| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/08/2003 12:59:07 PM · #126 |
| I like y'all better when you're taking pictures. |
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:00:23 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by achiral:
I think we can both agree that Blix is under immense pressure from people on both sides of the issue about Iraq. |
Yes
Originally posted by achiral:
I also believe that as a rational person he also has his own views on what should happen in Iraq. I think he holds the view of France for the most part. He doesn't want to say anything that will trigger war. |
I think his personal views were taken into account when he was chosen. Once chosen for this job, his views should be taken as credible, otherwise it makes a mockery of the whole process.
Originally posted by achiral:
He also did not say, but was in his report, that
"there is 'credible information' indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the first Gulf War and was never destroyed."
this is a quote from a news website. This was written by Blix himself. This is obviously important from the US and British standpoint because it helps make the case that Hussein has never attempted to disarm. |
There are issues, though, about the shelf life of anthrax. From everything I have heard and read (and I've read Scott Ritter's book from a few months back, plus the arguments against it) there is no way that live anthrax from the period of the Gulf War could still be used as a weapon. If you can prove me wrong, I'll accept it.
Originally posted by achiral:
Baghdad is listed at the bottom of the list of best cities to live in world wide. Civilians are dying there. No dictator is going to keep records of this. You might say that this is because of sanctions, but Saddam agreed to the sanctions to avoid being ousted in 1991, and there are numerous reports chronicalling Hussein's use of Oil for Food money to build many palaces for himself in that period. I DO NOT WANT WAR. But I believe along with many other people and nations that Hussein needs to go. |
There are very few people who think Hussein should stay indefinitely. I certainly don't.
I have an online friend from the UK who is from an Afghan family. He studies Political Science, and he is an expert on the Middle East. Recently, he was beaten up on the street by two white men because he looks like an Arab, or a Muslim maybe (he's neither, he's Pathan and an atheist). They fractured the bones around his eye socket and injured him in many other ways.
This man's opinion is that Saddam SHOULD be taken out, but only if it's by an international force, with the cooperation of the Iraqi people. He has marched against this war, because he doesn't think the way Bush is going about this is right.
There are many options in front of the world over Iraq. Bush's war is one, but it's not necessarily the best. To a lot of people it seems like a very bad option indeed.
But now it's 2am, and I'm going to bed :). If this thread continues as a polite discussion and doesn't break down into nastiness, I'll post more tomorrow.
Message edited by author 2003-03-08 13:02:10. |
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:05:22 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by clues56:
I like y'all better when you're taking pictures. |
hehe, "y'all" must be from texas. ;( i miss my texas friends.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:11:49 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
"4. Of course I would support my son, you know my position."
May your son be in the front lines then. |
Did it ever occur to you that there are many soldiers who disagree with the war but still signed up to fight because they want to protect America? It's true there are many. You can talk all you want about transference of hate, but that is one of the most hateful statements i have ever heard.
Message edited by author 2003-03-08 13:14:33. |
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:21:15 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by achiral:
I think we can both agree that Blix is under immense pressure from people on both sides of the issue about Iraq. |
Yes
Originally posted by achiral:
I also believe that as a rational person he also has his own views on what should happen in Iraq. I think he holds the view of France for the most part. He doesn't want to say anything that will trigger war. |
I think his personal views were taken into account when he was chosen. Once chosen for this job, his views should be taken as credible, otherwise it makes a mockery of the whole process.
Originally posted by achiral:
He also did not say, but was in his report, that
"there is 'credible information' indicating that 21,000 litres of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 litres of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the first Gulf War and was never destroyed."
this is a quote from a news website. This was written by Blix himself. This is obviously important from the US and British standpoint because it helps make the case that Hussein has never attempted to disarm. |
There are issues, though, about the shelf life of anthrax. From everything I have heard and read (and I've read Scott Ritter's book from a few months back, plus the arguments against it) there is no way that live anthrax from the period of the Gulf War could still be used as a weapon. If you can prove me wrong, I'll accept it.
Originally posted by achiral:
Baghdad is listed at the bottom of the list of best cities to live in world wide. Civilians are dying there. No dictator is going to keep records of this. You might say that this is because of sanctions, but Saddam agreed to the sanctions to avoid being ousted in 1991, and there are numerous reports chronicalling Hussein's use of Oil for Food money to build many palaces for himself in that period. I DO NOT WANT WAR. But I believe along with many other people and nations that Hussein needs to go. |
There are very few people who think Hussein should stay indefinitely. I certainly don't.
I have an online friend from the UK who is from an Afghan family. He studies Political Science, and he is an expert on the Middle East. Recently, he was beaten up on the street by two white men because he looks like an Arab, or a Muslim maybe (he's neither, he's Pathan and an atheist). They fractured the bones around his eye socket and injured him in many other ways.
This man's opinion is that Saddam SHOULD be taken out, but only if it's by an international force, with the cooperation of the Iraqi people. He has marched against this war, because he doesn't think the way Bush is going about this is right.
There are many options in front of the world over Iraq. Bush's war is one, but it's not necessarily the best. To a lot of people it seems like a very bad option indeed.
But now it's 2am, and I'm going to bed :). If this thread continues as a polite discussion and doesn't break down into nastiness, I'll post more tomorrow. |
i did a little research and found out that you are correct about the shelf life of liquid anthrax, 1 year. the shelf life of powder anthrax is much longer. since it looks like we are talking about liquid, i will concede that those 10000 litres of anthrax aren't viable anymore. but you know where i'm going with this. do we really know for sure that he hasn't produced powder form anthrax? especially in the time since 1998 where inspectors were not monitoring anything. |
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:23:30 PM · #131 |
I was not trying to be hateful, but if there is going to be loss of life, then people must treat that loss of life as if it were them or some one they love. I do not feel this "conflict" is strong enough to lose anyone that I love or know for that matter.
Many pro war Americans seem to have the mentality that this is no big deal and only the "bad people" may die. No, war is a ugly ugly horrible thing that is horribly barbaric. I've spent many years traveling the world and meeting individuals of every color and creed. Everyone has the same needs and desires: To live happily and have their loved ones do the same. The killing of innocent people is atrocity. IF we go to war then we will be just a guilty as the 9/11 attackers. We Americans are supposed to be about due process. Saddam has not been convicted yet, not enough to KILL these people, nor you or your son, IMHO.
We are setting presidents that will eventually turn on us. In fact, it’s precedents like this that created the hate that fueled the 9/11 attackers.
It’s time that we remove the hate in our foreign policy and the hate in the administration and we will see that who has nukes and bio/chemical weapons will be irrelevant. This may seem inconceivable to many filled with hate but then again larger achievements have occurred in history.
We reap what we sow.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:26:59 PM · #132 |
| if you are american, which i'm not sure about anyway, you will support the troops even if you don't support the cause for exactly your reasons |
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:27:31 PM · #133 |
Achiral I respect both you and your comments; however it's these opinions that have be perpetuating war for eons.
We're smarter that this.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:29:26 PM · #134 |
NO, NO, NO. Being American is not about blind support, it's about voicing your opinion and having the government respect that opinion. Your sentiments sound like the propaganda of the 3rd Reich.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:30:20 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
I was not trying to be hateful, but if there is going to be loss of life, then people must treat that loss of life as if it were them or some one they love. I do not feel this "conflict" is strong enough to lose anyone that I love or know for that matter.
Many pro war Americans seem to have the mentality that this is no big deal and only the "bad people" may die. No, war is a ugly ugly horrible thing that is horribly barbaric. I've spent many years traveling the world and meeting individuals of every color and creed. Everyone has the same needs and desires: To live happily and have their loved ones do the same. The killing of innocent people is atrocity. IF we go to war then we will be just a guilty as the 9/11 attackers. We Americans are supposed to be about due process. Saddam has not been convicted yet, not enough to KILL these people, nor you or your son, IMHO.
We are setting presidents that will eventually turn on us. In fact, it’s precedents like this that created the hate that fueled the 9/11 attackers.
It’s time that we remove the hate in our foreign policy and the hate in the administration and we will see that who has nukes and bio/chemical weapons will be irrelevant. This may seem inconceivable to many filled with hate but then again larger achievements have occurred in history.
We reap what we sow. |
you are equivocating our government's stance to that of terrorists, good one. there is no hate in our foreign policy. you agree with saddam? so be it, i hope you're wrong. if you want to have an actual discussion, feel free to at any time, this is getting old, however. |
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:33:43 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by achiral:
if you are american, which i'm not sure about anyway, you will support the troops even if you don't support the cause for exactly your reasons |
It's funny that whenever anyone disagrees with the government’s policy people (typically republicans) say their not being American. As if to be american is to blindly agree with the state policy.
Slavery would still exist if everyone were to agree with your comments. In fact America would not exist if everyone in history agreed with your comments.
Hitler would be proud. Do some research on the Nazi Party, you will be disturbed by how much you sound like their propaganda.
Message edited by author 2003-03-08 13:34:39.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:36:17 PM · #137 |
| that's not what i'm saying at all. you don't even try to understand what i'm saying, that's why this has become pointless with you. you and i agree that people dying is bad. you agree that american soldiers dying is bad. all i'm saying is that you should support the soldiers even if you disagree with the war. |
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:39:12 PM · #138 |
The attacks on the WTC was so horrific because it was on innocent people. Many times more innocent people WILL be "collateral damage" if we go to war in IRAQ. This is how we will be just as bad as the terrorists. What makes it any better? Because Bush approved it? Because an American President approved the destruction of thousands of lives, its better than the WTC attacks? I don’t think so. Violence begats more violence.
Message edited by author 2003-03-08 13:40:08.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:43:06 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
The attacks on the WTC was so horrific because it was on innocent people. Many times more innocent people WILL be "collateral damage" if we go to war in IRAQ. This is how we will be just as bad as the terrorists. What makes it any better? Because Bush approved it? Because an American President approved the destruction of thousands of lives, its better than the WTC attacks? I don’t think so. Violence begats more violence. |
this is such a minority opinion, so radical, that it doesn't even deserve a response other than i feel sorry for you. there is a difference between being anti war and this. unbelievable that you can say that with a straight face |
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:47:08 PM · #140 |
Well achiral, i hate to have any bad blood with anyone, so let us shake hands and sit on our respective sides of the issue. I do wish you well, and hope to see some more quality photography.
I will continue the debate, just just so you understand, i have no personal hatred toward you.
Oh, there is one thing i want to bring up. Our President prides himself as a Christian, i don't see how this war could be in tune with the Christian value structure. This policy is aginst the very back bone of the Christian religion: the ten commandments.
So i ask you, what would Jesus do in this situation? Go to war? And as far as religion goes, as much as the leaders deny it, the whole christian/islam portion of this confilct is very very large.
Message edited by author 2003-03-08 13:49:56.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:48:00 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by Geocide:
The attacks on the WTC was so horrific because it was on innocent people. Many times more innocent people WILL be "collateral damage" if we go to war in IRAQ. This is how we will be just as bad as the terrorists. What makes it any better? Because Bush approved it? Because an American President approved the destruction of thousands of lives, its better than the WTC attacks? I don’t think so. Violence begats more violence. |
this is such a minority opinion, so radical, that it doesn't even deserve a response other than i feel sorry for you. there is a difference between being anti war and this. unbelievable that you can say that with a straight face |
I gave you the link to the Cnn polls, it's not an insignificant opinion.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2003 01:51:54 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by Geocide:
The attacks on the WTC was so horrific because it was on innocent people. Many times more innocent people WILL be "collateral damage" if we go to war in IRAQ. This is how we will be just as bad as the terrorists. What makes it any better? Because Bush approved it? Because an American President approved the destruction of thousands of lives, its better than the WTC attacks? I don’t think so. Violence begats more violence. |
this is such a minority opinion, so radical, that it doesn't even deserve a response other than i feel sorry for you. there is a difference between being anti war and this. unbelievable that you can say that with a straight face |
I am intrested of your opinions of this point, no matter how radical.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2003 02:10:40 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Geocide:
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by Geocide:
The attacks on the WTC was so horrific because it was on innocent people. Many times more innocent people WILL be "collateral damage" if we go to war in IRAQ. This is how we will be just as bad as the terrorists. What makes it any better? Because Bush approved it? Because an American President approved the destruction of thousands of lives, its better than the WTC attacks? I don’t think so. Violence begats more violence. |
this is such a minority opinion, so radical, that it doesn't even deserve a response other than i feel sorry for you. there is a difference between being anti war and this. unbelievable that you can say that with a straight face |
I am intrested of your opinions of this point, no matter how radical. |
ok first of all i know this is all opinions coming out and doesn't reflect on your or my personality. i hope we can respect each other's opinions. i mean no offense personally to you. i say your opinion is more radical than most anti war people because most anti war people don't make such flippant equivocations in their arguments. sure the mass protestors did, but even in such number they are in the vast minority. you want me to respond, but you know i disagree with you. the argument between me and you has become totally baseless for the most part and has turned into purely opinion, which is a waste of time for both of us.
as for your comment about what would Jesus do, it is more complex than you think. this is more a question of what has God created for the people of the earth. the Bible teaches basically that for Christians they are to abide by the laws and decisions of their government because God is sovereign over all things created, including governments. this, couple with the fact that Pres. Bush is a christian, and is very overt about it, says to me that I need to trust what he is saying. Now if it was a non-christian it would actually be the same thing, still given by God to his people in a fallen world. until i have proof that Bush is completely wrong on everything as it seems like you are saying, I can't disagree with him, because i have no evidence otherwise. part of this whole process is having faith that the best conclusion will come out of this situation. this is only part of my decision to support war, a small part actually, but i think that's how i would explain the God thing.
when you say because Bush approved it, that shows you don't really want to have a legitimate discussion. the UN passed resolution 1441 15-0. the countries who are now trying to renig on that already agreed that there should be serious consequences if Iraq doesn't fully comply. which it hasn't in 12 years, and won't in 12 more. Even now after france, germany, china, and russia disagree with us, we have everyone else in europe on our side. that doesn't say anything to you?
|
|
|
|
03/08/2003 02:28:44 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by Froober:
LOL...your rhetoric is incredible. I wonder who would be guilty of deciding fates here...could it be Saddam? Afterall, he chose not to comply with the UN resolutions. |
It's not rhetoric! I honestly don't believe in killing innocent people for an unjust war. This is a value inherent to my belief system. It's not rhetoric.
You can fall back to saying that Saddam is to blame all you want, but if so many people the world over don't agree with you, surely there is some uncertainty? That's not about "flying with the flock". If 9 people out of 10 tell me that I'm doing something seriously wrong, I do tend to question my own actions, as non-conformist as I am. |
I am also opposed to unjust war as I feel most people are.
When I read your 9/10 argument...I couldn't help but think of the dpc controversy...should we use our 1's? LOL I'm not sure...but I seem to recall you being in the camp that thought 'if the people think it's a 1...then they are just in voting it a 1.' Of no concenquence...just interesting to me.
Anyway, the UN is one of our greatest tools for keeping peace in the world. If they suddenly stop enforcing their resolutions, they will become virtually impotent in that respect....yielding (though indirectly) more war. To put it simply, sometimes war is necessary to prevent more war.
And yes, I can and do hold Saddam accountable for his actions. |
|
|
|
03/08/2003 02:34:27 PM · #145 |
Question for the group:
If this new "compromise" goes through, and everyone agrees that, after March 17, if new disarment is evident, war is justified. Will your positions change?
In other words, is it just the matter of world opinion that makes you think the war is bad, or are there other reasons.
Me, I'm worried about a significantly destabilized Middle East. As well as an emboldened Bush Administration. So even if the other countries "get on board", I'm not sure I'll be behind this. |
|
|
|
03/08/2003 02:41:35 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by achiral:
next time there's another hitler, we'll let him destroy europe, because people like you honestly do not care to take a look at certain parts of history. you pick and choose. |
Oh, finally... the dreadful Nazi comparisons. Do you know Godwins Law? Well, never mind ;-)
Originally posted by achiral:
i just believe that the administration of the US knows more than zadore and stephan on dpc. |
I'm sure they know more. Especially because they are far better in spying on UN members than me. But unfortunately it seems they don't want to share their knowledge. Even worse, it seems they fake information about a possible uranium smuggle from Niger to Iraq.
Originally posted by achiral:
... because there is no reason for any of us to believe that the government is wrong, YET. |
That is a good mindset. Judging people based on their _actions_ and not on hearsay or stuff other people tell you. Please extend this view on the Iraqi government.
Originally posted by achiral:
if this all turns out to be as you antiwar people say it is, i will change my position, but neither you nor i have any proof differently right now. |
Proof for what?
I admit that my links above to newspaper stories, which of course can be forged and untruthful, can't be called proof for anything, but they sure are hints and pieces in a big puzzle. Don't call the press and the people it reports about (notably the UN) nothing.
Originally posted by achiral:
i guess with people like you guys it will take an attack on your country to realize the urgency of the problem of rogue states and terrorists, willing to develop and use wmd. but we could just sit around and be held hostage by terrorists that gain these wmd from regimes like husseins. sounds like a great alternative. |
Yes it is a great alternative, because it means less people will die. That alone should be worth to be patient and use the current cooperation by Iraqi government. I know you said that in an ironic way, but you more or less got the point. Nobody should be plead guilty before he commits a crime. But that doesn't mean that you have to sit around and don't do anything. Nobody wants to do this. Nobody currently does this. It's a lot of work to minimize terrorsism.
Originally posted by achiral:
i don't have time to go and respond to all of stephan's response to me, |
I would appreciate it if you would do so. Take your time, but please don't ignore posts you don't like. Otherwise this is not much a discussion ;-)
Originally posted by achiral:
but just by reading it i can tell that both sides have been brainwashed. |
Josh, my fellow DPC photographer, you call me brainwashed? Now you get personal. I didn't call you brainwashed. Please contradict my points. Argue! But don't generalize and tell me that all I said is brainwashed.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2003 03:03:14 PM · #147 |
Achiral, granted this isn't the entire US population but it seems that your opinion is in the minority. I do think that this is a pretty good representation of the world's opinon of the action. Furthermore, I beleive that a war of this nature should be argeed upon by the world (UN). If the UN makes a resolution, the UN should be in control of it.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2003 04:21:05 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by stephan:
Oh, finally... the dreadful Nazi comparisons. Do you know Godwins Law? Well, never mind ;-) |
i have heard that one before. it's hilarious. i think that refers mostly to arguments where bringing up past dictators makes no sense. i think it makes sense here
Originally posted by stephan:
I'm sure they know more. Especially because they are far better in spying on UN members than me. But unfortunately it seems they don't want to share their knowledge. Even worse, it seems they fake information about a possible uranium smuggle from Niger to Iraq. |
first off most countries when interviewed about the spying process revealed that it's the nature of the game at the UN to have people listening to their conversations. some even went far enough to say they thought something would be wrong if they weren't being spied on. so i don't think there's much of an issue there. you also bring up the point about the uranium. i also heard that the US and Britain brought forth an a source claiming to have info about Saddam's nuclear program. this was determined by the UN to be forged, not by the US or Britain but by the source. and it pales in comparison to the number of times Iraq has lied in its reports to the UN.
Originally posted by stephan:
That is a good mindset. Judging people based on their _actions_ and not on hearsay or stuff other people tell you. Please extend this view on the Iraqi government. |
do we agree on that? why is the US being prejudged on its motives and intentions in Iraq? if we go into Iraq and find out that we had absolutely no reason for doing so, so be it, i will have been duped like it sounds like everyone thinks i'm being. but i doubt it.
Originally posted by stephan:
Proof for what?
I admit that my links above to newspaper stories, which of course can be forged and untruthful, can't be called proof for anything, but they sure are hints and pieces in a big puzzle. Don't call the press and the people it reports about (notably the UN) nothing. |
you know there are reports on both sides
Originally posted by stephan:
Yes it is a great alternative, because it means less people will die. That alone should be worth to be patient and use the current cooperation by Iraqi government. I know you said that in an ironic way, but you more or less got the point. Nobody should be plead guilty before he commits a crime. But that doesn't mean that you have to sit around and don't do anything. Nobody wants to do this. Nobody currently does this. It's a lot of work to minimize terrorsism. |
this is the fundamental problem with your thinking. you believe saddam has committed no crime, while the whole world including france germany russia and china will agree that he has. and because this is so obvious to so many, there will be no convincing you.
Originally posted by stephan:
Josh, my fellow DPC photographer, you call me brainwashed? Now you get personal. I didn't call you brainwashed. Please contradict my points. Argue! But don't generalize and tell me that all I said is brainwashed. |
someone said it before, or at least insinuated it. i believe i have more evidence on my side than you have on yours because your argument is based on what you believe will happen in the future, mine rests on what saddam has done now and in the past to warrant action against him |
|
|
|
03/08/2003 10:37:53 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Froober:
I am also opposed to unjust war as I feel most people are. |
Then I think it's important that we come to an agreement on whether or not a war is just. A few weeks ago there were millions of people protesting in 260 countries around the world. London and Sydney had their biggest ever protests. This has to be the largest anti-war movement in human history!
Originally posted by Froober:
When I read your 9/10 argument...I couldn't help but think of the dpc controversy...should we use our 1's? LOL I'm not sure...but I seem to recall you being in the camp that thought 'if the people think it's a 1...then they are just in voting it a 1.' Of no concenquence...just interesting to me. |
I do believe that people should put their views forth. I have no problem with that. If most people give me a low vote on a photo, I have to accept that it didn't win over enough people to be successful within the framework of DPC :). (That's happening to me this week). I think that if we wanted to draw an analogy between this site and the UN... (gosh :)), then this war is scoring below 4 in the Security Council right now. If Bush would only get his plans into better focus...
Originally posted by Froober:
Anyway, the UN is one of our greatest tools for keeping peace in the world. If they suddenly stop enforcing their resolutions, they will become virtually impotent in that respect....yielding (though indirectly) more war. To put it simply, sometimes war is necessary to prevent more war. |
I believe war is sometimes necessary as a last resort... There was UN approval for the Gulf War, for example. But do you realise that if the UN was strict in enforcing all its resolutions, Israel would have had to give back its occupied territories in 1969? Not many Americans would agree with THAT resolution, and I understand their reasons. Not all UN resolutions are favourable to US interests. This one happens to be, which is why Bush wants the UN to get tough. But will he remain tough when it comes to something that goes against his goals?
|
|
|
|
03/08/2003 10:41:22 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by welcher:
Question for the group:
If this new "compromise" goes through, and everyone agrees that, after March 17, if new disarment is evident, war is justified. Will your positions change?
In other words, is it just the matter of world opinion that makes you think the war is bad, or are there other reasons.
Me, I'm worried about a significantly destabilized Middle East. As well as an emboldened Bush Administration. So even if the other countries "get on board", I'm not sure I'll be behind this. |
I am also worried about the issues you raise, so I won't be happy about the war in any case. But I think the effects will be mitigated if all the members of the security council can agree. If the world is going to be divided, it's better to divide it into the fewest possible pieces. Let's have as much unity as possible.
If there is a compromise, there will be nothing anyone can do to stop the war anyway :). It will just be another fact of history, and we'll have to wait to see what the consequences are. |
|
