DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Discover Freedom
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 1247, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/07/2003 02:20:58 AM · #51
Originally posted by lisae:

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.


CIA helped Iraq because Iran was our enemy and the Iatollah Insany pledged to kill all Americans. So do you think that a country should protect itself by supporting Iraq back then? Or is this just another meaningless anology that getting old. You know people in the USA don't fall for this "well you know, you did support Iraq back in 1980". God, it's such a lame statement. I think you know why we supported Iraq back then... don't you? :)

And mujahideen against the USSR same thing. Wouldn't you back them if you had 10,000 nuclear weapons pointed at your country?

Iran-Contra, done to free the US HOSTAGES held by the nutcase Iranians. Gee, I guess Reagan could have just let them all die in order to be politically correct?

All of these lame, OLD, idiotic arguements have no worth and most people who think and know the facts can see that. All of it was done to protect our country so it's RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT.

Originally posted by lisae:

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.


There's proof. Bush isn't telling you because we can't give up our sources/intellegence gathering methods. I could be wrong, and Saddam is just a sweet little saint. Who knows.

Message edited by author 2003-03-07 02:25:01.
03/07/2003 02:26:50 AM · #52
here's somthing special, just for all of the saddam lovers out there

A Spanking, A Spanking, there is going to be a spanking!
03/07/2003 02:29:50 AM · #53
Where exactly does lisae state that she's pro hussein? where? quote it, cause I can't seem to find it.
03/07/2003 02:31:40 AM · #54
Originally posted by ChrisW123:

All of it was done to protect our country so it's RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT.


I was pointing out that it's wrong to say that the US has no ties to terrorism.

However, this sentence of yours is very interesting. Would you generalise it, and extend it to every country in the world? In other words, is everything any government does to protect their country RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT?

Then what is ever wrong?
03/07/2003 02:34:06 AM · #55
Originally posted by Hoogie:

Originally posted by achiral:

to all those people who claim the war is all because of oil, riddle me this:

Why didn't we take the oilfields in the first Gulf War? Or Desert Fox in 1998? Because besides what you think in your head, you have no point. You have no basis for that interpretation. It's all made up by people who don't care to actually look at the facts. We could have easily taken Iraq's oil by now many times but haven't. Can you explain that?


Of course its for oil and of course this war will stimulate the american economy, comon please dont tell me bush wants this war to liberate the IRAQIE people, that excuse is just beyond comprehension!

Bush should concentrate on "REAL" threats such as N.korea but then again there isnt much profit in fighting them.


ok so what if it is about oil, so what? what do we drive to work everyday? sheesh.. if anything though, the oil is a major factor why france and germany and russia don't want to go in.. they do oil business with iraq and the war hurts that... for the countries against kicking saddams arse, oil is their concern...
03/07/2003 02:36:17 AM · #56
Originally posted by Annida:

Where exactly does lisae state that she's pro hussein? where? quote it, cause I can't seem to find it.


well she seem's to be defending his side even after his repeated misbehavior... but I guess all of the evil he has done is ok with you guys? you don;t care?
03/07/2003 02:40:33 AM · #57
Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by Annida:

Where exactly does lisae state that she's pro hussein? where? quote it, cause I can't seem to find it.


well she seem's to be defending his side even after his repeated misbehavior... but I guess all of the evil he has done is ok with you guys? you don;t care?


Don't you dare add me to the list. I'm not pro hussein, and as I've said, I'm not pro war either. What's wrong with a bit more patience? Maybe if the UN weapons inspectors find WPD in iraq, america will have more support, and countries will act together.

*added later: WPD, is supposed to be WMD

Message edited by author 2003-03-07 02:41:18.
03/07/2003 02:40:41 AM · #58
Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by Annida:

Where exactly does lisae state that she's pro hussein? where? quote it, cause I can't seem to find it.


well she seem's to be defending his side even after his repeated misbehavior... but I guess all of the evil he has done is ok with you guys? you don;t care?


I'm not defending his side, I'm defending the UN's side. Not everything comes down to "you're with us or you're with the terrorists". People can disagree over how to treat a tyrant they both oppose.
03/07/2003 02:47:42 AM · #59
Originally posted by lisae:

I was pointing out that it's wrong to say that the US has no ties to terrorism.


But it's a ridiculous comparison to compare supporting a group that may help protect your own country, to supporting a group for the sole purpose of ATTACKING other countries who are no threat. You know the difference.

Originally posted by lisae:

However, this sentence of yours is very interesting. Would you generalise it, and extend it to every country in the world? In other words, is everything any government does to protect their country RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT?


Hmmm, I feel a "gotcha" coming here. :) I know what you're trying to do. If I say "yes", you'll say that "well Saddam is supporting xyz terrorist group to attack the USA because they feel threatened by the US." But it's ridiculous arguement since we only react to what Iraq does (or doesn't do) such as disarm like they've been told to do. That's a real threat to other countries like the USA because he is massing these weapons for one reason: To use them against his enemies which include the USA, Britain, Israel, etc.




Message edited by author 2003-03-07 02:52:15.
03/07/2003 03:11:47 AM · #60
Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by lisae:

I was pointing out that it's wrong to say that the US has no ties to terrorism.


But it's a ridiculous comparison to compare supporting a group that may help protect your own country, to supporting a group for the sole purpose of ATTACKING other countries who are no threat. You know the difference.


Unfortunately, the US government in the 80s chose wrong. Giving Saddam all those weapons, and training the mujahideen both backfired. Were they really the right decisions? Actions that seem pragmatic today have consequences for the future. If the middle east is destabilised right now so Bush can have his war, there is every reason to believe more terrorist groups will be formed. I've pointed it out before, and I'll say it again. If this war happens we can expect that:

Sharon in Israel will use it as cover to launch a heavy assault against the Palestinians. There is a lot of evidence that shows he intends to drive them out of the Gaza strip entirely.

The Kurds in northern Iraq will be caught in a nasty situation. Right now they have a certain amount of autonomy, because the northern no fly zone protects them, and the UN has administrative power there. When the war comes, they will want to separate from Iraq. This is why Turkey opposes the war, because when Iraqi Kurds get their northern state, the Turkish Kurds will restart their terrorist campaign so they can have their own state too.

The Shi'ites in Southern Iraq will want more power. They may not be satisfied with whatever the US gives them. There will no doubt be an uprising, and it will be crushed, because no one in the West wants a new Shi'ite country to rival Iran.

The threats to both the Palestinians and the Shi'ites are disturbing, because all the fundamentalist muslims in the region will take them as an attack on Islam. This will not reduce terrorism. It will increase it.

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by lisae:

However, this sentence of yours is very interesting. Would you generalise it, and extend it to every country in the world? In other words, is everything any government does to protect their country RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT?


Hmmm, I feel a "gotcha" coming here. :) I know what you're trying to do. If I say "yes", you'll say that "well Saddam is supporting xyz terrorist group to attack the USA because they feel threatened by the US." But it's ridiculous arguement since we only react to what Iraq does (or doesn't do) such as disarm like they've been told to do. That's a real threat to other countries like the USA because he is massing these weapons for one reason: To use them against his enemies which include the USA, Britain, Israel, etc.


Again, we're still waiting for proof. Nothing that Hans Blix has said leads to the conclusion that Saddam could realistically attack the US or Britain. Israel is another matter, but they have all the weapons they need to conduct a pre-emptive strike of their own, or retaliate. If Saddam wanted to take on the most highly armed country in the Middle East, that would be his demise for sure.
03/07/2003 08:17:59 AM · #61
Originally posted by Annida:

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by Annida:

Where exactly does lisae state that she's pro hussein? where? quote it, cause I can't seem to find it.


well she seem's to be defending his side even after his repeated misbehavior... but I guess all of the evil he has done is ok with you guys? you don;t care?


Don't you dare add me to the list. I'm not pro hussein, and as I've said, I'm not pro war either. What's wrong with a bit more patience? Maybe if the UN weapons inspectors find WPD in iraq, america will have more support, and countries will act together.

*added later: WPD, is supposed to be WMD


patience? what do you call sitting back for 12 years and letting iraq violate resolution after resolution after resolution... (again 17 to be exact, neither one of you seem to be able to explain that away)
when is enough enough? 20 violations? 30? tell us? how much more patient should we be? I really would like to know your thoughts on that...
03/07/2003 08:23:01 AM · #62
Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by Annida:

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by Annida:

Where exactly does lisae state that she's pro hussein? where? quote it, cause I can't seem to find it.


well she seem's to be defending his side even after his repeated misbehavior... but I guess all of the evil he has done is ok with you guys? you don;t care?


Don't you dare add me to the list. I'm not pro hussein, and as I've said, I'm not pro war either. What's wrong with a bit more patience? Maybe if the UN weapons inspectors find WPD in iraq, america will have more support, and countries will act together.

*added later: WPD, is supposed to be WMD


patience? what do you call sitting back for 12 years and letting iraq violate resolution after resolution after resolution... (again 17 to be exact, neither one of you seem to be able to explain that away)
when is enough enough? 20 violations? 30? tell us? how much more patient should we be? I really would like to know your thoughts on that...


What you have to remember is that the US gave Iraq the weapons. Therefore, the US is the reason that Iraq is able to violate "resolution after resolution."

I am not pro-Hussein, but I am not pro-war either. Bush #1 couldn't get the job done in the Gulf War. What makes you think Bush #2 will be able to?

I've been sitting here reading this post and taking it all in. I do not appreciate that Canadians (or Australians) are being accused of "having attitude" against the US. That sort of sounds like Americans have attitude against Canadians and Australians just because a few of us don't think we should skip along happily after you into war.



Message edited by author 2003-03-07 08:27:51.
03/07/2003 08:44:20 AM · #63
If anyone should have to disarm it's the US. They have the most weapons of mass destruction (bio, chem, NUCLEAR) ....AND....THEY ARE THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TO HAVE USED THEM TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE (nuclear)

Next UN resolution should be a disarmament one that would make EVERYONE in the world disarm...do you know how many more friends the US would have throughout the world if they did that??

But no, your trigger happy cowboy bush pushed his away into presidency with an agenda...a few months after he was in power, and BEFORE 9-11, he decided to re-start the 'star-wars' program, develop more nukes, and increase his military...WHY?? Because he knew that within the next four years he was going to show Iraq 'Who's your Daddy??'....and no-one (France, Germany, THE WORLD) will be able to stand in his away.

Iraq has never had any intentions of 'attacking' US...they can't, they are poor people, and their military is nothing compared to others. They are simply a very vocal country with lots of oil. Besides it was not Iraq that took down your twin towers, it was Al Queada...but since your GREAT army and special forces can NOT find Osama, now let's pick on Iraq.

Are the American people really that blind??? Do you not see that this will bring more terror to your country, and ONLY YOUR COUNTRY??

Educate yourselves, and find out WHY it is that Al Queada attacked you, WHY Iraq doesn't like you, WHY THE WORLD IS AGAINST YOU RIGHT NOW!!!

Then, and only then can you see how the world is outside your borders. And you'll realize that the solution is not to go out and kill innocent people, but it is a change in foreign policies.

z ....sorry for the lengthy post....
03/07/2003 08:51:22 AM · #64
Originally posted by Anachronite:

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...


Please back up your facts with resources. Otherwise people will start not believing you. In this case I read the opposite.
03/07/2003 08:52:04 AM · #65
Originally posted by Anachronite:

...just for all of the saddam lovers out there


So you knowingly ignore the statements above that _nobody_ is pro Saddam here? What kind of discussion is that? It seems you're not interested in a serious argument. But I hope that this is possible (despite we were moved to the "Rant" forum now). I really enjoy reading the (to me) strange views on the world some people show here.
03/07/2003 08:52:21 AM · #66
Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Blix has said that Saddam is NOT COOPERATING.


Where did you get this information? True, he could cooperate better, but he let the inspectors into his land, he destroys the al-Samud missiles, he allowed the scientists to speak with the inspectors unmonitored. There _is_ progress.

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

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.


How can one build palaces out of food? And when everybody knows he withholds the food, why do we give it to him then? Why do we then take his oil in exchange?
The food-for-oil program only helped Hussein to have even more control over his people. So why don't we learn from that and think about alternatives? War is not an alternative for me.

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

A lot of people are not rational about this.


This is true :)

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

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. :)


Do you think terrorism will disappear when you attack people? No. It will only make them more angry. Nobody will ever be able to control every tiny part in the world in such a way to prevent terrorsim. Not even the United States.

So we have to think about different ways how to minimize terrorism other than by forcing our control over countries we don't like.

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!


So this means you would allow inpectors into your land when the US invade Iraq before it attacked them first? Now this is absurd...
03/07/2003 08:59:56 AM · #67
Originally posted by achiral:

to all those people who claim the war is all because of oil, riddle me this:

Why didn't we take the oilfields in the first Gulf War? Or Desert Fox in 1998? Because besides what you think in your head, you have no point. You have no basis for that interpretation. It's all made up by people who don't care to actually look at the facts. We could have easily taken Iraq's oil by now many times but haven't. Can you explain that?


Which countries do you think put thier oil companies in Kuwait to pump that oil; and isn't it true that those companies are the ones making the big bucks (2/3 of oil income to be somewhat more accurate). Not very surprisenly, there are no Texacos, Amacos, etc. in Iraque right now. Also, not very surprising that most oil companies are either US or British.

03/07/2003 09:02:32 AM · #68
Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by Annida:

Where exactly does lisae state that she's pro hussein? where? quote it, cause I can't seem to find it.


well she seem's to be defending his side even after his repeated misbehavior... but I guess all of the evil he has done is ok with you guys? you don;t care?


You don't call your children evil and try to exchange them if they misbehave, do you ?
I am not defending Sadam, just trying to get some prespective.
03/07/2003 09:05:41 AM · #69
Also, I do believe the military build-up and a real threat of war was neccesary for Sadam to cooperate; but lets be honest it has nothing to do with Iraque people.

As well, I believe that Bush has the ambition to be a great conqueror, which does not mean the US has such ambition.

Message edited by author 2003-03-07 09:06:10.
03/07/2003 09:16:30 AM · #70
Again I'll say that you folks are living in la-la land if you don't think Saddam has WMD right now. That is still not a reason to go to war by any stretch, but he definitely has them. I wouldn't base my anti-war stance on the notion that he doesn't have WMD.

Otherwise, I basically agree with the anti-war folks here, minus the gratuitous America bashing.
03/07/2003 09:28:30 AM · #71
Originally posted by welcher:

Again I'll say that you folks are living in la-la land if you don't think Saddam has WMD right now. That is still not a reason to go to war by any stretch, but he definitely has them. I wouldn't base my anti-war stance on the notion that he doesn't have WMD.

Otherwise, I basically agree with the anti-war folks here, minus the gratuitous America bashing.


I have to ask... what makes you so sure? We know he doesn't have nukes. There is no possible way to test one without being detected. That's why countries like India, Pakistan and North Korea have all come clean about theirs. If you test them underground, the seismic waves can be detected on the other side of the earth. If you test them above ground, there is not a centimetre of Iraq that isn't being monitored by surveillance satellites.

As for bioweapons, we know he USED to have them, but 98% of his weapons capability was destroyed by the first set of weapons inspections, and everything that has come into Iraq has been monitored since then. Biological weapons have a limited shelf life. He hasn't replaced his VX or anthrax, and he hasn't got the technology to develop more, and anything he had 20 years ago is going to be useless sludge now.

This is why the dossier that Blair produced and the evidence Powell has given are so vague. There are accusations that Saddam might have the ability to make WMDs in the next 5-10 years IF he gets his hands on X, Y and Z. There is no evidence that he has them now.
03/07/2003 09:42:33 AM · #72
Originally posted by welcher:

Again I'll say that you folks are living in la-la land if you don't think Saddam has WMD right now. That is still not a reason to go to war by any stretch, but he definitely has them. I wouldn't base my anti-war stance on the notion that he doesn't have WMD.

Otherwise, I basically agree with the anti-war folks here, minus the gratuitous America bashing.


Welcher, please read my previous post about an hour ago...Saddam DOES have WMD, i believe that too...but so does the US, how come they are allowed to have them and no-one else???
03/07/2003 10:02:42 AM · #73
Lisa, there are huge, vast quantities of WMD that are still unaccounted for. And Hussein isn't stonewalling the inspectors for the fun of it. He doesn't want them to find what he's got. It's best to just accept the fact that he has them, and move on to other, equally good reasons to be opposed to the war.

Zadore, I can't really answer that. It's a necessary hypocrisy, I guess. At the most basic, I don't think anyone would question who is more likely to be a danger with these weapons, the US or Saddam. And the US, Hiroshima and Nagasaki aside, has generally shown that it will be a responsible possessor of those weapons. Saddam has not.

I would really like to see the EU become a nuclear super power, both to offset America's supremecy, and to provide a "deterrent" to any possible perceived American agression. If folks around the world knew that there was another power that could stop a runaway America, I think America would be more trusted. (Note that I don't think we're runaway right now, merely that we are the sole, unchecked superpower, and that understandably makes people nervous.)
03/07/2003 10:25:39 AM · #74
Originally posted by welcher:


I would really like to see the EU become a nuclear super power, both to offset America's supremecy, and to provide a "deterrent" to any possible perceived American agression. If folks around the world knew that there was another power that could stop a runaway America, I think America would be more trusted. (Note that I don't think we're runaway right now, merely that we are the sole, unchecked superpower, and that understandably makes people nervous.)


Heh, we know the French have them at least! I went on a massive protest against their nuclear testing in the Pacific in 1995 :).
03/07/2003 10:32:47 AM · #75
can anyone give me a factual reason to back up statements like

"c'mon you can't honestly think we care about the Iraqi people"

"you know we're only doing it for oil"

these are both positive outcomes that we can all agree will most likely happen if the world topples saddam. what's so wrong with that?
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 10:11:15 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 10:11:15 AM EST.