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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Discover Freedom
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 151 - 175 of 1247, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/09/2003 10:33:30 AM · #151
Originally posted by achiral:

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.


This sounds like helpless sarcasm by the UN members. It's still illegal.

Originally posted by achiral:

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.


Ok. Then I misunderstood something in the report.

Originally posted by achiral:

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, [...]


"so be it"? This means it is ok to kill thousands of people to gather evidence which then (maybe) confirm that it was "warranted" to kill them?

Originally posted by achiral:

you know there are reports on both sides


That's true. But why do you ignore the reports from the _independant_ UN inspectors and don't respect their call for more time?

Originally posted by achiral:

this is the fundamental problem with your thinking. you believe saddam has committed no crime, ...


For sure he has and one day he should be held responsible for that. But currently he is cooperating. The lives of the Iraqi people should are worth it to not ignore that fact.

Originally posted by achiral:

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


The Iraq is being inspected and disarming right _now_.
The US nevertheless threatens to invade Iraq right _now_.

03/09/2003 11:16:10 AM · #152
I really do encourage all to read the stuff on this site. You have all asked alot of questions and if you REALLY and to get the answers (instead of just getting a reaction) go throught the site which contains a ton of facts, backed up by references.

CO-OP RESEARCH

I have been reading through it and now understand of lot of things i didn't previously. If you feel strongly about this issue, please go through the site.
03/09/2003 11:22:45 AM · #153
I particularly enjoyed this article from MSN.[

Message edited by author 2003-03-09 11:23:06.
03/09/2003 11:30:11 AM · #154
who wants to waste their time reading biased website articles
03/09/2003 11:57:55 AM · #155
Originally posted by achiral:

who wants to waste their time reading biased website articles


...not the people that think CNN is the most reliable source of news, that's for sure.

Your repeated waste of posts here are simply YOUR opinion and nothing else. That's why they have no effect on my views (oh, and for the record, I'm not one of the anti-war protesters that protest against everything else).

BUT if only you were to point me to the FACTS, like I have pointed you to some facts (shutting you up on a couple of occasions) then I'd respect your views more then I do now. So the challenge is on, you have so much to say, now back it up. :)

Message edited by author 2003-03-09 11:59:00.
03/09/2003 12:58:36 PM · #156
This has been an interesting thread to read and follow. As someone in the military it is nice to know that there is some support for us. It is also nice to know that there are voices out there protesting military action(I don't take it personally). I guess it means a lot to me because that is what I believe in. Freedom of speech. Thanks to all of the informative articles posted as well.
03/09/2003 01:55:23 PM · #157
Jimmy, as someone opposed to military action, it's my opinion that I (and like-minded others) actually value your lives more highly than those currently setting policy. It is possible to be concerned with the welfare of the individual soldier while opposing war.
Also, although you are bound by a strict military code of conduct, you are not required to abandon your conscience, and are allowed (perhaps required) to disobey any order you sincerely believe to be illegal or immoral.
03/09/2003 02:04:26 PM · #158
Originally posted by zadore:

Originally posted by achiral:

who wants to waste their time reading biased website articles


...not the people that think CNN is the most reliable source of news, that's for sure.

Your repeated waste of posts here are simply YOUR opinion and nothing else. That's why they have no effect on my views (oh, and for the record, I'm not one of the anti-war protesters that protest against everything else).

BUT if only you were to point me to the FACTS, like I have pointed you to some facts (shutting you up on a couple of occasions) then I'd respect your views more then I do now. So the challenge is on, you have so much to say, now back it up. :)


you bring up one side of the story every time you speak. you lend nothing to the discussion except for biased websites and your own biased rhetoric. with other people, i am willing to have a discussion, with you it's pointless because you only try to "shut me up" not actually have a legitimate conversation. please stop trying to bait me into some argument neither of us will win
03/09/2003 02:05:18 PM · #159
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Jimmy, as someone opposed to military action, it's my opinion that I (and like-minded others) actually value your lives more highly than those currently setting policy. It is possible to be concerned with the welfare of the individual soldier while opposing war.
Also, although you are bound by a strict military code of conduct, you are not required to abandon your conscience, and are allowed (perhaps required) to disobey any order you sincerely believe to be illegal or immoral.


well said
03/09/2003 03:54:49 PM · #160
Just one note. Saddam is NOT cooperating, and he is NOT disarming. That's just wishful thinking.

That STILL doesn't mean war is the best way to coerce that cooperation and disarm him, but let's not dilute our anti-war stance by saying things like he's cooperating.
03/09/2003 05:03:01 PM · #161
Originally posted by jimmyn4:

This has been an interesting thread to read and follow. As someone in the military it is nice to know that there is some support for us. It is also nice to know that there are voices out there protesting military action(I don't take it personally). I guess it means a lot to me because that is what I believe in. Freedom of speech. Thanks to all of the informative articles posted as well.


I have the utmost respect for the military. So much so that when i see any military person, they automatically get that nod of thanks and respect. I don't think this issue is large enough to risk your or anyone's lives for that matter. Contrary to the media's belief being anti-war isn't anti military. Military are necessary for a number of reasons.

Most of us anti-war folks have you and the other civilians in the front of our mind...Like i was saying to achiral, this conflict isn't worth the lives of any of my loved ones, and a few happen to be in the military as well. But when your in battle, i've help in any way i can but the government is still going to hear my big mouth at the same time.

Message edited by author 2003-03-09 17:03:56.
03/09/2003 05:04:45 PM · #162
In other words, It's sadding to me to see this military that i so strongly support be misused.
03/09/2003 06:17:14 PM · #163
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Jimmy, as someone opposed to military action, it's my opinion that I (and like-minded others) actually value your lives more highly than those currently setting policy. It is possible to be concerned with the welfare of the individual soldier while opposing war.
Also, although you are bound by a strict military code of conduct, you are not required to abandon your conscience, and are allowed (perhaps required) to disobey any order you sincerely believe to be illegal or immoral.


Jimmy, I have a lot of respect for anyone who is in the front lines facing tens of thousands of soldiers with weapons pointed them and vulnarable to death. That takes balls, and the thought of being in that position scares me (my dad was in that position). At least you are doing something about your beliefs and not just sitting around and mouthing off. I hope for your safety, and I hope for your enemy's safety as well...after all they're doing the same job that you are, and they have families as well.
03/09/2003 06:39:56 PM · #164
Originally posted by zadore:

At least you are doing something about your beliefs and not just sitting around and mouthing off.


good one
03/09/2003 08:09:16 PM · #165
Originally posted by welcher:

Just one note. Saddam is NOT cooperating, and he is NOT disarming. That's just wishful thinking.


Well, I skipped through Hans Blix' report and here are some quotes:

"[...] after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there's been an acceleration of initiatives [...]"; "[...]Iraq has been forthcoming in its cooperation [...]"; "[...]increased level of Iraqi cooperation [...]"

Referring to the Al-Samoud 2 missiles: "The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament, indeed the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks; lethal weapons are being destroyed."

So the Iraq _is_ cooperating and disarming. Sure, they could do much better and there are many unresolved issues, but it's not nothing. Exactly this progress is the reason why many governments say that the inspections should continue.
03/09/2003 09:36:39 PM · #166
OK, if you want to argue semantics, fine. But Saddam is disarming and cooperating only as much as he thinks he has to to keep the UNSC divided. If you can say anything for the US in this case, it's that the only cooperation and disarmament seen to date is directly due to US troops on his borders.

He has STILL not accounted for thousands of liters of bio and chem agents, and STILL will not allow unfetered access to people that would know what happened to those items. That is NOT cooperation, and is NOT disarmament.

Again, I'm against this war, but I'm realistic enough to know what Saddam's trying to pull.
03/09/2003 10:57:07 PM · #167
Originally posted by welcher:

[...] but I'm realistic enough to know what Saddam's trying to pull.


I agree with you that he's playing delay tactics and only doing as much as he must do to avoid the war. But he _is_ doing something and if it's enough for UNMOVIC to do their assessment, then they should be given more time.

Now back to voting eggs... ;-)
03/10/2003 01:07:52 AM · #168
Originally posted by welcher:

If you can say anything for the US in this case, it's that the only cooperation and disarmament seen to date is directly due to US troops on his borders.


Please change that to "US, British and Australian troops", as that is the reality here. 2000 of our men and women are already in Kuwait. There may be more allies with troops already deployed, but those are the 3 I know of.

Hehe, with regard to people's attitudes to the military... I've already described how involved my own family is (or has been) in the Australian military, so of course I care about all those who fight in wars as though they were my own friends or family.

But just on a funny note... recently the USS Abe Lincoln was docked just off the coast of the town I live in (Fremantle, a port city kind of connected to Perth in Western Australia). The main streets, cafes, shops, etc. were full of American sailors. I have to say... I didn't "give them a nod of thanks or respect", mostly because a lot of them were too busy whistling or nodding suggestively at me, even when I walked past them holding my boyfriend's hand! Some of them were cute though, so I didn't mind too much :P.
03/10/2003 01:10:21 AM · #169
Originally posted by lisae:

Originally posted by welcher:

If you can say anything for the US in this case, it's that the only cooperation and disarmament seen to date is directly due to US troops on his borders.


Please change that to "US, British and Australian troops", as that is the reality here. 2000 of our men and women are already in Kuwait. There may be more allies with troops already deployed, but those are the 3 I know of.

Hehe, with regard to people's attitudes to the military... I've already described how involved my own family is (or has been) in the Australian military, so of course I care about all those who fight in wars as though they were my own friends or family.

But just on a funny note... recently the USS Abe Lincoln was docked just off the coast of the town I live in (Fremantle, a port city kind of connected to Perth in Western Australia). The main streets, cafes, shops, etc. were full of American sailors. I have to say... I didn't "give them a nod of thanks or respect", mostly because a lot of them were too busy whistling or nodding suggestively at me, even when I walked past them holding my boyfriend's hand! Some of them were cute though, so I didn't mind too much :P.


haha, that's a funny story
03/10/2003 03:35:18 AM · #170
I've been following this thread and doing a lot of thinking about the impending war with Iraq. Here is how I see it:

In November of 2002 the world was presented with a wonderful opportunity. Through the unanimous UNSC vote on 1441, we (the civilized world) had everything we needed to peaceably disarm Saddam Hussein, destroy is WMD, liberated the people of Iraq and stabilized that part of the Middle East. All that would have been required was for us to remain united and demand, through the credible threat of war, that he disarm and obey the UN Resolution. I think this could have worked.

But thatís not what happened. Instead, some countries saw this as on opportunity to gain political power and prestige by standing up the USA. Other countries realized that if we were to liberate Iraq we would discover that they had been violating the UN sanctions and maybe we would have discovered that they were even helping Iraq acquire WMD. This just couldnít be allowed to happen so instead of standing united against Saddam, they masterfully turned Pres Bush into the villain and made the USA out to be the aggressor.

I have watched the protests and I didnít see one single sign demanding that Saddam conform the 1441. Itís all about George Bush. I just donít get it. As far as I can see he has done everything that the world has demanded. He went to the UN and got 1441. (Please read it and see what it required Saddam to do) Then when it was clear that Saddam was not going to abide by it Pres Bush went back to the UN for a second (18th) resolution and is still working that avenue. Of course with the division in the UN that now exists there isnít a snowball change in Iraq that this can now be done peaceably.

When the bombs start dropping and innocent civilians get killed I donít think the blood will be on our (the USA) hands or Pres Bushís hands. I think it belongs somewhere else.
03/10/2003 04:34:47 AM · #171
Originally posted by lisae:

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?


Whether the elected head would act in this way is only guesswork, but the nation state does have precedent. In Nicaragua v. United States, we find the most noteworthy example of the only country to be charged internationally (through the ICJ, a body of the UN) with state terrorism. The U.S. ignored the ruling and continued its support of rebels in the region.

The UN has exactly as much power as the current military superpower(s) allow it.

If the U.S. were truly interested in international law, they would ratify the Rome Statue. They are keeping fairly good company in this respect.


Message edited by author 2003-03-10 05:08:06.
03/10/2003 10:07:31 AM · #172
Originally posted by rcrawford:

When the bombs start dropping and innocent civilians get killed I donít think the blood will be on our (the USA) hands or Pres Bushís hands. I think it belongs somewhere else.


We would be killing them, how would it not be on our hands? We wern't forced to go to war, Bush was/is forcing it.

Message edited by author 2003-03-10 10:11:00.
03/10/2003 10:33:17 AM · #173
You missed my whole point, that being, the only way this could have ended the way we all wanted was for the world to unite against Saddam.
He will never comply with the UN demand that he disarm as long as so many nations give him cover.

Just yesterday it was discovered that Mr. Blix forgot to mention to the security council that they had found a undisclosed chemical delivery system (the drone) and then that they also found a new style of bomb that was designed to break up into smaller bomblets and disperse chemical or biological crap over a wide area. I believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and apparently so does Pres Bush. You are naive if you think this stuff could not be used against us here in the USA. Or maybe you think it would be ok if it were because you think we deserve it somehow.

I just donít believe that Pres Bush ďwantsĒ to go to war and if war is required to disarm Saddam it will be because too many nations used this as a chance to further their own selfish goals instead of doing the right thing.
03/10/2003 11:10:19 AM · #174
this is a very interesting perspective and it hadn't even really crossed my mind, but i think there is a lot of truth to this. i think the presupposition is that most of the nuggets saddam has agreed to lately have come mainly as a result of the buildup of troops around Iraq's border. i would agree, especially because he wasn't disarming before any of that occured.
03/10/2003 12:43:40 PM · #175
Yeah? I was just reading about this drone....
This is what the whole world wants: Proof. The more proof the more support. As for the Cluster bomb, i wonder how much of this is spin. Much like the other missles they found, they are somply missles with no war head. Yes, they could be used for chem/bio weapons but so can regular toy rockets you find at a hobby store.

I say this is a good time to watch for spin.

Anyway, good points fellas.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 01/28/2021 10:27:15 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: 01/28/2021 10:27:15 AM EST.