The Real Hollywood Idiots - DPChallenge Forums

03/25/2003 12:04:34 PM · #51

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/25/2003 12:04:53 PM · #52

He says he doesn't have them. According to you, speculation isn't a valid reason for an opinion, so to speculate that he isn't telling the truth is not an option. We have not choice but to believe that he doesn't have them.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/25/2003 12:08:29 PM · #53

Originally posted by Sonifo:

George Bush...thinks and prays before he acts. If you are a Christain then I think you can understand where he is coming from. I feel that God is guiding him and the troops thru this...

In my experience, most people who profess to be carrying out God's Will are given psychtropic medication and committed for 72 hours observation. I am sure Mr. Bush is clever, I can't tell if he's intelligent or not unless I talk with him myself.

Crusade. Jihad. This "we are the children of light" attitude is precisely what the the Middle East fears as our ulterior motive; America (not just the US) after all has a long history of exercising a "convert or die" program of imperial conquest.

If there is truly only ONE GOD, then all those Iraqis are "His Children" as well -- and I don't consider fratricide a family value.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/25/2003 12:09:30 PM · #54

It sure would have made sense to have merge all this into the "other" thread...

03/25/2003 01:10:05 PM · #55

Originally posted by welcher:

i am not speculating. he isn't telling the truth. i don't think anyone denies that he has wmd. even on your side. it's just an argument of how to deal with the problem. now you are actually trying to argue that he doesn't have these weapons. he didn't account for their destruction. that isn't speculation. like i said this would have been over long ago had saddam been upfront, but he has chosen to play games with the UN for the last 12 years. that isn't speculation, that is fact

03/25/2003 01:11:44 PM · #56

Originally posted by GeneralE:

It sure would have made sense to have merge all this into the "other" thread...

yeah totally, funny how quickly it turned into the exact same arguments as the other thread. still interesting though

03/25/2003 01:23:33 PM · #57

Originally posted by achiral:

You're speculating that he isn't telling the truth. How do you know? How do you know he hasn't destroyed all the WMD, and just doesn't like the UN sticking its nose in his business.

Like I said, you wanna take away my ability to form opinions based on speculative future outcomes, you have to play by the same rules.

So the ONLY thing you're basing your opinion on is that he disobeyed the UN. That is the single, solitary thing. Odd, because we just did the same thing.

03/25/2003 01:30:02 PM · #58

Originally posted by welcher:

Originally posted by achiral:

i am not speculating. he isn't telling the truth. i don't think anyone denies that he has wmd. even on your side. it's just an argument of how to deal with the problem. now you are actually trying to argue that he doesn't have these weapons. he didn't account for their destruction. that isn't speculation. like i said this would have been over long ago had saddam been upfront, but he has chosen to play games with the UN for the last 12 years. that isn't speculation, that is fact

You're speculating that he isn't telling the truth. How do you know? How do you know he hasn't destroyed all the WMD, and just doesn't like the UN sticking its nose in his business.

Like I said, you wanna take away my ability to form opinions based on speculative future outcomes, you have to play by the same rules.

So the ONLY thing you're basing your opinion on is that he disobeyed the UN. That is the single, solitary thing. Odd, because we just did the same thing.

you sound like some junior high kid that won't stop arguing a pointless argument until someone gives up. ok i give up. you are obviously upset that i exposed you, now learn how to control your anger

03/25/2003 01:31:17 PM · #59

Too funny. You said my position against the war was invalid because it was based in part on speculation. I pointed out that your position is also based in part on speculation.

Now you say you've exposed me, and start calling me names.

Nice.

03/25/2003 01:38:55 PM · #60

Originally posted by welcher:

stop whining no one called you a name. you may not agree with my reasons for being pro-war, but they are more valid than yours in my opinion because they have tangible evidence. yours is simply what you believe will happen. i'm not going to speculate and develop an opinion on what i believe will happen because that only takes away from the fact that saddam is a brutal dictator that has suppressed his people. you would like to skip that whole part and talk about the US imperialists controlling iraq and this is a war for oil and all that ho hum, but what eveidence today do you have that would support your point. that's why i disagree with you

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

03/25/2003 01:46:17 PM · #61

Back to the celebrity aspect of this thread. I called all the local TV stations and newspapers and stated I am having a Press Conference to express my views on the war. Guess what happened...?? (C:

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

03/25/2003 01:47:58 PM · #62

SOrry to pipe in on this one, but Saddam did fire 2 SCUDs at Kuwait last week...even though he did not have any.

rj324

Nikon D7000

03/25/2003 01:49:39 PM · #63

Majid Khoei, son of legendary Iraqi Ayatollah at head of 3,000-man US-backed Shiite militia is leading Basra unrest to stir up Shiite anti-Saddam uprising. Basra Shiites riot against Iraqi regime and army Tuesday afternoon. Shiite militias backed by British and American warplanes and helicopters in armed clashes with Iraqi units in city.

03/25/2003 01:49:48 PM · #64

I'm sorry. Could you show me one single line where I've talked about American Imperialism or oil? Perhaps that's your problem. You've decided that ALL anti-war folks have the SAME arguments, and you've already decided that those aren't valid, so you're unwilling to listen to any other debate.

My speculation exists not to say what WILL happen, but rather that these possible outcomes should weigh heavily in any decision, and in my decision-making, they have weighed heavily enough, against the advantages of war, to make me think it's not a good idea.

dwoolridge

03/25/2003 02:01:38 PM · #65

Originally posted by achiral:

tell north korea, not israel though. i've heard about these israeli non compliance. does anyone have a link to the un resolution they went against. just for my own education

Read draft resolution S/2002/1385 (pdf viewer required) and ask yourself why the US decided to use its UNSC veto in this case. Negroponte would have you believe it was more about "condemning the Israeli occupation than ensuring the safety of UN personnel." Israel doesn't need to abide by international law since any condemnation from the UNSC is vetoed by the US, a clear and flagrant abuse of that power. I've posted links to articles/lists of UNSC vetoes elsewhere, so I won't bother with it again.

However, since you must be unable to navigate the various UN body sites (no surprise - it's not exactly well organized), I'll point you to resolutions 242 and 338, which are particularly offensive since they are so old. 35 years should be enough time to comply. Naturally, these are only examples where the UNSC adopted and Israel did not comply. If you want something where they refused to ratify UN conventions, then you'll have to do your own research for that (I'll help get you started by pointing you to the Rome statute).

03/25/2003 02:03:21 PM · #66

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

Back to the celebrity aspect of this thread. I called all the local TV stations and newspapers and stated I am having a Press Conference to express my views on the war. Guess what happened...?? (C:

yeah i think this illustrates the point pretty well

03/25/2003 02:18:57 PM · #67

Originally posted by dwoolridge:

Originally posted by achiral:
tell north korea, not israel though. i've heard about these israeli non compliance. does anyone have a link to the un resolution they went against. just for my own education

Read draft resolution S/2002/1385 (pdf viewer required) and ask yourself why the US decided to use its UNSC veto in this case. Negroponte would have you believe it was more about "condemning the Israeli occupation than ensuring the safety of UN personnel." Israel doesn't need to abide by international law since any condemnation from the UNSC is vetoed by the US, a clear and flagrant abuse of that power. I've posted links to articles/lists of UNSC vetoes elsewhere, so I won't bother with it again.

However, since you must be unable to navigate the various UN body sites (no surprise - it's not exactly well organized), I'll point you to resolutions 242 and 338, which are particularly offensive since they are so old. 35 years should be enough time to comply. Naturally, these are only examples where the UNSC adopted and Israel did not comply. If you want something where they refused to ratify UN conventions, then you'll have to do your own research for that (I'll help get you started by pointing you to the Rome statute).

does the UN have any authority over the palestinians or influence? i did a quick search and couldn't find any resolutions against palestinians. i'm assuming that's because they don't have their own state.

dwoolridge

03/25/2003 03:11:06 PM · #68

Originally posted by achiral:

My understanding is that they have Permanent Observer status at the UN, until such time a Palestinian state is established. UNISPAL has more to say about Palestine and various resolutions. Because it is difficult to pin them down, or at least talk about them meaningfully as a "nation state", you really have to dig through the resolutions in which their acts are condemned. Invariably, these resolutions are generic, using terms such as "Middle East" and "Arab" to encompass Palestinians. Where there is specific mention of Israel-Palestine conflict, there is general condemnation of terrorism or a demand/requirement of cessation of all violence in the region (Israel-Palestine).

03/25/2003 03:16:28 PM · #69

Originally posted by dwoolridge:

Originally posted by achiral:
does the UN have any authority over the palestinians or influence? i did a quick search and couldn't find any resolutions against palestinians. i'm assuming that's because they don't have their own state.

My understanding is that they have Permanent Observer status at the UN, until such time a Palestinian state is established. UNISPAL has more to say about Palestine and various resolutions. Because it is difficult to pin them down, or at least talk about them meaningfully as a "nation state", you really have to dig through the resolutions in which their acts are condemned. Invariably, these resolutions are generic, using terms such as "Middle East" and "Arab" to encompass Palestinians. Where there is specific mention of Israel-Palestine conflict, there is general condemnation of terrorism or a demand/requirement of cessation of all violence in the region (Israel-Palestine).

then i really don't think it's too relevant to unclude israel in the list of states that have not abided by resolutions. and vetoed resolutions aren't the same as ones that just aren't abided by. but i know israel has not obeyed all any or all un resolutions. think about the position they are in. every country in the region it seems would like to be rid of israel forever. they aren't in an enviable position. i'm not defending atrocities that israel has committed, but there has been just as much or much done by way of terrorism and suicide bombings by palestinians

dwoolridge

03/25/2003 03:55:10 PM · #70

Originally posted by achiral:

In the case of Israel, the problem is systemic and unabated. It is a rare thing indeed to see this type of force used without a ripple from the international community. What is more unusual, even in recognition of their circumstance, is the continued support by the US, including the inappropriate use of the veto. The most recent veto (the link I provided in an earlier post) is really indefensible.

The Palestinians in their blind desire for justice, in their pursuit of autonomy, have tired of unenforced resolution after another. They are at war, but where Israel has missiles, tanks, and military airships, the Palestinians have a few guns and some rocks. Their use of terrorism, which is arguably limited to the radical few, is equally abhorrent.

Then again, it depends on which side you fight; the resistance fighters in France during WWII fought against German incursions, also using acts of terrorism to advance their position. Israel inchoate too did the same thing against the British, blowing up, most notably, a hotel, passenger ship, and generally attacking British police/troops using terrorism.

Alas, it is nothing new.

rj324

Nikon D7000

03/26/2003 06:37:24 AM · #71

What is the Iraqi air force motto? I came, I saw, Iran.

Have you heard about the new Iraqi air force exercise program? Each
morning you raise your hands above your head, and leave them there.

What's the five-day forecast for Baghdad? Two days.

What do Miss Muffet and Saddam Hussein have in common? They both
have Kurds in their way.

What is the best Iraqi job? Foreign ambassador.

Did you hear that it is twice as easy to train Iraqi fighter
pilots? You only have to teach them to take off.

How do you play Iraqi bingo? B-52 ... F-16 ... B-52

What is Iraq's national bird? Duck.

What do Saddam Hussein and General Custer have in common? They both
want to know where the hell those Tomahawks are coming from!

Why does the Iraqi navy have glass bottom boats? So they can see
their air force.

Hoogie

Nikon D50

03/26/2003 08:28:22 AM · #72

Originally posted by Sonifo:

I feel that the whole point in this thread was to show that President George Bush is not stupid like some have been saying. He is a smart man and thinks and prays before he acts. If you are a Christain then I think you can understand where he is coming from. I feel that God is guiding him and the troops thru this. You have a choice to believe that what Saddam is doing is right or you can believe that George is just out there to get the oil or what ever the case. Let the man do his job and the people fighting for our country and others do their job. Give them support. Show them you are rooting for them. Give them encouragement to battle the stress out there.

Is god guiding USA to murder thousands of people for the sole reason of monetary gain sonifo??

Or is USA the only exception where it is justified for them too invade any country they want?

If the reason truley was to help people or if there was truley an "IMMEDIATE" threat to the rest of the world then yes a invasion is nessesary, tell me sonifo... N.Koera are a "REAL" threat in fact they even threatened your country why dont USA invade them ,god surely would agree with that wouldnt he??

Or is it only ok to attack a country because they have oil? and would be benificial to the economy to the USA??????

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/26/2003 08:57:32 AM · #73

Originally posted by Hoogie:

Originally posted by Sonifo:
I feel that the whole point in this thread was to show that President George Bush is not stupid like some have been saying. He is a smart man and thinks and prays before he acts. If you are a Christain then I think you can understand where he is coming from. I feel that God is guiding him and the troops thru this. You have a choice to believe that what Saddam is doing is right or you can believe that George is just out there to get the oil or what ever the case. Let the man do his job and the people fighting for our country and others do their job. Give them support. Show them you are rooting for them. Give them encouragement to battle the stress out there.

Is god guiding USA to murder thousands of people for the sole reason of monetary gain sonifo??

Or is USA the only exception where it is justified for them too invade any country they want?

If the reason truley was to help people or if there was truley an "IMMEDIATE" threat to the rest of the world then yes a invasion is nessesary, tell me sonifo... N.Koera are a "REAL" threat in fact they even threatened your country why dont USA invade them ,god surely would agree with that wouldnt he??

Or is it only ok to attack a country because they have oil? and would be benificial to the economy to the USA??????

which crisis came first. well the korean war was before, but the new flare up came as people were preparing plans for iraq. what you are suggesting is irresponsible. we definitely can't and shouldn't focus on two major crises at the same time. plus nk is probably just bluffing, trying to get more money from the us. but you would support war with nk? the reasons for dealing with them aren't that different from the reasons we are in iraq

Sonifo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

03/26/2003 09:48:21 AM · #74

Originally posted by Hoogie:

Is god guiding USA to murder thousands of people for the sole reason of monetary gain sonifo??

I would say that God isn't guiding them to murder those people. I feel that everyone has a choice in this war and they choose to fight. Why don't they give up/surrender? It is their choice to die, so I would say that it is more suicide then murder.

I can't believe after hearing about how cruel these people are, you all still believe this should go on. Saddam is a cruel heartless man and we should take him down!!

Get off the oil kick, would ya!!! Stop assuming and be more supportive!! This is reality not story land or media land. Rumors are bad and they cause war amongst folks.