. One of those people was Terry Riordan. He died the day after he received his test results, and the official cause of his death was given as "Gulf War Syndrome".

Professor Sharma was shocked by the results of the tests he had done. He wrote to NATO and to the heads of state of all countries with DU weapons. He said that DU weapons were a crime against humanity and begged these governments to stop using them. He told them that, as a result of using DU weapons in the Gulf War, at least 36,000 more soldiers would die from cancer.

Professor Sharma has been removed from DU testing in Canada

reading the above article, they dont care of their own soldiers as if they would care for iraqi people, only thing that matters to them is oil.

I agree, 2,000 americans die and in return they have to kill 20,000 to make up for the 2,000 who died, its just not fair, all human life is equal.

Originally posted by Jedito

And you base your opinion of an entire book because you read "part" of it, oh-well.

[/b]

So countries have president with balls, like Fidel, but most of them fall into the USA preasure. Like Argentina did the last march, as I said, go out of your have, stop to watch television, walk the world, and you'll see that the world its so different of what Hollywood say.

[/b]

Do I have to? do you know why startered the WW II? because the constantly humillation of the German people after the WW I.



And do you questions the book about the Pentagon attack, geez, can be you more partial?



You read the media that tell you what you want to believe, see movies of the biggest media machine (Hollywood), which try to make you believe that all the germans were bad people on WWII, after that all russian were bad people, and all vietnamise were bad people, and all cubans were bad people, the same that want to make you believe that there are 22.000.000 of Saddams in Iraq, and they lives worth less than American lives, that's your cage.





I wonder why the two biggest enemy of USA are 2 ex-CIA agents, or should I say 2 CIA agents?


Just to let you know, the School of America its the militar school, where USA trained all the dictatorship at least in all South America. [/B]

Originally posted by Jedito

And you base your opinion of an entire book because you read "part" of it, oh-well.

Ya would be a waste of my money ant the time it takes to read it. Apparently official documents. Just talking about the Pentagon attack - they don't take into consideration where the people from the plane actaully went. They do a very good job of supporting their claim however there are some serious cracks in their arguments.
[/b]

So countries have president with balls, like Fidel, but most of them fall into the USA preasure. Like Argentina did the last march, as I said, go out of your have, stop to watch television, walk the world, and you'll see that the world its so different of what Hollywood say.

Once again I say if the US had any influence on UN proceedings there would be no UN. If that were the case the UN would be encouraging the Bombing of Iraq. You don't see that happening.

[/b]

Do I have to? do you know why startered the WW II? because the constantly humillation of the German people after the WW I.

Ok, for starters this agreement to give Germany a dictated peace was not done through the UN, it was done through the League of Nations - a fledgling organization that pales in comparison to the UN. This is not a very good example. Saddam still refused to accept the resolutions - and thus he people suffered because of it. This means it is Saddam's fault, he entered the Gulf War, he made a serious error got his ass kicked and then was punished for it. Are the lives of 500,000 people worth giving up all because Saddam didn't want to hurt his pride.


And do you questions the book about the Pentagon attack, geez, can be you more partial?

Yes I question the pentagon attack Its all fake. that is the problem with the book - it goes into grave detail about events that seriously back up their story, while ignoring other important facts that are vital to explain the events. The book doesn't take this into account and its laughable.


You read the media that tell you what you want to believe, see movies of the biggest media machine (Hollywood), which try to make you believe that all the germans were bad people on WWII, after that all russian were bad people, and all vietnamise were bad people, and all cubans were bad people, the same that want to make you believe that there are 22.000.000 of Saddams in Iraq, and they lives worth less than American lives, that's your cage.

What Jedito?? Ya I believe everything I see on TV, I am like a sponge. I believe all that I see in Hollywood. Go take a cold Bath!
1st of all - I am Half German - so there goes that theory. Second, the people of these other countries were at the whims of their governments. I don't hate any of those people. Just like you said "I don't hate American's just their government." Same thing here! I don't hate Iraqi's I don't believe the Iraqi people are bad I believe Saddam is bad and if Saddam wants to go to war he will without popular support at home. I don't want a nuclear war in the middle east because unless something is done there will be one guaranteed.

I wonder why the two biggest enemy of USA are 2 ex-CIA agents, or should I say 2 CIA agents?

Ahh - no. The article you showed me was from an ex USAF Pilot not an ex-CIA agent. And there was only one USAF Pilot not 2.

Just to let you know, the School of America its the militar school, where USA trained all the dictatorship at least in all South America. [/B]

The School of America?? Is this what it is called? Where is it located? So the dicatators in South America have a degree in Dictatorship? :stickout

Originally posted by edude
Well living in iraq for 10 years + relatives in iraq supports my argument...

SADDAM does not support terrorism, all he is after is oil and wealth, he doesnt care about killing americans, he hates bin laden...

Bin laden has spoken against saddam many times..

saddam and his families, just like everyone else want wealth and power, i see nothing wrong with it..



Wealth and power is just fine - but don't do it at the expense of your people!

We don't know if Saddam supports terrorism or not. However we do know he does support the ousting of the Israelis from Palestine.

Originally posted by edude
reading the above article, they dont care of their own soldiers as if they would care for iraqi people, only thing that matters to them is oil.

If the US invades Iraq how much do you wanna bet that they don't stay around to collect the oil? They will stay to bring peace and order to the region. But thats about it.

Originally posted by edude
I got the number of %99.96 vote for INA (iraqi national news agency), i speak alot with my relatives and freely about the government :)

I will try and search on the internet but i cant guarantee i will find it.. Look i admit saddam was stupid to attack kuwait, i am not a saddam supporter, i just dont want innocent people to die..

Our currency was three times stronger the pound back than..

3 pounds = 1 iraqi dinar! saddam through away our wealth with a stupid attack.. ..

But other than that attack i dont see anything wrong with what hes doing in the country! which article?

SHOW ME PROOF OF SENDING 15 year OLDS TO FIGHT, HE NEVER DID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And i know, since i have relatives in the army, my Cousin is a Airplane engineer (military).

Take a look what turkey does to the kurds, does U.S do anything? noooooo because turkey is a supporter of the U.S!



Ok so Edude, you agree with me that saddam could have saved his people from these UN sanctions and US/British aristrikes just by complying to them?

Its not what he's doing to the country that bothering me - its what he plans to do. A nuclear attack in the middle east is imminent if nothing is done.

Edude I didn't say Saddam used chemical weapons against the Israelis - he used Scud Missiles against them. Just proving that he wants to go to war against israel. And next time Saddam attacks the Israelis are not going to stand down. = Nuclear war!

I'll do some research on the 15 year olds - and i'll give you some sources. :)

Ok, i'll drop the Kurd argument as it is a double standard. I will do some resaerch on the weekend and i'll give you the citations of the articles I find that show that Iraq attacked his own people. This is actually part of a paper i'm doing in school.

Originally posted by Hostkookster


The School of America?? Is this what it is called? Where is it located? So the dicatators in South America have a degree in Dictatorship? :stickout

yes, that's the name, its located in Panama, for been someone who its taking a political science class, you know too little about everything.

Originally posted by Hostkookster


Wealth and power is just fine - but don't do it at the expense of your people!

We don't know if Saddam supports terrorism or not. However we do know he does support the ousting of the Israelis from Palestine.

I do support it as well, that make me a terrorist?

Originally posted by Hostkookster


Ok so Edude, you agree with me that saddam could have saved his people from these UN sanctions and US/British aristrikes just by complying to them?

Its not what he's doing to the country that bothering me - its what he plans to do. A nuclear attack in the middle east is imminent if nothing is done.

And you have proof of this?, for be someone who doesn't even know about the school of america, I doubt it.


Edude I didn't say Saddam used chemical weapons against the Israelis - he used Scud Missiles against them. Just proving that he wants to go to war against israel. And next time Saddam attacks the Israelis are not going to stand down. = Nuclear war!

I'll do some research on the 15 year olds - and i'll give you some sources. :)

What Saddam tried attacking Isreal was an answer from Isreal for them, if it were be in that way he could get the sympathy of the Arab league and maybe some countries will reaise to defend Iraq


Ok, i'll drop the Kurd argument as it is a double standard. I will do some resaerch on the weekend and i'll give you the citations of the articles I find that show that Iraq attacked his own people. This is actually part of a paper i'm doing in school.
No comments about this :)

Before saddam attacked israel.....

with a few scuds....

israel attacked iraq before that and blew up some of our so called "nuclear" factories, we have a right to defend ourselves.

Originally posted by Jedito


And you have proof of this?, for be someone who doesn't even know about the school of america, I doubt it.



What Saddam tried attacking Isreal was an answer from Isreal for them, if it were be in that way he could get the sympathy of the Arab league and maybe some countries will reaise to defend Iraq


No comments about this :)

Originally posted by Jedito
yes, that's the name, its located in Panama, for been someone who its taking a political science class, you know too little about everything. Actually, it was the US Army School of the Americas. It hasn't been located in Panama since 1984 (removed from there under the Panama Canal Treaty); since then it's been in the US, on the grounds of Fort Benning in Georgia.

In January 2001 it was renamed as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC) as part of the annual Defense Authorization Bill.

Essentially it's a military training school operated by the US Army with a mission of training Latin American military personnel in cooperation with their own governments and militaries. Among the graduates are Manual Noriega from Panama, Juan Velasco Alvarado from Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez from Ecuador, and a number of other well-known Central and South American military leaders -- and lesser-known names like the men who were convicted of killing Archbishop Oscar Romero.

Of course that doesn't mean that all of the 50 or 60 thousand graduates have gone on to commit acts like those done by those people. But it does explain why a lot of people who live in that part of the world have a pretty bad opinion of the SOA and of the related policies and expenditures of the US government.

Not only them, take a look to some of the nice people that USA trained on the SOA

Honduras

http://www.soaw.org/Graduates/hond-not.html

Argentina

http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=230

Chile

http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=234

And more of their nice history

http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=343

And finally, the manual for the dictator

http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=98

Very democratic :rolleyes:

Jedito, its so sad the rest of the world doesnt see this, cos its the truth of the U.S...


Most people still see U.S as the saviour, world police LOL!

Maybe they took too serius the motto "America its for the americans" and they though that they were talking about the whole America (North America, Central America, and South American) :D

BTW, I think that the rest of the world do see it, but, or are partners of USA in they atrocities (UK), or don't have the power to confront them.

World Police, hehe;)

Edude you still haven't answered for me why Saddam let his country suffer for 10 years? Please explain I still want to know why.

Jedito,

I will admit that a nuclear war is just speculation, however a war with Israel will give hm so much status within the middle east its worth the price of his people for gaining that prestige. And if he dies doing so he'll be a martyr - a win win situation for him.

Edude I can't find any evidence to back up the claim that Iraq was attacked by the Israelis.

Jedito - i'm not sufficiently educated on the happenings in South America. I know some details but not enough to back up accusations. And i did not say those who support the Israeli ousting are terrorists.

Originally posted by Hostkookster

Jedito - i'm not sufficiently educated on the happenings in South America. I know some details but not enough to back up accusations. And i did not say those who support the Israeli ousting are terrorists.

I think that finally showed my point, the majority of the people, do not know what USA do in the rest of the world, they only know what the propaganda machine want to make them believe.
The rest of the world = Evil
USA = Saints

I'll rest now ;)

Originally posted by Jedito


I think that finally showed my point, the majority of the people, do not know what USA do in the rest of the world, they only know what the propaganda machine want to make them believe.
The rest of the world = Evil
USA = Saints

I'll rest now ;)

Did I imply to you some way that I think what the US has done in South America is saint like? I know a lot of bad stuff went on down there - but to save myself from total embarrasement I don't feel i'm educated enough to make justified comments. I do however know the rest of the world. :)

Stop painting me with the same brush - I am not an American, I'm a Canadian and we aren't fed the same propaganda. (We have our own :D)

Originally posted by Hostkookster


Did I imply to you some way that I think what the US has done in South America is saint like? I know a lot of bad stuff went on down there - but to save myself from total embarrasement I don't feel i'm educated enough to make justified comments. I do however know the rest of the world. :)

No, you simply didn't knew it, you admited in the previus post, but you know how USA "help" :eek: to the south american countries :rolleyes:.

I know that some idiot will took this as an anti-american thing, but USA only did bad things in South America.


Stop painting me with the same brush - I am not an American, I'm a Canadian and we aren't fed the same propaganda. (We have our own :D)

I know you're canadian, you told it in a previus thread, that's why I'm surprissed of how did you absorved all the propaganda.

Originally posted by Jedito


No, you simply didn't knew it, you admited in the previus post, but you know how USA "help" :eek: to the south american countries :rolleyes:.

I know that some idiot will took this as an anti-american thing, but USA only did bad things in South America.



I know you're canadian, you told it in a previus thread, that's why I'm surprissed of how did you absorved all the propaganda. [/B]

Well Canada is not completely disconnected from the US. More like the US is completely discounted with us.

The US doesn't have a great track record. I never said they did. I did say that they have done several good things in South America. The money and supplies they have donated, The arresting of murderous drug lords, (Caught one this week in Columbia) The increased movement of democracy through South America (Not all countries though :D). Granted these are general statments, but they are true. Also true is the US have supported tyrannical dictators, they have done some really stupid things. I totally agree with that. No argument about that here. :)

There its where you're wrong

USA didnt:

The money and supplies they have donated
They only give a little of the money that they took from south america.


The arresting of murderous drug lords, (Caught one this week in Columbia)
Do not forget that a drug lord was Noriega, who were a CIA Agent and close friend of Mr Bush (father). The war against drugs its a joke, you shall know it.


The increased movement of democracy through South America
Maybe its my bad english, but did you read any of my message? ALL, and I mean ALL the dictatorships in Latin America were imposed, pushed, armed and financed by USA. They even supported a militar insurgency in Venezuela the last march.

Originally posted by Jedito
There its where you're wrong

USA didnt:

They only give a little of the money that they took from south america.

Way over $400 million dollars. And I believe that was just Argentina alone.


Do not forget that a drug lord was Noriega, who were a CIA Agent and close friend of Mr Bush (father). The war against drugs its a joke, you shall know it.

Did you get this out of your conspiracy book?
What do you mean its a joke? The only reason why the US government doesn't like drugs is because they have no means of taxing it. Look at Canada - were looking at legalizing marajuana because when we legalize it we can charge taxes on it. Has little to do with health.

Maybe its my bad english, but did you read any of my message? ALL, and I mean ALL the dictatorships in Latin America were imposed, pushed, armed and financed by USA. They even supported a militar insurgency in Venezuela the last march. [/QUOTE]
I'll have to get back to you on that one after I have researched this.

Way over $400 million dollars. And I believe that was just Argentina alone.
Do you know how much money Citibank took from Argentina only in 2001? 12.000 Millons, and that's only in 2001.
I told you also, in the other thread, that Argentina didn't have debt until 1978, when the Militar "Junta" asked for a credit, that goverment was impossed in Argentina by USA. The same goverment, killed 30.000 persons.


Did you get this out of your conspiracy book?

I mean that USA let the lord drugs leave, they have an excuse to put Militar Bases in Colombia, if they really wanted to remove them, they could do it in less than a week.
Do not forget that Colombia its the 4th Oil provider of USA, and Venezuela the 3rd.

Conspiracy? didn't you know that Noriega was a close friend of Bush ? didn't you know either that Noriega was a CIA Agent?

BTW, you said that you read the book about the "attack" to the pentagon, I read it, and it doesn't name to noriega at all, what make me believe, that you didn't even read the cover of the book.


I'll have to get back to you on that one after I have researched this.
Unfortunatelly, I don't have to reasearch anything, because I live in Argentina, and I lost relatives and friend at that time.
Man, you really are obtuse!

Washington's fault; key facts:

The United States needs to mind its business. Staying out of middle eastern affairs would have prevented a lot of terroist acts against Americans.

The increase of people planning terrorist acts using planes; eg: planing to high jack & blow up 9 American planes over the sea. The terrorist attacks in Africa. Very well planned, explode a small bomb to attrack attention, people, Americans, gather around. Explode the bigger bomb and kill all the people whom wondered around the area. That bomb that exploded next to the USS Cole (i think thats how u spell it). The repeated attempts by terrorists to blow up the WTC beforehand. Finding terrorists whom are taking flight classes. An increase of people of middle eastern (no offense but its true) males taking flight classes in the Americas.

Basically, I feel as though our government from the late 80's to the late 90's had plenty of warning. The clues where all there, PLANE here, a PLANE there... I mean gosh, a 10 year old could see it coming. Not only did our government bring terrorism upon itself willing, it also missed the big clues pointing to terrorists attacks. Dont get me wrong, i LOVE America, im proud to say i live in America and im a US citizen. But the fact that our government couldnt protect its citizens, even when it had nearly 10 years of warnings makes me sick to my gut. Lives wasted, not for freedom, that wouldnt be a waste, but for ignorance, stupidity, and not listening to that woman i saw on tv whom advised the US government about future terrorist attacks for 8 freaking years. AhhhZHHh~~!!!! Bull****

Why did Israel unilaterally attack Iraq in 1981?
On June 7, 1981 Israeli warplanes struck the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad. This "unprovoked" action by Israel was a pre-emptive strike to deny Iraq the capability of producing nuclear weapons, weapons Israeli intelligence believed were in the works. Iraqi defenses were taken by surprise and opened fire too late. In one minute and twenty seconds, the reactor lay in ruins. The IAF planes returned to base without losses.

Israeli intelligence had followed the Iraqi military buildup in the late 1970s. Saddam Hussein had assembled an army of 190,000 men organized into 12 divisions, augmented by 2,200 tanks and 450 aircraft. Both the Isreali Labor government of 1974-77 and the Likud government of 1977-81 closely watched and debated what to do about the Osirak reactor then being constructed with considerable French and Italian help.

Labor favored continued diplomatic efforts with the French to head off Iraqi nuclear capability, but Likud under Prime Minister Menachem Begin decided that was too dangerous. The idea of Iraq, or any Arab state, holding nuclear weapons over Israel was intolerable. While estimates of the time left before Iraq would actually have a nuclear weapon ranged from two years to ten years, Begin felt it was too risky to wait because the estimates might be wrong and political developments might make it impossible to strike later. The decision to go ahead was taken and the mission was carried out by nine IAF jets.

Immediately following the raid, Israel announced:

Under no circumstances will we allow an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against our people.
Israel’s preemptive strike against Iraq was heartily condemned in Washington and by the United Nations, although privately most governments, even in the Middle East, were pleased to see the setback to Saddam Hussein's ambition.

Sources and additional reading on this topic:
Raid on the Iraqi Reactor (1981)
Israel's Osirak Attack
Between Iraq and a Hard Place
The diary of the pilot who bombed TAMUZ, the IRAQI nuclear reactor

Reference: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_iraq_1981.php

So, the skuds attack on israel was fair, revenge :)

Defending our land, damnit, let israel go attack india and pakistan, they have nuclear weapons.

edude,

Do you sincerely believe skud attacks on Israel were fair? And you try to rationalize it as revenge?

I couldn't disagree more, and your reference link (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_19...1_iraq_1981.php) is nothing short of political propaganda.

Revenge by definition is based on emotion, something that rarely is rational. Maybe you can come up with some other sources or some deeper thoughts. Im not impressed.

McNair Paper Number 41, Radical Responses to Radical Regimes: Evaluating Preemptive Counter-Proliferation, May 1995


Israel's Osirak Attack
In June 1981, Menachem Begin, then Prime Minister of Israel, faced the same dilemma that had faced Iran concerning Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The Israelis had watched apprehensively for two years as Saddam appeared to be nearing a nuclear weapons capability. The centerpiece of his effort was a French-built Osirak-type nuclear reactor turning out plutonium at Tuwaitah. (Note 40) After considerable internal debate within the Israeli ruling circle, Begin ordered his aircraft to bomb it to derail the Iraqi nuclear bomb effort. (Note 41)

Ariel Sharon, part of the Israeli ruling circle, said that, "This was perhaps the most difficult decision which faced any (Israeli) government during all the years of the state's existence." (Note 42)

Begin and a number of other Israeli leaders have been very effective in dealing with terrorists and tough in making military decisions because they, too, were once urban guerrillas operating from relatively weak military positions. They understood the bottom line on fights to the death; hit first with maximum strength. Those who hesitate may die. No present Western national leaders have had this hard experience or appear to share the street fighter mentality that might be required in a confrontation with a nuclear-armed and hostile radical regime.

Israeli intelligence had followed the Iraqi military buildup in the late 1970s. Saddam Hussein had assembled an army of 190,000 men organized into 12 divisions, augmented by 2,200 tanks and 450 aircraft. (Note 43) Both the Isreali Labor government of 1974-77 and the Likud government of 1977-81 closely watched and debated what to do about the Osirak reactor then being constructed with considerable French and Italian help. (Note 44)

Leaders of the opposition Labor Party had adopted a "wait and see" policy that relied upon diplomacy to try to forestall the Iraq effort. Indeed, in 1981 Peres felt he had an understanding with Francois Mitterand, who had just been elected President of France, to reverse the French policy of helping Iraq in nuclear matters. Therefore, Labor favored continued diplomatic efforts to head off Iraqi nuclear capability. (Note 45)

Prime Minister Menachem Begin, leader of the Likud Party, disagreed completely. He did not trust leaving this matter to the French or to fate. He certainly had no reason to trust in the reasonableness of Saddam Hussein. (Note 46) He felt military action was the only remedy. (Note 47) As one Middle East specialist has written, "For Begin, the prospect of an Iraqi nuclear capability, indeed, any Arab nuclear capability, was totally and irrevocably intolerable. It was a devastating weapon that he had no doubt would be used to try and destroy the Jewish nation, a holocaust in the flick of an eye. Begin approached the issue not only in practical terms, but from a passionately emotional and ideological stance." (Note 48)

"For Begin, a survivor of the Holocaust, Hussein was Hitler, and the Osirak reactor was a technologically advanced version of the Final Solution." (Note 49) Begin's decision told the world that there would be no nuclear holocaust involving Israel in the Twentieth Century.

According to some estimates, Iraq in 1981 was still as much as five to ten years away from the ability to build a nuclear weapon. (Note 50) Others estimated at that time that Iraq might get its first such weapon within a year or two.

Begin struck against the Osirak reactor when he did because he feared that his party would lose the next election, and he did not believe the opposition party would have the toughness to preempt prior to the production of the first Iraqi nuclear bomb. Begin did not want to lose what might be the only chance he would have to save the Jewish state. (Note 51)



There you go FAS is american!!

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/docs/41osi.html

The Chemical Scud attack on Israel happened in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm. This was the attack I was talking about. Was there actually an Iraqi retaliation in 1981??
The Israelis were ready to wreak nuclear war however the US convinced Israel to stand down. If an attack like this should ever happen again Israel will fire nuclear missiles at Saddam.

Interesting story here, according to photographic anaysis scientists Saddam has several "look alikes". They say the real Saddam hasn't been seen in public since 1998. I wonder if that stroke a year ago got him??

Oh and edude you still haven't answered my question. You are really tryin hard to avoid it. :) Why did Saddam let his people suffer for 10 years under UN sanctions?

Originally posted by Hostkookster

Oh and edude you still haven't answered my question. You are really tryin hard to avoid it. :) Why did Saddam let his people suffer for 10 years under UN sanctions?

You're changing roles here, Saddam its not the one who blocked to Iraq.

As I said early, if the USA Army were wanted to remove to Saddam in the 1991, they could do it easily, however, for some reason they leave to Saddam on the power, probably, to force to S.A. and Kuwait to exchange oil for protection.

Originally posted by Jedito


You're changing roles here, Saddam its not the one who blocked to Iraq.

As I said early, if the USA Army were wanted to remove to Saddam in the 1991, they could do it easily, however, for some reason they leave to Saddam on the power, probably, to force to S.A. and Kuwait to exchange oil for protection.

No the UN blocked Iraq, but Saddam could have stopped the blockade by living up to UN resolutions! He didn't and still hasn't and his people have suffered because of it.

Probably?? No that was not the case. After the Gulf War the US decided to go through the UN and do it their way - through economic sanctinos on Iraq. Saddam hasn't lived up to the UN resolutions and so the UN way didn't work. And now the US is taking this into its own hands because as far as they are concerned the UN has failed. Part of the reason why the US stopped short of Baghdad was the negative media coverage that it was getting. Sure the US was winning but when they crossed into Iraq it wasn't a fair fight anymore. This wasn't very appealing to the Bush Gov't back home. Another Reason was that the Resolution to liberate Kuwait said that it should only Liberate Kuwait not take out Iraq.

No the UN blocked Iraq, but Saddam could have stopped the blockade by living up to UN resolutions! He didn't and still hasn't and his people have suffered because of it.

The people at iraq its suffering because the blockade, do not change the things, 500.000 childrens dead its almost an holocaust, and has been caused by USA. PLEASE, don't tell me that its a UN blockade, I explained over and over again why the UN run with the USA rules.


And now the US is taking this into its own hands because as far as they are concerned the UN has failed
Ohhh.. and why Iraq have to follow the UN rules, when US don't do it?


US stopped short of Baghdad was the negative media coverage that it was getting. Sure the US was winning but when they crossed into Iraq it wasn't a fair fight anymore

LOL, good joke, no tell me other, you're a great comedian :)

Was the invasion to Haiti a fair fight? and the invasion to Panama? how about the invasion to Afghanistan? Don't even talk about the invasion in Vietnam.

Originally posted by Jedito


The people at iraq its suffering because the blockade, do not change the things, 500.000 childrens dead its almost an holocaust, and has been caused by USA. PLEASE, don't tell me that its a UN blockade, I explained over and over again why the UN run with the USA rules.


Ohhh.. and why Iraq have to follow the UN rules, when US don't do it?



LOL, good joke, no tell me other, you're a great comedian :)

Was the invasion to Haiti a fair fight? and the invasion to Panama? how about the invasion to Afghanistan? Don't even talk about the invasion in Vietnam.

Sorry, wrong words to use, thanks I try. Guess I put my foot in my mouth :) US lost the war in Vietnam.

It has not been caused by the US?? How don't you see that - It is a UN resolution passed by the UN General Assembly. If the US has any influence over a country there would be no UN. You still don't understand that concept. If the UN went along with the US then there would be war in Iraq right now with a UN resolution backing it. Explain this - Even Kofi Anan UN General Secretary has told Iraq to live up to UN resolutions. Do you think the US has any bearing on him?? There is no basis for your argument. It is a UN resolution that put sanctions on Iraq - if you can show otherwise please give me the evidence. Otherwise save your breath.

Do you agree with me that Iraq could have been saved from these sanctions by living up to the resolutions?

Umm, is there a resolution against the US not to attack Iraq? I don't see any rules broken.

US lost the war in Vietnam
That's its care? was fair the invation? was fair what the US soldiers did in Vietnam? killing and bombing childrens and womans? no no, I don't read that in the book that you never read.

How about the invastion to Panama and Haiti?

if you can show otherwise please give me the evidence
Blockade to Cuba. Enought to say.


the US not to attack Iraq
Wonder why :confused:,
there was a resolution against Iraq to not attack Kuwait before 1991?


Do you agree with me that Iraq could have been saved from these sanctions by living up to the resolutions
No, Iraq could save lives, if it weren't for that animal sanction.

Originally posted by Jedito

That's its care? was fair the invation? was fair what the US soldiers did in Vietnam? killing and bombing childrens and womans? no no, I don't read that in the book that you never read.

How about the invastion to Panama and Haiti?

Blockade to Cuba. Enought to say.


Wonder why :confused:,
there was a resolution against Iraq to not attack Kuwait before 1991?


No, Iraq could save lives, if it weren't for that animal sanction.

I know the story in Vietnam - It was horrible what happened, do you think I support that?? Sorry, I completely apoligize for my remark earlier, wrong words to have used in the wrong context. Stop alluding to your South American references. They don't support your argument. Different Part of the World.

Cuba has nothing to do with this. We are talking about Iraq. You're changing the subject and moving it to South America. We are talking about the Middle East.

There was a resolutino not to attack Kuwait because Iraq had threatened before. You said it yourself that the Iraqi's thought Kuwait was part of Iraq. Ya "enough to say" because you can't tell me why Iraq hasn't lived up to the resolutions. :D There is no evidence on your part about the Middle East and Saddam's refusal to comply with the resolutions- you can only pick things out in South America.

Animal Sanction?? Yes they could have saved lives if it weren't for Saddam and his stubornness. Hmm explain to me if everyone believed this was an animal sanction why they got a majority vote (%66) and passed this resolution? Saddam was at fault for the Gulf War, he went against a UN resolution and thus Iraq was sanctioned. This is all Saddam!

Originally posted by Hostkookster


I know the story in Vietnam - It was horrible what happened, do you think I support that?? Sorry, I completely apoligize for my remark earlier, wrong words to have used in the wrong context. Stop alluding to your South American references. They don't support your argument. Different Part of the World.
No, I wont stop alluding to South America, because I'm showing a patron of conduct. I more familiar with the South America history than with Middle-East.


Cuba has nothing to do with this. We are talking about Iraq. You're changing the subject and moving it to South America. We are talking about the Middle East.

Cuba its an example of how USA manipulated the UN to a blockade to a helpless country, just because they don't like the governant.


There was a resolutino not to attack Kuwait because Iraq had threatened before.
Where is it that resolution? can you please show me that? because I never noticied of it, but probably its my ignorance.


You said it yourself that the Iraqi's thought Kuwait was part of Iraq.
Iraq didn't invaded Kuwait before 1990. So, you're talking bs.
Ya "enough to say" because you can't tell me why Iraq hasn't lived up to the resolutions.

My "Enough to say" was for your "It is a UN resolution that put sanctions on Iraq - if you can show otherwise please give me the evidence."
I told Cuba as an evidence.


:D There is no evidence on your part about the Middle East and Saddam's refusal to comply with the resolutions- you can only pick things out in South America.

I only show you how US did it before and after, if you think that Iraq its an strange case, that's up to you.


Animal Sanction?? Yes they could have saved lives if it weren't for Saddam and his stubornness. Hmm explain to me if everyone believed this was an animal sanction why they got a majority vote (%66) and passed this resolution? Saddam was at fault for the Gulf War, he went against a UN resolution and thus Iraq was sanctioned. This is all Saddam!

If you think that a sanction to kill 500.000 childrens its not animal, then, I don't know what is it.
And I wont tell you again how the US manipulate the UN votation, because you don't want or can't understand it. So, its a waste of time to try to explain you again.

Reading this argument, I find that both the US populace and the rest of the world are being fed propaganda that supports their beliefs. IMHO a war would probably generate more terrorist attacks and incite more anger.

The best way we can prevent a war with Iraq right now is to write, no, call our representatives in Congress. That's why they have email and telephones in their offices. As it stands, they probably think we have no problem with it.

In the meantime, let's agree to disagree and move on. This isn't going anywhere. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Jedito
No, I wont stop alluding to South America, because I'm showing a patron of conduct. I more familiar with the South America history than with Middle-East.

Ok then you should shut up just like I don't know much about South American history. Edude should really be here. Where'd he go??

Cuba its an example of how USA manipulated the UN to a blockade to a helpless country, just because they don't like the governant.

The US doesn't manipulate the UN - countries who vote in the UN make their own decision based on what matters to them most. The US has no influence on proceedings. This is why there is a UN. Cuba is still unfortunately a product of the cold war. Do you think any capitalistic nations are going to back a communist regime??


Where is it that resolution? can you please show me that? because I never noticied of it, but probably its my ignorance.

I thought you had found a resolution. :) I did find the UN resolution which stated unless Iraq withdraws from Kuwait by January 15 all states may do what is necessary to restore the sovreignty of Kuwait provided they act under the Geneva Convention.


Iraq didn't invaded Kuwait before 1990. So, you're talking bs.

Did I say Iraq invaded Kuwait prior to 1990? I don't remember me typing such words. Thats almost humorous. Where did you get that from?


My "Enough to say" was for your "It is a UN resolution that put sanctions on Iraq - if you can show otherwise please give me the evidence."
I told Cuba as an evidence.

It was a UN resolution that put sanctions on Iraq. And it is a UN resolution that put Cuba under sanctions as well. Castro and Saddam really should go to lunch some time. :D
I still say its a different part of the world which has different political structures thus requiring different political strategy. Cuba is not the issue.


I only show you how US did it before and after, if you think that Iraq its an strange case, that's up to you.

Ahh, techincally you can only see what the US did before. You can't look into the future. :D
The turmoil in the Middle East is different than that in South America.


If you think that a sanction to kill 500.000 childrens its not animal, then, I don't know what is it.
And I wont tell you again how the US manipulate the UN votation, because you don't want or can't understand it. So, its a waste of time to try to explain you again.

Well then why wasn't the sanction overturned?? It certainly could have been over those 10 years. It was never once brought up. I've looked at the records on the UN website. Saddam, at the request of the Human Rights Commission turned down the
oil-for-food programme. Why would he do such a thing? I bet he was trying to gain sympathy throughout the Arab world by making his people suffer more. He eventually adopted it after there were threats to his regime.

Please its not a waste of time, tell me how the US manitpulated the results. You haven't explained how. OR is this just your opinion??

Originally posted by mind21_98
Reading this argument, I find that both the US populace and the rest of the world are being fed propaganda that supports their beliefs. IMHO a war would probably generate more terrorist attacks and incite more anger.

The best way we can prevent a war with Iraq right now is to write, no, call our representatives in Congress. That's why they have email and telephones in their offices. As it stands, they probably think we have no problem with it.

In the meantime, let's agree to disagree and move on. This isn't going anywhere. :rolleyes:

Alright sounds good, I haven't slept because of this debate. I must admit it's been a ton of fun :D

My Final Thought - Unless the US doesn't get UN backing of an Iraqi invasion they are in the wrong.

Who started this thread anywhay? Oh ya Good ol' Ned. :D

Originally posted by Hostkookster

Ok then you should shut up just like I don't know much about South American history. Edude should really be here. Where'd he go??

Unfortunatelly, you talk about everything, and you know about nothing. You showed a lack of knowlodge about middle-east as well, so, shut up. I never said that I don't know about middle-east history, I said that I'm more familiar with the South America History. Do you understand that? or don't even this?


The US doesn't manipulate the UN - countries who vote in the UN make their own decision based on what matters to them most. The US has no influence on proceedings. This is why there is a UN. Cuba is still unfortunately a product of the cold war. Do you think any capitalistic nations are going to back a communist regime??

Man, grab this in your mind, and DONT TELL ME AGAIN THAT COUNTRIES MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION!.
USA PUT PREASSURE TO COUNTRIES TO MAKE THEM VOTE AS USA WANT. Ex: Last votation against Cuba, USA told to the Argentinian embasador, that if Argentina didn't vote agains Cuba, we wont get any econmical help. If that its not manipulation, then I don't know what is it.
I HAVE to tell you again, that the debt condition in Argentina started by the gov. that USA installed in Argentina in 1976.



I thought you had found a resolution. :) I did find the UN resolution which stated unless Iraq withdraws from Kuwait by January 15 all states may do what is necessary to restore the sovreignty of Kuwait provided they act under the Geneva Convention.
Are you playing? did you read what you write? do you have short time memory? can you read your previus post?

You said "There was a resolutino not to attack Kuwait because Iraq had threatened before"
Then, where is that resolution? which is it? or its just your thought?


Did I say Iraq invaded Kuwait prior to 1990? I don't remember me typing such words. Thats almost humorous. Where did you get that from?

Just a reminder "There was a resolutino not to attack Kuwait because Iraq had threatened before"


It was a UN resolution that put sanctions on Iraq. And it is a UN resolution that put Cuba under sanctions as well. Castro and Saddam really should go to lunch some time. :D
I still say its a different part of the world which has different political structures thus requiring different political strategy. Cuba is not the issue.

You know nothing about cuba, and still give opinions, which make think that you know nothing about Iraq and you still give opinions about it as well.


Ahh, techincally you can only see what the US did before. You can't look into the future. :D
The turmoil in the Middle East is different than that in South America.


Yes, I can, Blockade to Cuba in 198x (I can't remember the exact date), Blockade to Iraq 1991, Invasion to Afghanistan 2001, War in Iraq 2002 sure, that I can, what's your point anyway?

And don't forget that USA trained, armed and financed to the Batista supporters who tried to invade Cuba (Bahia Cochinos-Playa Giron)


Well then why wasn't the sanction overturned?? It certainly could have been over those 10 years. It was never once brought up. I've looked at the records on the UN website. Saddam, at the request of the Human Rights Commission turned down the
oil-for-food programme. Why would he do such a thing? I bet he was trying to gain sympathy throughout the Arab world by making his people suffer more. He eventually adopted it after there were threats to his regime.


Do you know how was the "oil-for-food" program? the UN/USA leave to Iraq to sell only a limited quantity of Oil, and they should use that money in what the UN/USA said, of course, a nation with pride wont go to accept that. Its humiliating.



Please its not a waste of time, tell me how the US manitpulated the results. You haven't explained how. OR is this just your opinion??
Yes, at least to try to explain it to you, its a waste of time, because I did it at least 3 times, and if still its not clear to you, read up in this same post, I answered through another question.

Originally posted by Hostkookster
Alright sounds good, I haven't slept because of this debate. I must admit it's been a ton of fun :D

Or we could keep going and get more posts than that acronym post, and maybe even break a WHT record. :D

Jedito is right, do you know how much cheap/free oil kuwait and Saudi arabia export to bush's family!!!#!#!%! and the whole U.S!

Thats the only reason they didnt remove saddam, its obvious...

Now kuwait and saudi's oil is running out, time to get more oil... Go look at the republicans they all own businesses concerning oil from the middle east and even bush senior has rights to middle eastern oil!

Your question, its not saddam's fault, its the U.S fault, for oil you made iraqi people suffer, why not go into iraq and remove him? but noooooo you wanted cheap oil from kuwait/saudi, so you caused as much grief as saddam did for his people.

Originally posted by edude
Jedito is right, do you know how much cheap/free oil kuwait and Saudi arabia export to bush's family!!!#!#!%! and the whole U.S!

Thats the only reason they didnt remove saddam, its obvious...

Now kuwait and saudi's oil is running out, time to get more oil... Go look at the republicans they all own businesses concerning oil from the middle east and even bush senior has rights to middle eastern oil!

Your question, its not saddam's fault, its the U.S fault, for oil you made iraqi people suffer, why not go into iraq and remove him? but noooooo you wanted cheap oil from kuwait/saudi, so you caused as much grief as saddam did for his people.

I didn't want to post here again in this thread but Edude your alive! :D



No that doesn't answer my question. Why didn't Saddam live up to UN resolutions? That is the question.
I've said it before in this post the US decided to do it the way the UN wanted them to. The UN has failed in its attempt at disarming Iraq peacefully. And so now the US is taking it into their own hands. I believe Bush is going in to finish the job his Dad started. If there was even a hint that the US had an oil shortage don't you think there would be someone somewhere alerting people to it?

If the Bushes have oil rights in the MIddle East wouldn't the Democratic opposition use this against him? Especially now that there is an election in a month.

I officially retire this post!

Saddam didnt live up to UN resolutions, how so?

Bush even said this on live TV: "Saddam tried to kill my daddy"

hahahaha


makes him look like a little kid, big deal, go and get revenge you loser!

Originally posted by edude
Saddam didnt live up to UN resolutions, how so?

Bush even said this on live TV: "Saddam tried to kill my daddy"

hahahaha


makes him look like a little kid, big deal, go and get revenge you loser!

Damn your good at avoiding the question. Iraq has not given UN weapons inspectors unrestricted access to all of its buildings. If I can find it i'll show you the resolution passed that discusses this. They're all on the UN website.

Haha, i'm no Bush fan either. :D

Here is the original 1991 UN resolution against Iraq. Scanned even :)

http://daccess-ods.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement

Originally posted by Hostkookster
Here is the original 1991 UN resolution against Iraq. Scanned even :)

http://daccess-ods.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement

As I read that I think, "if America doesn't want nuclear weapons, maybe it should get rid of its own". And if they really want a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, why aren't they slapping Israel too:

http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Israel/
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

(those sites don't seem to say for a fact it has em though)

Anyways, just my thoughts. :D

they dont want othershaving nukes we have our own to keep our butt safe...

Originally posted by interactive
they dont want othershaving nukes we have our own to keep our butt safe...

True, but it does seem hypocritical anyway. :rolleyes:

when bush was governor, in texas, a black man was chained to a truck and drug until decapitated, because of this racsist crime, an act was started to make crimes involving racism in texas have a larger penalty, bush proposed and assured, that this act died in congress. Bush failed to send the mans family flowers or a message of compinsation. That didnt stop him from donating countless amounts of money to the 'Daughters of the Confederation' that same year.

bush's dealings are corrupt. His parents were. His fathers father, prescot bush, is known for having dealings with hitler.

Mind, thats right, what about israel? because they are your allies you neglect them? they can have nukes haha....

I wouldnt want someone searching my private areas aswell, palaces etc...

Ninji :agree: :agree:

Yes that is hypocritical. I agree :)

Edude you still haven't answerd my question :):):):):) Or have I made my point.

Why? ask scott ritter, bunch of spies nothing else...

Richard butler was a spy for the CIA, and most of the inspectors were from the U.S, now thats not fair is it? also the inspectors left he didnt kick them out.

Originally posted by edude
Why? ask scott ritter, bunch of spies nothing else...

Richard butler was a spy for the CIA, and most of the inspectors were from the U.S, now thats not fair is it? also the inspectors left he didnt kick them out.

You refuse to answer, so then you can't explain Saddam's non compliance. Well good, it proves my point.

No, Saddam didn't kick them out but if there are armed guards standing in front of the building you would like to inspect wouldn't you leave? That was the problem Saddam didn't give the inspectors "unrestricted access." All he would have needed to do was say yes and the sanctions would have been lifted immediately as per the UN resolution.

Originally posted by Hostkookster


You refuse to answer, so then you can't explain Saddam's non compliance. Well good, it proves my point.

No, Saddam didn't kick them out but if there are armed guards standing in front of the building you would like to inspect wouldn't you leave? That was the problem Saddam didn't give the inspectors "unrestricted access." All he would have needed to do was say yes and the sanctions would have been lifted immediately as per the UN resolution.

What a joke!, I wonder if the UN shall create the same kind of resolution after that US lost the vietnam war.
"unrestricted access" how humilliant can that be?

BTW, you didn't proved a single point in 14 page, but you can keep trying.

Originally posted by ned patter
You have been listening to too much TV Xtstrike, it's very strange how this disaster has happened while Bush is in power and quite frankly seems to be using his powers to bully others.

Couldn't agree more :/

Originally posted by Jedito


What a joke!, I wonder if the UN shall create the same kind of resolution after that US lost the vietnam war.
"unrestricted access" how humilliant can that be?

BTW, you didn't proved a single point in 14 page, but you can keep trying.

Well lets see here, different circumstance. US went into Vietnam themselves, they had no UN resolution. We all remember the gulf of tonkin incident. (I call that a joke:D) The US didn't fight a war on their soil, they were simply kicked out of another country.
Iraq is different - Saddam without warning or legitimate reason invaded Kuwait. Through a joint UN force Iraq was beaten. The standard practice after war is to disarm the beligerant country. This has happened time and time again in history. Add to that Iraq's attack with Scud missiles (chemical I might add) on Israel. In the case of Vietnam there was no belligerant country. The US had reason to go in. It may have been a BS story but everyone believed them. Saddam had no reason - it was for pure imperialism.

Jedito you know exactly what my point is - stop playing dumb. It discredits your intellect.

I'll ask again. And Edude had better answer.
Why did Saddam let his people suffer for 10 years under the UN sanctions when all it could have taken was cooperation with UN weapons inspectors. Instead he chose to break the rules for 10 years. My point is how can you say Saddam loves his people when he has subjected them to undue poverty for 10 years that was completely, 100% avoidable?

Any proof of chemical scud missles used against israel? comon, they were just plain scud missles, not even accurate, half of them imssed..

Whilst israeli killed 50+ innocent iraqis in the 80's when they attacked out nuclear plant..

Originally posted by Hostkookster


Well lets see here, different circumstance. US went into Vietnam themselves, they had no UN resolution. We all remember the gulf of tonkin incident. (I call that a joke:D) The US didn't fight a war on their soil, they were simply kicked out of another country.

Exactly!! They invaded another country, killed thousand of people,
and no sanction to them? WHAT A JOKE!
BTW, the war started in kuwait, and then USA invaded Iraq, so, the war started in Kuwait not in Iraq, even that for me it doesn't matter where the war started, I just wanted to show you, that again you're wrong.


Iraq is different - Saddam without warning or legitimate reason invaded Kuwait. Through a joint UN force Iraq was beaten. The standard practice after war is to disarm the beligerant country. This has happened time and time again in history.

If you read history, you should know why the WW II started, for a circumstance similar to that, a country humilled and sunked in the misery because a UN resolution (at that time, the name wasent UN, but I can't remember the original one).
Invaded vietnam withour reason, at least, the Iraq/kuwait issue can be be confuse, because are two countries near each other, the vietnam/usa can't be confuse for the same reason.

The USA lost the war, did it was disarmed? if you say that has happened time and time again, why didn't happened to USA after lost the war?


Add to that Iraq's attack with Scud missiles (chemical I might add) on Israel.

You're lying, I don't know if its because your ignorance, or if you do it deliberately, scuds didn't have chemical head.
Where did you took all that BS?.


In the case of Vietnam there was no belligerant country. The US had reason to go in. It may have been a BS story but everyone believed them. Saddam had no reason - it was for pure imperialism.

You call to Saddam imperialist and you're defending USA?
Are you kidding?
What was the reason of why US invaded Vietnam? care to tell me please?


Jedito you know exactly what my point is - stop playing dumb. It discredits your intellect.
No, to be honest I don't know what's your point.


I'll ask again. And Edude had better answer.
Why did Saddam let his people suffer for 10 years under the UN sanctions when all it could have taken was cooperation with UN weapons inspectors. Instead he chose to break the rules for 10 years. My point is how can you say Saddam loves his people when he has subjected them to undue poverty for 10 years that was completely, 100% avoidable?

I'll say it again, the UN/USA imposed the blockade, the blockade its killing people, not saddam. If the UN/USA wanted to remove to Saddam they could do it. They didn't removed in 1991 because they wanted to Saddam on power.

Originally posted by Jedito

If you read history, you should know why the WW II started, for a circumstance similar to that, a country humilled and sunked in the misery because a UN resolution (at that time, the name wasent UN, but I can't remember the original one).

Are you referring to the League of Nations?

Originally posted by mind21_98


Are you referring to the League of Nations?

Exactly!, which was created after the WW I, supposedly "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security"
But the first thing that it does was put to Germany in the missery, and they were put in humilliant conditions, and of course, that resolution forced the WW II.

Originally posted by Jedito
Exactly!, which was created after the WW I, supposedly "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security"
But the first thing that it does was put to Germany in the missery, and they were put in humilliant conditions, and of course, that resolution forced the WW II.

Wasn't the surrender agreement made before the League of Nations was formed, though?

As far as I know, was created at the same time, the first resolution was the Treaty of Versailles, which was the Germany surrender agreement.

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/ver001.html <- actual text of the Treaty of Versailles

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:Sm6ghSNMWGQC:www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/armistice.html+armistice+germany&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (the real site was down, so the Google cache will have to do)

Neither seem to reference each other. Hmm.

An event like Sept. 11th is not about blame, nor should there be focus on blame.

Originally posted by clio
An event like Sept. 11th is not about blame, nor should there be focus on blame.

How true. Now, if Bush had followed that motto, we wouldn't have troops in Afghanistan right now. :(

Thanks for force me to study again :), I was wrong, but not that wrong ;), I knew that it were a relationship between both, but first was the teatry of vastille and after that the League of the nations was created as part of it.

"The League of Nations was an international organization established in 1919 by part I of the Treaty of Versailles"

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

"The League of Nations was founded in 1919 as a result of the Treaty of Versailles and the end of World War I. "

http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/abouteleanor/q-and-a/glossary/league-of-nations.htm

Jedito, are you up on European history, obviously not...:rolleyes:

The German people were humiliated because they believed that their own government - the Weimer Republic - had double crossed them and ended the war just as the German's were winning. This of course couldn't have been more further from the truth. Another factor was the War Guilt Clause #231, which said that Germany was solely at fault for the war. They blamed this on the Weimar Republic as well. Many historians believe that WWI never ended, it just entered a cease fire until WWII. The only reason why the German people went into battle once again was because of the Propaganda that Hitler had instilled in them. I'm sure you know that he was an excellent orator, and he knew how to play a crowd. I don't believe anyone else in that time could have done that kind of a propaganda job like he did. Yes they called it a dictated peace, it was. This peace was not like any other before. In past European battles the loser was present at the negotiations. In this case they weren't and the German people thought their government had screwed them over. That is the reason for the humiliation. Germany wasn't part of the negotiations in WWII so why is there not another war in Europe?? Bad Example Jedito.

Vietnam was during the Cold War unfortunately. No self-respecting capitalistic country was going to oppose what the US did. Not even the UN, an organization built on democratic diplomacy that is for the "free world". That was the problem Communism didn't mean freedom. Where the Iraq Kuwait war started makes no difference to me either, and I never said it started in Iraq?? Somewhere we are getting our signals crossed here.

The League of Nations, like I said before, was nothing more than a dream by Woodrow Wilson to make the world a peaceful place. The US never joined the LON, and it became a European debating forum that was pretty much useless. There were many problems with the LON - all of which are not present in the UN.

Yes the Scud's had Chemical components. Because some of the Scud's were poorly designed they broke up in the atmosphere, or Israeli patriot missiles shot them down. The missiles carried with them Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid (IRFNA). Granted without this chemical the rockets would not have fired - but the substance is like an asphixiation substance, like chlorene gas, that burns the skin and makes breathing very hard. These missiles were fired from Iraqi territory 88 in all - 46 of them hit a coalition countries. The others either didn't explode or broke up in the atmosphere. When they were in the atmosphere and broke up several people noticed a red substance that suddenly burst from the rocket and blanketed the people below. This substance was IRFNA, and under Geneva convention rules any and all weapons using any such gas to burn or asphixiate individauls is strickly prohibited.

Yes Saddam is an imperialist. A true imperialist decides that he is going into a country for nothing more than money and resources, and has aboslutely no business in doing so. Now the US has gone in to countries however they always have a case to plead like "self defense". I don't condone all of the US's actions or their excuses because quite honestly I believe some of them are pointless as well.

No they didn't remove Saddam because that would not have been democratic thus the UN would have been going against the very things that they try to uphold. And don't put the UN and the US together. They are not a joint organization, if this were true we would have war right now, with a UN resolution. Or there just wouldn't be a UN.

Unfortuneatley this still doesn't answer my question. Yes Saddam made his people suffer. If he had let the inspectors in there would not have been any blockade, and thus there would be no reason for us to have this argument. Edude still can't answer my question because he has no answer, because the only answer is that Saddam doesn't care about his people, he cares about his political prestige in the Arab world!

Originally posted by Hostkookster
[B]Jedito, are you up on European history, obviously not...:rolleyes:

The German people were humiliated because they believed that their own government - the Weimer Republic - had double crossed them and ended the war just as the German's were winning. This of course couldn't have been more further from the truth. Another factor was the War Guilt Clause #231, which said that Germany was solely at fault for the war. They blamed this on the Weimar Republic as well. Many historians believe that WWI never ended, it just entered a cease fire until WWII. The only reason why the German people went into battle once again was because of the Propaganda that Hitler had instilled in them. I'm sure you know that he was an excellent orator, and he knew how to play a crowd. I don't believe anyone else in that time could have done that kind of a propaganda job like he did. Yes they called it a dictated peace, it was. This peace was not like any other before. In past European battles the loser was present at the negotiations. In this case they weren't and the German people thought their government had screwed them over. That is the reason for the humiliation. Germany wasn't part of the negotiations in WWII so why is there not another war in Europe?? Bad Example Jedito.
Are you nuts? the humillation was because Germany has to pay huge amouths of money, the country was reduced to the 13% of the original size, Hittler born as an answer of that humillation, he couldn't be there with a Germany in better conditions.
The people went into battle because they were starving, Hittler gave them a false hope, but a hope a least, and that's why they got all those millons following, seems like you read the history with the books upside down. Geez, you're incredible.
Where do you think that this people came from where? that Hittle could get that support without the necessary conditions?.


Vietnam was during the Cold War unfortunately. No self-respecting capitalistic country was going to oppose what the US did. Not even the UN, an organization built on democratic diplomacy that is for the "free world". That was the problem Communism didn't mean freedom. Where the Iraq Kuwait war started makes no difference to me either, and I never said it started in Iraq?? Somewhere we are getting our signals crossed here.
And how it care when the war started? didn't USA invaded an smalles country in the other side of the world? did USA lost the war? was USA disarmed? why did you changes the points here?


The League of Nations, like I said before, was nothing more than a dream by Woodrow Wilson to make the world a peaceful place. The US never joined the LON, and it became a European debating forum that was pretty much useless. There were many problems with the LON - all of which are not present in the UN.
....

Yes the Scud's had Chemical components. Because some of the Scud's were poorly designed they broke up in the atmosphere, or Israeli patriot missiles shot them down. The missiles carried with them Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid (IRFNA). Granted without this chemical the rockets would not have fired - but the substance is like an asphixiation substance, like chlorene gas, that burns the skin and makes breathing very hard. These missiles were fired from Iraqi territory 88 in all - 46 of them hit a coalition countries. The others either didn't explode or broke up in the atmosphere. When they were in the atmosphere and broke up several people noticed a red substance that suddenly burst from the rocket and blanketed the people below. This substance was IRFNA, and under Geneva convention rules any and all weapons using any such gas to burn or asphixiate individauls is strickly prohibited.

Proof? or again you don't have any?
At least there are proof of the depleted uranium used by the USA in the desert storm, and I don't think that its permited by the Geneva convention, neither its permited what USA its doing with the afghans prissioners in Guantano. If you want that other follow the rules, you have to do it before.


Yes Saddam is an imperialist. A true imperialist decides that he is going into a country for nothing more than money and resources, and has aboslutely no business in doing so. Now the US has gone in to countries however they always have a case to plead like "self defense". I don't condone all of the US's actions or their excuses because quite honestly I believe some of them are pointless as well.
Ok, read more history and come back, you can't say with a minimun knowlodge that Iraq its an imperialist country and the "defender of the freedom" its not. Its pretty pointless keep talking about this.


No they didn't remove Saddam because that would not have been democratic thus the UN would have been going against the very things that they try to uphold. And don't put the UN and the US together. They are not a joint organization, if this were true we would have war right now, with a UN resolution. Or there just wouldn't be a UN.

Huh? was democratic to invade Panama and removing Noriega? was democratic to invade Afghanistan? was democratic to impose dictatorship all over the world? was democratic to instaure to Saddam in Iraq?

What the heck has the democracy been here? if USA never respected in the world, they only did it in USA, and not always.


Unfortuneatley this still doesn't answer my question. Yes Saddam made his people suffer. If he had let the inspectors in there would not have been any blockade, and thus there would be no reason for us to have this argument. Edude still can't answer my question because he has no answer, because the only answer is that Saddam doesn't care about his people, he cares about his political prestige in the Arab world!

Guess that you don't understand that your question was answered too many times, but, as I said early, you don't have the capacity or you don't want to understand it.

Even if Saddam recently gave permission to the inspectors, USA want to still attack them, and don't come with **** now, Iraq gave permission to the UN for the first 2 years, but even if he gave permission the blockade was still there, please, don't come back with this pointless thing, has been answered too many time.

Bush had nothing to do with the September 11, 2001 incidents, other than being the President at that particular time.

I don't agree with how he is handling the issue as a whole though.

For example, why is our focus on Iraq? What happened to the coporate scams? Bin Laden?

I think a better poll would be, "Do you think Bin Laden is dead?"

Originally posted by Jedito
[B]
[quote]
Are you nuts? the humillation was because Germany has to pay huge amouths of money, the country was reduced to the 13% of the original size, Hittler born as an answer of that humillation, he couldn't be there with a Germany in better conditions.
The people went into battle because they were starving, Hittler gave them a false hope, but a hope a least, and that's why they got all those millons following, seems like you read the history with the books upside down. Geez, you're incredible.
Where do you think that this people came from where? that Hittle could get that support without the necessary conditions?.


Starving??:laugh: There was no horrendous poverty in Germany, Hitler fixed that. He nationalized all of their factories, the reason why Hitler was so popular was because he helped the German people out of the depression and brought the inflation rate in Germany way down. The best part of this is Hitler was taken into parliamet under President Hindenburg because they thought if they finally gave him what he wanted (A place in the German government) he would shut up. Boy were they wrong :D
They went to war because they were starving?? I've never heard of such a thing. Hitler gave people hope, despite his antisemitism. And by doing this he preyed on the peoples want for revenge, singling out the Jews. Hitler wanted Lebensraum and the people that went into battle with him believed they were fighting for a greater Germany. If you've ever heard Hitler speak for hours on end its nearly hypnotising, How long has it been since you cracked open a history book? Also look up the War Guilt Clause #231 - this was a vital part of the humiliation of Germany. Saying that they were solely responsible for the war, when it really was just an entanglement of alliances.


And how it care when the war started? didn't USA invaded an smalles country in the other side of the world? did USA lost the war? was USA disarmed? why did you changes the points here?

There is a difference. The Gulf of Tonkin incident - no matter how bogus it seemed, gave the US due cause and reason to "defend themselves". I don't defend their actions in anyway, I think the whole Vietnam war was pointless. In fact my favorite country (besides my own) is Vietnam - they are the only country to have kicked out Uncle Sam! :)



Proof? or again you don't have any?
At least there are proof of the depleted uranium used by the USA in the desert storm, and I don't think that its permited by the Geneva convention, neither its permited what USA its doing with the afghans prissioners in Guantano. If you want that other follow the rules, you have to do it before.


http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/envs/scud_irfna.htm

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Pentagon/dodscud.htm


Ok, read more history and come back, you can't say with a minimun knowlodge that Iraq its an imperialist country and the "defender of the freedom" its not. Its pretty pointless keep talking about this.


Because of its actions - marching into Kuwait and exploiting its resources, Iraq is just like Japan before WWII. They needed resources - so they invaded Manchuria.
Iraq couldn't develope into an imperialistic nation because the UN stopped them. Fine we'll end this one...


Huh? was democratic to invade Panama and removing Noriega? was democratic to invade Afghanistan? was democratic to impose dictatorship all over the world? was democratic to instaure to Saddam in Iraq?


These are actions of the US and examples of them taking matters into their own hands. This is not the UN - they didn't support Panama. In Afghanistan the UN did say the US could fight back in self defense. The UN doesn't impose dictatorships around the world. Sorry, don't know what you're trying to say about Saddam and Iraq. instaure?


What the heck has the democracy been here? if USA never respected in the world, they only did it in USA, and not always.

Sorry again, don't know what you were trying to say there?? A little Sketchy.


Guess that you don't understand that your question was answered too many times, but, as I said early, you don't have the capacity or you don't want to understand it.

I've asked Edude specifically to answer this. Not you! And no you don't have all of the answers.


Even if Saddam recently gave permission to the inspectors, USA want to still attack them, and don't come with **** now, Iraq gave permission to the UN for the first 2 years, but even if he gave permission the blockade was still there, please, don't come back with this pointless thing, has been answered too many time.


Iraq didn't give "unrestricted" permission to the inspectors ever! That is the key word. The inspectors were continually turned back from specific buildings, and then after they were gone sattelite photos show the Iraqi's moving supplies from the building. Suspicious?? It was one big cat and mouse game. But Iraq didn't play fair. How can the blockade possibly be there if it is stated so blatently clear that should Iraq fully comply with all resolutions set out in resolution# 667 that all assets would be returned and trade of all goods would continue as it had before the Iraqi invasion. The extrent to which Iraq cooperated was to be overseen by the Secretary General. Would you like me to show you that article? Its posted here somewhere.

Originally posted by Hostkookster


Starving??:laugh: There was no horrendous poverty in Germany

:eek: you said that not? well, its enought to me, only that laugh show to everybody who know something how ignorant you are. Thanks for saving my time of answer your whole post, just the beggining show me that its useless.
The other thing on your post its a twist of nothing trying to have reason. If anybody want to keep this conversation, I'll glad to do it, I wont follow your non-sense conversation Hostkookster, I can't stand to somebody justifying the unjustifiable

BTW, if you think that the books may hurt you, there is a interesting movie called "The Serpent's Egg" of Ingmar Bergman (I hope that you know who is he), about how "rich" was germany after the WW I.

Well Jedito thats too bad, you should have quoted the rest of that sentence.

Starving?? There was no horrendous poverty in Germany, Hitler fixed that.


Yes Germany was subjected to adverse poverty at the beginning. Inflation was so high bread cost 1 million marks. Hitler brought them out of poverty. How on earth did Germany fight WWII with no money or food?? They had a huge arms buildup! They had been completely disarmed after Versailles - down to an army of 100,000 men, no Navy, no German Luftwaffe. Any historian will tell you that Germany was not starving before they invaded Poland on Sept 1 1939. If this were the case Hitler would not have gained the prestige in Germany that he received in the time he was the furher.

Jedito, i'm sorry but you have really made a mess of your argument. Instead of conceding that you may have been wrong, you have to attack me. Thats unfortuneate. It was fun while it lasted....

Does this mean the thread's going to be closed? :eek:

Originally posted by mind21_98
Does this mean the thread's going to be closed? :eek:

Hope not :) I love this thread! I've done more research for this thread than i've done for school! :D
It will never close. I think its a cease fire right now. We'll have to organize our knowledge, and go at it again.

On the count of three, debate this topic:

Iraq is the Great Satan.

One. Two. Three. Go! :D

Just kidding. :stickout

I didn't know this thread was loved so much.

Jedito we could take this gig on the road. :D

Make millions with bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontributions from your citizens! Rule the free world with the ease of corporate capitalism! :D

Ok, let's keep the discusion then :), just a quick reply because I don't have the time to answer to all that now, but I'll back.

Do you remember this link that you posted as proof of that the scuds has chemical weapons?
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Pentagon/dodscud.htm
Guess what it say?

All Scud debris analyzed indicated use of conventional warheads.


I tried http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/envs/scud_irfna.htm but do not work for me, so, I can't comment about it.

Try the link again - it worked for me. :)

Well i just got word that Iraq has agreed to let in the UN weapons inspectors. We'll see what happens.... :D

Originally posted by Hostkookster
Try the link again - it worked for me. :)

Well i just got word that Iraq has agreed to let in the UN weapons inspectors. We'll see what happens.... :D

I'm going to be devil's advocate for a second. The newspaper says Iraq won't give unrestricted access one day, and it's wonderful the next. Either: a) Iraq can't make up its mind (Saddam is too indecisive) or b) The USA is trying to confuse the issue in order to gain internal support for an invasion.

Do either of those seem possible?

Originally posted by Hostkookster
Try the link again - it worked for me. :)

Well i just got word that Iraq has agreed to let in the UN weapons inspectors. We'll see what happens.... :D

Hey, works now, but guess what it say


The fear of a chemical attack was reinforced by the chemical warfare agent alarms that coincided with some Scud attacks. Though the alarms subsequently proved to be false, their occurrence fed the general anxiety.

and

In no case could we determine that Iraq's Scud missiles contained chemical warfare agents

Maybe I was wrong, but werent those links to prove that the scuds had chemical warheads?

Every thread i am part of ends up being closed, nothing new :P

Originally posted by Jedito


Hey, works now, but guess what it say


and


Maybe I was wrong, but werent those links to prove that the scuds had chemical warheads?

Hmm, geez pardon me - those were two very wrong articles on my part. I can't believe I gave those as evidence. Feel free to laugh, I deserve it. :D Now that i read them again, what was I thinking or reading? It must have been late - I was up writing a French essay. Even though its an official Canadian language I hate it!:stickout
We can throw that argument out the window.

Originally posted by edude
Elections were held on March 27, 2000. He won by 99.96% ;)

its illegal not to vote, everyone must participate in voting in iraq.

Well, vote for the INC, ICP etc.. and you can remove him, but i guess no one did :)

Ok this is as far as I've gotten so this has probably been talked about, but in any LEGIT election, nobody could ever win that large a percentage of the vote.

Originally posted by Jedito
[B]

The people at iraq its suffering because the blockade, do not change the things, 500.000 childrens dead its almost an holocaust, and has been caused by USA. PLEASE, don't tell me that its a UN blockade, I explained over and over again why the UN run with the USA rules.


You are unbelievably dense. The sanctions against Iraq were much deserved. It is SADDAM'S fault his people have suffered. All he had to do was comply with the deserved sanctions. Don't blame it on the UN.

That is like a kid disobeying his parent and getting grounded, then claiming it's the parent's fault the kid can't go out and play with his friends.

Originally posted by DD-SNC
For example, why is our focus on Iraq? What happened to the coporate scams? Bin Laden?


In the same way that a person can walk and chew gum at the same time, we can deal with Iraq and Bin Laden at the same time. :)

Originally posted by APEXware


You are unbelievably dense. The sanctions against Iraq were much deserved. It is SADDAM'S fault his people have suffered. All he had to do was comply with the deserved sanctions. Don't blame it on the UN.

That is like a kid disobeying his parent and getting grounded, then claiming it's the parent's fault the kid can't go out and play with his friends.

Deserved?
What I'm objeting here, its why its deserverd to Iraq or 3rd world countries and not to 1st world countries when they lose a war.

And I'm sure that 500.000 childrens dead its no deserved to anybody.

Originally posted by APEXware


In the same way that a person can walk and chew gum at the same time, we can deal with Iraq and Bin Laden at the same time. :) :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Jedito


And I'm sure that 500.000 childrens dead its no deserved to anybody.

I agree 100%, but that's not what I'm trying to say. Saddam by his actions, deserved what he got. I don't want the Iraqi people to suffer, but that is Saddam's fault for not complying with UN resolutions.

I think a problem with this discussion is a lot is being lost in the comprehension of what's being said. You've said a lot of things that make me think you aren't understanding the English good enough. I haven't been able to make sense of some of the stuff you've typed.

Originally posted by Jedito
:rolleyes:

Not sure what that is for unless you don't think people are capable of doing more than one thing at the same time.(actually, the Iraq/Bin Laden etc. stuff is one in the same. Saddam may or may not have direct terrorist links, I don't know, but both are a threat to the safety of others).

Originally posted by APEXware


I agree 100%, but that's not what I'm trying to say. Saddam by his actions, deserved what he got. I don't want the Iraqi people to suffer, but that is Saddam's fault for not complying with UN resolutions.
What's Saddam getting? as far as I know the people in Iraq its suffering and not Saddam.
And I'll say it one more time just in case that you didn't read the whole thread.

If US/UN wanted to remove Saddam, why didn't do it in 1991?


I think a problem with this discussion is a lot is being lost in the comprehension of what's being said. You've said a lot of things that make me think you aren't understanding the English good enough. I haven't been able to make sense of some of the stuff you've typed.
Sorry for that, as you may noticied english its not my native language.

Originally posted by APEXware


Not sure what that is for unless you don't think people are capable of doing more than one thing at the same time.(actually, the Iraq/Bin Laden etc. stuff is one in the same. Saddam may or may not have direct terrorist links, I don't know, but both are a threat to the safety of others).

USA has been "dealing" with Saddam a Bin Laden for more than 10 years, I guess that they aren't doing to well then.

And I want to see a single proof that Saddam its a "potential danger" now.

Originally posted by Jedito


USA has been "dealing" with Saddam a Bin Laden for more than 10 years, I guess that they aren't doing to well then.

>>I guess having a couple of airliners flown into the WTC and killing a few thousand people lit a fire under our butts which is why we're getting more agressive with it now.

And I want to see a single proof that Saddam its a "potential danger" now.

>>As far as Saddam, this thread is the only place I've ever seen people(who aren't biased against my country) who DON'T think Saddam would use WMD's if he could. Common sense says he's a potential danger.

>>I guess having a couple of airliners flown into the WTC and killing a few thousand people lit a fire under our butts which is why we're getting more agressive with it now.


And what Saddam have to be here?


As far as Saddam, this thread is the only place I've ever seen people(who aren't biased against my country) who DON'T think Saddam would use WMD's if he could. Common sense says he's a potential danger.
Common sense say that USA was the only country in the world who used a mass kill weapon, common sense say that you have to have a proof before attack to a country, common sense say that if USA have a proof of Iraq's chemical weapons they should already show it, common sense say a lot of thing, but unfortunatelly, its only used with smallest/3erd. world countries.

Originally posted by Jedito


And what Saddam have to be here?



You said 'Saddam and Bin Laden.' I was talking mostly about Bin Laden, but, Saddam is a problem too, and Sept. 11 like I said let us know we can't just sit back waiting for things to happen, we have to protect ourselves.

I'm bowing out of the discussion now, nobody is going to say anything that will change anyone elses minds here. :)

Osama was just a pawn in the "terrorist network".
Everything should be looked at in a disected view.

There are some "big" players in Egypt.