TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- The illegal war is on :: denounce America’s imperialism !
Pages (24): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 »

quote:

Originally posted by Ray_Finkle The iraqi troops have been "surrenduring" only to ambush the US troops when they come in and try to take them as POWs as stated under the Geneva convention. also, does this look like the humanitarian way of dealing with POWs? http://cm.emptyspaces.net/war/aljaz...jazeera0032.jpg http://cm.emptyspaces.net/war/aljaz...jazeera0029.jpg I would hate to be the american troops right now.

inn the first picture, the soldier has been injured in combat, nothin wrong with that..its expected

as for the second picture, i remember dead bodies of taliban being shown during the taliban vs US war. and compare the dead body reality to the 24/7 visual coverage u watch on all the news channels of a city with civilians still living in it being bombed

OK, now that there is evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq, I'm starting to support US in this war. We'll have to see whether it's true or not, but if it yes, US will get my full backing in this.

Did you see the footage of the "downed pilot"?

There was footage of a reportedly downed pilot who fell into a river. The gutless Iraqies opened fire on the submerged pilot.


An American General came on shortly there after and denied any coalition plane going down, and that no pilot ejected. Then he said (while looking at the video);

"Their search and rescue techniques are much to be looked forward to"


lol

quote:

Originally posted by Durafei OK, now that there is evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq, I'm starting to support US in this war. We'll have to see whether it's true or not, but if it yes, US will get my full backing in this.

well they still havent determined what the purpose of the facilities are for...even cnn says that...

still doesnt say much because the US didnt have proof before invading...they acted under assumption

the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction are no match for the American Weapons of Mass Persuasion

quote:

Originally posted by dEsidEL the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction are no match for the American Weapons of Mass Persuasion

ROFLMAO


bubye Saddam

quote:

Originally posted by DJ El Kay Dee well they still havent determined what the purpose of the facilities are for...even cnn says that... still doesnt say much because the US didnt have proof before invading...they acted under assumption

Well, Hitler was preparing for WW2 for a couple of years before WW2. Nobody gave a shit.. What was the result ?? I don't have to tell you.

I don't think US were acting under assumption. They have their sources, and I'm sure they had VERY VERY good reasons to believe that Saddam was building biological/chemical warfare. But it's pretty hard to PROVE stuff, especially with Hussein being as deceitful as he is.

http://canada.com/toronto/story.asp?id=9D09F13F-AC20-4504-A06F-8B347A164489

I have much respect for Michael Moore.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Z http://canada.com/toronto/story.asp?id=9D09F13F-AC20-4504-A06F-8B347A164489 I have much respect for Michael Moore.

i saw this live on TV .. was laughing.. but felt he coulda done a better job with it .. seems kinda sporadic ..

Looks like the chemical plant is not what it was hyped up to be. http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/...1084802,00.html

Stupid journalists jumping the gun.

I'm curious how do y'all think world peace can be attained, when much of the world is preoccupied with self-centered needs, and political leaders misguide and hide things from the general public???
Much of us want world peace, but its not as simple as just stopping the war vs. Iraq, how do any of you suggest world peace??

quote:

Originally posted by Ray_Finkle Looks like the chemical plant is not what it was hyped up to be. http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/...1084802,00.html Stupid journalists jumping the gun.

link doesn't work...

quote:

Originally posted by DJ El Kay Dee inn the first picture, the soldier has been injured in combat, nothin wrong with that..its expected

The Geneva Convention prohibits making POWs objects of public curiosity, or of interviewing them publicly.

quote:

Originally posted by Wurm The Geneva Convention prohibits making POWs objects of public curiosity, or of interviewing them publicly.

This is true.

I think it is just a "little" hypocritical of Rumsfeld and company to be so upset about these pictures and interviews though. Its not like American media has not shown countless number of Iraqi prisoners of war being captured, surrendering and being detained.

They both have broken this Geneva convention.

quote:

Originally posted by Wurm The Geneva Convention prohibits making POWs objects of public curiosity, or of interviewing them publicly.

US is crying over the legality of showing these pictures on TV, yet they're failing to mention the illegality of agression committed on iraq and its people...

quote:

"I prefer the most unfair peace to the most righteous war." -- Cicero. "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." -- Mohandas K. Gandhi "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind...War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." -- John F. Kennedy "The past is prophetic in that it asserts loudly that wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

awesome quotes dude!

quote:

Originally posted by Time2Burn This is true. I think it is just a "little" hypocritical of Rumsfeld and company to be so upset about these pictures and interviews though. Its not like American media has not shown countless number of Iraqi prisoners of war being captured, surrendering and being detained. They both have broken this Geneva convention.

Big difference between being shown from a distance (to show numbers of prisoners), and a face-to-face (intimidating) interview.

My heart is hardening with regards to this war. Maybe it has something to do with a documentary I just watched about the residents of Habjala, where people are suffering from chemical effects 12 years on.
I am just as sure that a similar documentary could be made about long-term health effects from depleted uranium...

quote:

Originally posted by Wurm Big difference between being shown from a distance (to show numbers of prisoners), and a face-to-face (intimidating) interview.

i dont see anything intimidating by asking for names and location of origin to report to the families back in the US

quote:

My heart is hardening with regards to this war. Maybe it has something to do with a documentary I just watched about the residents of Habjala, where people are suffering from chemical effects 12 years on. I am just as sure that a similar documentary could be made about long-term health effects from depleted uranium...

well i can refer to a political scientist who stated on CBC the other day that it was due to depleted uranium left behind by USA

and what about the disfiguration of several thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki over 50 years after the Atom Bomb was dropped...wait..who dropped it again??..oh i better not say who or else i might be oppressed

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGeek US is crying over the legality of showing these pictures on TV, yet they're failing to mention the illegality of agression committed on iraq and its people...

Wait a second. You are right however you neglected to mention that the US is doing the EXACT same thing in terms of its POWs. Showing pictures of them in humiliating positions etc, at gun point (no not just aimed at the person but at their HEAD while kneeling down etc).

quote:

Originally posted by DJLocoMoco Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the 18 pages of this thread I did not see one person "defend" Saddam. We're all in agreement that Saddam needs to be removed from power, the debate lies in whether or not we support the means by which this is being done.

I don't understand. We all agree Saddam should be removed. What then do you propose is the best way to get rid of him? Every anti american calls this war illegal. It's just another example of american 'imperialism'. Americans are in Iraq for oil, they are there for a trading partner, they are there only for the pursuit of thier own interests. Yet you still admit Saddam should be removed.


I'll tell you what I have found though searching the 18 pages of this forum. I see lots of american hatred. I see criticism of the american government, criticism of the american foreign policy I even see criticism of the american people. But nowhere do i see legitimate arguements against the method americans have choosen to rid Iraq of Saddam. As moco says we all agree he should be removed. That is the real argument here. This is not a pro/anti American debate. If you don't like the american government, if you dont like the american people, that is your right. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is this war. We all know past presidents in past governments have done some awful things. Whether america trained assasins in 1946 or not is not relevant to this war. Lkd we know you hate america and most of us here are fully aware of past american agression, you arn't enlightening anybody. You arn't presenting any new or original ideas here. You arnt telling us anything we dont already know.


The fact is Saddam has assasinated hundreds of thousands of his own people, those of course being arab women and children. He has threated america in the past, has developed chemical and biological weapons and if you know he has used it against his own people, his own flesh and blood, isnt it logical to assume he would use it against his sworn enemy. No he wouldnt use them against american civilians. There's no proof of that. He only killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and his own family, there's absolutely no proof he would use them against a country he calls the great Satan. Damn those american imperialists for assuming he would.

Hating Americans doesn't make you more educated, it doesn't make you more intelligent. Ok? Stop pretending you are on some higher plane than people who do support this war. Please stop calling people ignorant or sick fucks or whatever. Nobody on here has presented any good arguements against the war, and there are many good ones. All you have done is insult americans, insult a nation of people, which, of course, is alright when it's america. Saying I hate americans is completely different than saying I hate Africans, or I hate Arabs. Isnt it? You know what, i really don't care if you insult them or not, just try to stick with the right debate.


If we all agree Saddam has to be removed, the only question that remains is how it should be done. Here's a little request, instead of rambling about how much you hate americans, instead of whining about injustices that happened 40 years ago come up with some intelligent arguements against the war, what do you think the world should do? If Saddam has to go, then how should he be dealt with. How should the world handle Iraq and ensure the safety of American civilians, ensure that iraqis are free from opression, persecution and genocide and are safe with a democratic government. Leaving the situation alone.. letting Saddam rebuild his army and letting his power foster isnt the answer. So what exactly is the answer?

could u please quote teh posts that show hatred to american PEOPLE??


how can u assume that war is the answer...all this war is doin now is hightening the threat of more terrorist attacks against America.

in the past 12 years, the budget for the Iraqi Army was reduced from 22.5 billion to a mere 1.2 billion. i dont see a threat on such a low budget

if Hussein really needs to be removed from power (as we all agree on), there is something known as international court of Justice (which America refuses to be part of because they have political figures that would be tried under that court).

if the US had the intention of killing Hussein (which its obvious they always had), they couldve simply assasinated him and his right hand men and have a few deaths as compared to putting the rest of Iraq in danger and killing hundreds of civilians.

the reason why the assassination alternative is not being used is because if it was used, the US would not be able to take the blame for it because they would benifit nothin. i.e. theyre puppet would not be put into power and they would not be able to "capture" and "secure" teh oil wells as they are doing now for their own purposes

*LKD now sits back and waits for the flaming to begin in response to thinking logically and analysing the reality of the so called war*

quote:

Originally posted by contemplator I'm curious how do y'all think world peace can be attained, when much of the world is preoccupied with self-centered needs, and political leaders misguide and hide things from the general public??? Much of us want world peace, but its not as simple as just stopping the war vs. Iraq, how do any of you suggest world peace??

"No peace among the nations without peace among the religions. No peace among religions without dialogue between the religions. No dialogue between the religions without investigation of the foundation of the religions."

- Hans Küng

quote:

Originally posted by DJ El Kay Dee the reason why the assassination alternative is not being used is because if it was used, the US would not be able to take the blame for it because they would benifit nothin. i.e. theyre puppet would not be put into power and they would not be able to "capture" and "secure" teh oil wells as they are doing now for their own purposes

The reason that the USA does not assassinate leaders
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/...ination.policy/

In 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities. The order was enacted in response to the post-Watergate revelations that the CIA had staged multiple attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro.

In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

quote:

Originally posted by Tudo Beleza The reason that the USA does not assassinate leaders http://edition.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/...ination.policy/ In 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities. The order was enacted in response to the post-Watergate revelations that the CIA had staged multiple attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro. In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

k ..that i didnt know

but what i meant is, get another to do it as in one of the Kurds or another anti hussein iraqi

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.