Discover Freedom - DPChallenge Forums

03/07/2003 12:19:35 AM · #26

Originally posted by Sonifo:

This is what is wrong with this world today and the kids in it. The adults don't show respect for their government and authority. I am all for our leaders decisions and if they are wrong in their dicisions then God will take care of them.

Do you vote? Your government is accountable to YOU, not God.

03/07/2003 12:22:50 AM · #27

Originally posted by lisae:

Your point from last night, which I quoted, was that people from those countries are jealous of the US. Can you explain to me how I have somehow proven this?

Lisae, if you would have bothered to READ the flow of the posts, that comment was in REPLY to another post, attacking the US. I didn't just post that out of the blue, it was in reply to another post.

And I didn't say you proved the comment that you quoted!

03/07/2003 12:24:56 AM · #28

Originally posted by lisae:

Do you vote? Your government is accountable to YOU, not God.

I think you missed her point.

03/07/2003 12:38:24 AM · #29

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by lisae:
Your point from last night, which I quoted, was that people from those countries are jealous of the US. Can you explain to me how I have somehow proven this?

Lisae, if you would have bothered to READ the flow of the posts, that comment was in REPLY to another post, attacking the US. I didn't just post that out of the blue, it was in reply to another post.

And I didn't say you proved the comment that you quoted!

So which point did I prove?

03/07/2003 12:46:30 AM · #30

Originally posted by lisae:

So which point did I prove?

My point from last night was that given a poster's comments regarding their attitude towards the USA, I can usually predict that they are either from: Candada (not as much), New Zeland (greatly), or Australia (moderately), and that your posts do prove that point/observation. :)

03/07/2003 12:48:26 AM · #31

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by lisae:
So which point did I prove?

My point from last night was that given a poster's comments regarding their attitude towards the USA, I can usually predict that they are either from: Candada (not as much), New Zeland (greatly), or Australia (moderately), and that your posts do prove that point/observation. :)

What attitude do you think I have towards the USA?

03/07/2003 12:58:36 AM · #32

Originally posted by lisae:

What attitude do you think I have towards the USA?

Well first of all, you quote comments I made (at the beginning of the thread) without bothering to read the original thread, thus taking it out of context. That's self serving for one thing.

Two:

Originally posted by lisae:

We have every right to criticise the US government's actions, considering that our own men and women are going to be involved.

You do have a right to question our gov's actions and intentions, but our President has laid out the reasons for you but you still choose to back a murdering, vicous dictator, who would be more then happy to sell his weapons to terrorists, but still take the stance against the USA and support of the Iraqi government...

I think that shows the "attitude you have towards the USA". ;)

03/07/2003 01:04:38 AM · #33

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Well first of all, you quote comments I made (at the beginning of the thread) without bothering to read the original thread, thus taking it out of context. That's self serving for one thing.

I read every post in the original thread.

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Two:
Originally posted by lisae:
We have every right to criticise the US government's actions, considering that our own men and women are going to be involved.

You do have a right to question our gov's actions and intentions, but our President has laid out the reasons for you but you still choose to back a murdering, vicous dictator, who would be more then happy to sell his weapons to terrorists, but still take the stance against the USA and support of the Iraqi government...

I think that shows the "attitude you have towards the USA". ;)

No, that's where you're wrong. No one "backs" Saddam Hussein. Polls in most countries show that if Bush fully intended to go through the UN rather than attack unilaterally, most people would support him. It's the fact that he would do it without the rest of the world's support that makes most people oppose what he wants to do. Not sympathy for Saddam.

Annida

Olympus C-4000Z

03/07/2003 01:12:06 AM · #34

I'm on the side of diplomacy. I don't support either Bush or Hussein. They both suck.

03/07/2003 01:15:20 AM · #35

Originally posted by lisae:

I read every post in the original thread.

Well that makes it worse then, because don't you think it's a little self-serving to post a comment without QUALIFYING it with the post that it was in response to? In any case, I don't really care, I'm just making a point.

Originally posted by lisae:

Polls in most countries show that if Bush fully intended to go through the UN rather than attack unilaterally, most people would support him. It's the fact that he would do it without the rest of the world's support that makes most people oppose what he wants to do. Not sympathy for Saddam.

LOL, this just shows you that you are uninformed... Saddam has had 12 years to comply with THE UN'S RESOLUTIONS but he hasn't. Bush is trying to get UN support but unfortunetely France, Germany, and Russia won't agree because they HAVE OIL DEALS WITH SADDAM. So next time you hear the term "it's all about the oil", think to yourself, yes it is all about oil isn't it FRANCE. Turkey is worthless because we didn't give them enough BRIBE money. The UN is a JOKE. The USA is better off without them since they are really nothing but a bunch of communists anyway. I say the US should pull out of the UN. We don't need them and all they do is suck off of our country anyway.

Anyway, looks like nobody else is interested in this thread anymore so I'm going to do other stuff. :) Good luck in the photo challenges!

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

03/07/2003 01:31:37 AM · #36

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

LOL, this just shows you that you are uninformed... Saddam has had 12 years to comply with THE UN'S RESOLUTIONS but he hasn't.

Aren't the inspectors in there right now trying to find proof of this? The whole crux of the issue right now is whether or not Bush will give them time to find concrete proof that will satisfy everyone that Saddam really does have WMDs.

And secondly, there are many UN resolutions against many countries that haven't been complied with. It seems patently obvious to everyone outside the US (and many inside your country) that the only resolutions worth enforcing are the ones agains Bush's enemy of the day.

If the inspectors find conclusive proof, a lot of people will be a lot happier about this war than they are now.

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Bush is trying to get UN support but unfortunetely France, Germany, and Russia won't agree because they HAVE OIL DEALS WITH SADDAM.

They have more than oil deals. All countries have trade relations with pretty much every country on earth. Iraq was one of Australia's biggest grain export partners. The US government also has strong oil ties to Iraq through the oil for food program.

The UN is there so that everyone can come together and negotiate, and all economic ties are important in this. No one does anything out of altruism. For countries to consider compromising trade deals and political alliances, they need a VERY good reason, and Bush so far hasn't given them one. It's simple reality.

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

So next time you hear the term "it's all about the oil", think to yourself, yes it is all about oil isn't it FRANCE. Turkey is worthless because we didn't give them enough BRIBE money. The UN is a JOKE. The USA is better off without them since they are really nothing but a bunch of communists anyway. I say the US should pull out of the UN. We don't need them and all they do is suck off of our country anyway.

This is the crux of our commuincation problems. You think I have an "attitude" towards your country. I don't. YOU have this bizarre notion that you're a lone civilised voice in a sea of communist barbarians! The one body we have to let all countries come together and decide on actions multilaterally is a joke? If you're going to say something like that, you have to expect people around the world to see your attitude as the main threat to their safety. Your country has the most nukes in the world, and would never let inspectors come in and count them.

welcher

Canon EOS-5D

03/07/2003 01:42:26 AM · #37

I agree with most everything you say, Lisa, except for one thing. Iraq has WMD. Everyone knows it. It's nuts to think otherwise. IMO, that STILL isn't grounds for an invasion, but let's not get caught up in niceties: Iraq has WMD.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

03/07/2003 01:45:05 AM · #38

what a joke this whole mess has become.. it is laughable... saddam has had 12 years and 17 UN violations to comply since his invasion of Kuwait...
Imagine you (The UN) had a child (Saddam), and that child misbehaved. Then you punished that child by taking away priveledges, over and over, and over again, but the child still continued to misbehave no matter what you did or how hard you tried. Would you then not, finally, after continued and exhausted efforts pull out a paddle and spank the little brats bottom?????
Sorry, but people against punishing saddam are not only naive, but not very logical... The UN is a joke. their words mean nothing... they let saddam continue to play games and thumb his nose at every resolution they make...
I could care less if they vote to back the US or not.. we don't need or want their opinion when it comes to our security... game time is almost over.. here we come saddam

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

03/07/2003 01:45:19 AM · #39

What I find truly bizarre is that the burden of proof surrounding the weapons inspections is being laid on the Iraqis. This is completely opposite to the tenets of the American judicial system, which lays the burden of proof on the accusors. The bottom line is that the inspectors haven't produced evidence sufficient to prove that Iraq hasn't complied with these resolutions. As Lisa has said, there has been no concrete proof that Iraq has these weapons. France, Germany and Russia are right to oppose action that isn't justified. Are we supposed to simply go along with it because Colin Powell shows us a few satellite images of trucks and buildings? Come on. Find the weapons and then you've got something.

03/07/2003 01:48:19 AM · #40

Originally posted by lisae:

Your country has the most nukes in the world, and would never let inspectors come in and count them.

so what? we do not attack without reason... saddam attacked kuwait for conquest.. we do more for the world than any other country.. all of our monetary aid, technology aid, military aid... tons and tons and tons of aid.. billions and billions of dollars in resources.. how bout we pull everything back to our lands, and they everyone else go at it alone... I think the world would go to hell in a hand bacsket pretty damn fast

03/07/2003 01:51:09 AM · #41

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by lisae:
Your country has the most nukes in the world, and would never let inspectors come in and count them.

so what? we do not attack without reason...

Then give us the reason!!!

This is what the world is saying. The proof isn't there yet. If Bush attacks now, it will be without a reason that can satisfy the whole world that the man with the most nukes is trustworthy.

03/07/2003 01:51:51 AM · #42

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

jimmy it has been proven.. didnt read the blix report? just the missles alone were a violation... the 17th violation... how many violations should the UN allow before a resolution actually means what it says? it's a joke... lol

as for france and germany, let them whine.. maybe we should just let the germans start marching down the roads in france again... that is why the roads in france are lined with trees you know... so the germans can march in the shade.. :oP
as for the russians, well I think they are just trying to maintain some sense of power in the world... I think if we pursue them as more of an allie they will change their tune pretty fast

Message edited by author 2003-03-07 01:54:04.

03/07/2003 01:53:43 AM · #43

Originally posted by Anachronite:

The missiles are not WMDs. They are also in the process right now of being destroyed.

03/07/2003 01:56:54 AM · #44

Originally posted by lisae:

Aren't the inspectors in there right now trying to find proof of this? The whole crux of the issue right now is whether or not Bush will give them time to find...

The inspectors won't ever find the weapons because Saddam won't let them find it. It's that pretty obvious? Blix has said that Saddam is NOT COOPERATING. Did you know this? Does this matter to you, or are you in a dream world thinking that maybe Saddam will cooperate one day?

Originally posted by lisae:

And secondly, there are many UN resolutions against many countries that haven't been complied with. It seems patently obvious to everyone outside the US (and many inside your country) that the only resolutions worth enforcing are the ones agains Bush's enemy of the day.

You're right about that. Why enforce ones that aren't important? Do you think the resolution to enforce the "no spitting on sidewalks" resolution in Botswanna is more important?

Originally posted by lisae:

If the inspectors find conclusive proof, a lot of people will be a lot happier about this war than they are now.

Of course they would but... it'll NEVER HAPPEN. Saddam won't let them do their jobs so it will never happen. This is really a tired old, ridiculous argrement to say "just let them do their job". It WON'T HAPPEN!

Originally posted by lisae:

The US government also has strong oil ties to Iraq through the oil for food program.

Do you know what Saddam does with money and food we give his country for hummanitarian reasons? He withholds it from his people, starves them, and builds himself great palaces.

Originally posted by lisae:

The UN is there so that everyone can come together and negotiate, and all economic ties are important in this. No one does anything out of altruism. For countries to consider compromising trade deals and political alliances, they need a VERY good reason, and Bush so far hasn't given them one. It's simple reality.

Well said. But I think a country (Iraq) who invades its nieghboring countries, kills it's own citizans with chemical weapons, starves its people while building palaces for a select few, hiding weapons that they have been told to (by the UN) to get rid off, isn't "a good reason" then I don't know WHAT would be a good reason to a lot of people. Will we need to have an airplane fly into the nice Syndey Harbor buildings (those things that look like clam shells) before you'll agree that there's a good reason? Or maybe a small pox bomb in the Outback would be more convincing? I don't know what it's going to take. A lot of people are not rational about this. They think that by hiding their head in the sand, terrorists will just magically disappear. They won't. They have to be STOMPED OUT and the USA is that foot. :)

Originally posted by lisae:

Aren't we? :)

Originally posted by lisae:

people around the world to see your attitude as the main threat to their safety. Your country has the most nukes in the world, and would never let inspectors come in and count them.

Because we have never given a reason to warrant inspectors in, since we have never invaded a sovern nation without being attacked first, nor do we have ties to terrorism. I mean this statement from you is absolutely absurd!

03/07/2003 02:02:28 AM · #45

Originally posted by lisae:

Originally posted by Anachronite:

jimmy it has been proven.. didnt read the blix report? just the missles alone were a violation... the 17th violation... how many violations should the UN allow before a resolution actually means what it says? it's a joke... lol

The missiles are not WMDs. They are also in the process right now of being destroyed.

actually they are.. capable of carrying bio and chemical warheads, as well as nukes if they had the warheads.. either way they are still a violation... the 17th... and they did find those other chemical warheads as well... plus, after all of the games, and ridiculous, and not to mention the kuwait invasion and god only knows what atrocities, you completely naive to think saddam is suddenly being "a good boy"... you guys sound just like the protestors that protested against Reagan's hardline stance against communism during the cold war... but ya know what, after the fall of communism, the communists that came out afterwards said that the hardline stance was one of the major contributing factors to communism's demise... now we are supposed to go soft on ruthless dictator that has continuously violated UN resolve, committed many doccumented atrocities against humanity, including his own people? supported terroism? and many other horrendous misdeeds?.. are you mad? come out of dreamland... I prefer peace, but sometimes you need to fight to preserve peace in the long run

03/07/2003 02:03:56 AM · #46

Originally posted by lisae:

Originally posted by Anachronite:
Originally posted by lisae:
Your country has the most nukes in the world, and would never let inspectors come in and count them.

so what? we do not attack without reason...

Then give us the reason!!!

This is what the world is saying. The proof isn't there yet. If Bush attacks now, it will be without a reason that can satisfy the whole world that the man with the most nukes is trustworthy.

lol the un has given you 17 reasons.. 17 resolutions.. all of them violated... wake up!

03/07/2003 02:06:37 AM · #47

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

The CIA helped the Ba'ath party into power in Iraq, and the Shah in Iran. Look at what the US government did in Panama, Argentina, the Iran-Contra affair. The training camps in Afghanistan used by Al-Qaeda were built with US backing when your government was supporting the mujahideen against the Soviet Union in the 80s.

And yet, there is no proof at all that Saddam has ties to Al-Qaeda. The two are sworn enemies. Sunnis and Wahabbis slaughter each other whenever anyone gives them the chance.

03/07/2003 02:08:52 AM · #48

Originally posted by Anachronite:

lol the un has given you 17 reasons.. 17 resolutions.. all of them violated... wake up!

If the UN thought that was enough, the security council would be supporting Bush right now.

03/07/2003 02:17:52 AM · #49

Originally posted by lisae:

There is a lot I could say about your response, including pointing out that over 100 Australians were killed last year in the Bali bombing (so to say that we haven't experienced terrorism is absurd). However, this is the best part of your post:

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Because we have never given a reason to warrant inspectors in, since we have never invaded a sovern nation without being attacked first, nor do we have ties to terrorism. I mean this statement from you is absolutely absurd!

The CIA helped the Ba'ath party into power in Iraq, and the Shah in Iran. Look at what the US government did in Panama, Argentina, the Iran-Contra affair. The training camps in Afghanistan used by Al-Qaeda were built with US backing when your government was supporting the mujahideen against the Soviet Union in the 80s.

And yet, there is no proof at all that Saddam has ties to Al-Qaeda. The two are sworn enemies. Sunnis and Wahabbis slaughter each other whenever anyone gives them the chance.

acctually several intellegence agencies from different countries confirmed reports several months ago that Al-Qaeda had received a shipment of poison gas and then disapeared from the country... but that's besides the point.. see next post