TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- the Iraki war is inevitable...
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »
vesa, i like you conspiracy theory for 2 reasons
1) its optimistic. it has a happy ending where the 'good' is the motivating drive.
2) it gives the bush and blair the benifet of the doubt. i honestly belive that they know more then me about this issue and are at hand to make a wise desicion than i. although i cant 100% ever trust them i will gladly give them the benifet of the doubt.
good thinking... hopefully its true... hopefully....
Heh, only one problem with the story. While I agree that the part after invasion of Iraq, I don't quite agree with the first part, and here's why. Bush had support from most nations and people of the world to hunt down and kill terrorists. He does not have any of this support for invading Iraq. Therefore if what you say is true, he'd be much better off just telling the truth.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Heh, only one problem with the story. While I agree that the part after invasion of Iraq, I don't quite agree with the first part, and here's why. Bush had support from most nations and people of the world to hunt down and kill terrorists. He does not have any of this support for invading Iraq. Therefore if what you say is true, he'd be much better off just telling the truth. |
| quote: |
| "you ought never to suffer your designs to be crossed in order to avoid war, since war is not so to be avoided, but is only deferred to your disadvantage." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ_Skaya Evidence, please? The rule in this country is "innocent until proven guilty." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Az On the contrary, I'd LOVE to see some evidence, but when it comes down to it, there are far more pressing matters to be looked at, like north korea for example. Hmmmm Saddam Hussein with no Nuclear Weapons, no way of getting them, and no way of delivering them, or North Korea, who we know have the capability to build at least 6 nuclear weapons (and all the recent intelligence is saying that they are building them),and are commiting far more Human Rights violations than Iraq...... so where should the priorities lay? Would America give a shit if Iraq didn't have any Oil? would they fuck.... there's 4 cents keep saving, you'll be able to buy a clue then Guetag  |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Az Meanwhile we actually KNOW North Korea are transporting enough Nuclear Rods to create at least 6 Nuclear weapons, and are posing a very real threat to the world. now you tell me which is more the more important situation..... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Az I have absolutely no doubt that Tony Blair has lied to the British Population on a number of occasions, he's a politician, it's what they do. I'll be voting Liberal Democrat next time, a party that won't sell the British people up the river...... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 I agree to an extent....i beleive both N. Korea and iraq need to come down....your right though Korea should be first....but we found out about the Korean missiles being able to reach our wst coast long after we started with Iraq.... And even if we DID go for Korea first...your statements would be reversed...you would start saying why Korea..what have they done...so not sure of your point...no matter what , you dont want America to respond to what they feel is a threat to our national security...whether it be Korea or Iraq. |
| quote: |
| Are you saying you WOULD support an American/British war on North Korea?...or when that time comes will you follow the leaders of all the pacifist floating around in their self righteaous ether proclaiming North korea should be left alone? |
| quote: |
| Hussein is also a politician....why do you feel he doesnt lied about the weapons hidden?....or does Hussein always tell the truth |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Az how would they be reversed? I see North Korea as a threat, Iraq are nobodies in comparison. I wouldn't be saying why korea, as I've stated why there should be military action against Korea thats one of the stupidest things I've ever read.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Az yes, and I've said that Korea is a far more pressing situation, and I'm pretty sure anyone with a clue agrees with me..... I said there should be action of Korea, so why would I change my mind yet again you're writing shit.......... |
my problem is there was no need to ask the question, u were trying to spin it. If you'd have bothered reading my post I said there should be action, yet you didn't bother, and looked at the post how you wanted to....
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Az my problem is there was no need to ask the question, u were trying to spin it. If you'd have bothered reading my post I said there should be action, yet you didn't bother, and looked at the post how you wanted to.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 no i read and understood your posts....i was just playing devils advocate... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Az there was no need, you just made yourself look like a muppet.... |
Vesa, about your previous post:
Again here, I have a problem with the first part of your post. The second part is basically logical consequences of the first one, but the first part is not on such firm ground.
First of all, I don't think Saddam and his followers have a very large problem killing other muslims because they did kill about 200000 or so kurds in the last few years. Also, not many other muslim countries got very worried about it. The only reason Saddam can't retake the northern Kurdish areas is the no-fly zone where american and british bombers keep attacking Saddams forces, so they're leaving them at bay. Right after the first gulf war, Saddam did succesfully quell the large Kurdish uprising in those areas.
Besides, Baath is a pretty much secular party, so there is a very slim chance anybody from it is associated with Al Quaeda. And even if someone was, purges in the party would not destabilize it much because Saddam has also done that in the past and with much success.
It also means that only the most loyal members are left. Most islamic groups coming from Iraq are coming from the parts Saddam doesn't control, and he doesn't control them because of the US forces which are patroling those areas. If the US forces were to leave those areas, he'd be back in there in a matter of days.
Really, if Al Quaeda was the primary concern, US should just leave Iraq alone to deal with it because it is their joint interest. However, it seems to me that the real reason for intervention in the area isn't and cannot be Al Quaeda and other islamic organizations, because the course US is taking is opposite of what it should be and it is doing islamists a favour. That is of course unless the US is set on a much larger scale war then it seems to us now, and this is just a first step towards it. But that can very likely turn into one too big pretzel for Bush to swallow.
Now, about what you said in your second post about Iranian forces, I think their involvement in the area doesn't have much to do with americans. They're in there most probably because they think if a war breaks out Iran could get involved and get something for itself while the others are fighting. It could likely take some of the land with shiite (or is it sunni? whichever are the Iranians) majority for itself during the confusion caused by the war on other fronts.
Re: There are some very disturbing signs that Iraq may not be the only one
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Vesa Anyone understands that neither Saddam nor any of his military officers is gonna give Iraq's WMD to Iran (unless they are Iranian agents). How could they explain such a crazy act to their own people? It would be the worst kind of treason to give your own WMD to your hostile neighbour country: it would make your country defenceless, and empower your enemy. What do you think the people of the U.S. would do to Bush if he one day said "Sorry guys, I gave all our nukes and germs to Russia so that China can't get them." Of course, all 280.000.000 Americans would rip him apart in a fit of joint outrage. So Bush knows very well that the same fate would happen to Saddam if he gave his WMD to his neighbours. So the question is: why is the U.S. Government publishing such utter bullshit? |
my two cents
i know that anything we talk about is at most 20% of whats really going on out there... I know what you don't know, and you know what I don't know. I know, that the arab dictators share a common goal. They don't want to lose power. They know WMD will stop anyone from ruining their dicatorships, so they are sharing/hiding/producing whatever bombs!
that includes much of the arab world, but I won't be a dick and say all cause its simply not true!!!! Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon is controlled by syria (http://www.fortruthssake.com for the proof) and more countries that I don't even know off hand all play parts in the terrorist game. Each country has its own means for producing, and each country has its own terrorist groups. They are working together closer everyday. It's just a matter of time before we have a world wide army of hidden suicide bombers ready to strike with even WMD anywhere they feel their dictatorships are threatened...
if no war happens, lets see where the world stands in 2 years...
I say ONLY 2 years lets see where it stands!!!
SHLOMO ELIYAHU BARON
Re: Re: Re: There are some very disturbing signs that Iraq may not be the only one
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Vesa See the Iran topic I just lifted. There are Iranian-trained Shiite guerillas in Iraq. They will inevitably end up fighting with the U.S. troops. The only countries where Saddam could be hiding his WMD are Syria and Iran (unless Bush will claim that they were flown in an unmanned drone to FARC rebels in Colombia  ).So 2 + 2 = 4. The fact of Iranian-trained guerillas in Iraq + the strange propaganda that an unspecified country may have Saddam's WMD = Saddam's EMD may be in Iran. At least according to my calculations But this will be easy to verify. We'll see within a couple months, whether the U.S. takes up these allegations again. If they do (by saying that "Iraqi WMD remain unaccounted for despite searching through all Iraq), we'll know that some other country will "be disarmed of WMD" quite soon  |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by joeh152 israel also goes round stealing land and bombing people, doesnt mean its right, arse. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ_Skaya Obviously he was good enough for us to leave him in control of Iraq...... |
LMAO so true, so true. I mean, if he was such a bad a$$ threat during the Gulf War when we knew for certain that he had chemical weapons cause he gased the Kurds in the late 80's, why the hell didn't we just take him out then. It would have saved us a lot of trouble and we wouldn't have had to impose sanctions, and run through all that inspections bollocks during the Clinton era.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Verona^My And a note to Bush, quit cutting taxes, you've got a $300 billion dollar deficit, it's time you put some of that fiscal conservatism to work, and bring forth a balanced budget. Ah, the dreams of a republican actually putting forth a balanced budget, perhaps one day, 50 years from now after we filed for Chapter 11. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Thus if I were bush i would pump MORE money into the economy rather than less. |
Verona:
I agree in part with what you are saying. My original reply was to your remark that Bush should try to achieve a balanced budget. That in my opinion would be disastrous to the economy and that he should pump more money into the economy through fiscal policy in general. Yes that could include government spending but it could also include tax cuts which DO in a way pump more money into the economy. Economically speaking, a tax cut will increase consumer and business spending which is what our economy needs. One of the reasons government spending was so successful during the depression was because the unemployment rate was so high. The massive new deal programs created a ton of jobs that stimulated the economy, which was exactly what the economy needed back then. However, our current economy is not facing massive unemployment, and we don't NEED huge government spending to create new jobs. If Bush started a massive government spending program to say ... build 50 new highways at a time when the budget is already overbudgeted, the economy is still doing poorly, and we're faced with significant cost overruns from an impeding war, people would be screaming for his head. What we DO need is to stimulate consumer confidence, consumer spending, and business capital. Tax cuts are one approach to that. I never said it should be the only approach to that. Government spending should occur as well. But don't be so critical of tax cuts as a viable fiscal policy.
I also agree that something should be done about the national debt, I'm merely saying that now is not really the time to do it. Efforts to reduce it SHOULD have been done at the start of Clinton's term when the economy was booming. I find it inexcuseable that he only achieved a budget surplus towards the very end of his Presidency at the peak of the boom.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Time2Burn To dispell some of these senseless arguements and name calling lets start talking some TRUTH here. Mr Az you are right! Suddam and Iraq do not have ties with Al Qaeda! Never have and never will. Once people stop believing all the rhetoric that comes out the president's mouth we could actually start understanding stuff. And this one is easy: Who are Al Qaeda? A group of Islamic Fundamentalists against all who do not follow their interpretation of the Koran (sp?). I know I'm simplifying their philisophical structure but generally I am correct. They are agianst those who do not follow their ideals. And as a result are prepared to fight. Iraq is country that is on the complete opposite end of Al Qaeda's Ideological Spectrum. It is a country based on secular ideals. They have short hair and do not wear the religous clothing like they do in lets say Iran. As a result countries like Iraq are ememies of the Al Qaeda as they are not devoted Muslims in their opinion. Iraq themselves have had to deal with the problems of Islamic Fundamentalism/Militarism. It sucks that GW can speak so much misinformation and because he is the prez people hold "his" "thoughts" in high regard. Please people take information with a grain of salt. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by guetag Read This Smart guy U.N. Security Council Resolution 688 (5 April 1991) condemned Saddam Hussein�s repression of the Iraqi civilian population. The resolution also requires Saddam Hussein to end his repression of the Iraqi people and to allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to help those in need of assistance. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated these provisions and has expanded his violence against women and children, continued his horrific torture and execution of innocent Iraqis. Saddam has continued to violate the basic human rights of the Iraqi people and has continued to control all sources of information (including the killing of over 500 journalists in the past decade). Saddam has also harassed humanitarian aid workers, expanded his crimes against Muslims, has withheld food from families that offer their children to his regime and has continued to subject Iraqis to unfair imprisonment. The government of Iraq uses military force to repress civilian populations throughout the county, resulting in the deaths of thousands and the destruction of entire villages. Iraq has refused to allow the U.N.�s special Rapporteur for human rights to return to Iraq since his first visit in 1992. It has also refused to allow the stationing of human rights monitors as required by the U.N. resolution. In September 2001, the Iraqi government expelled six U.N. humanitarian relief workers, who until 1992 ensured the delivery of humanitarian relief services, without providing an explanation. Iraqi authorities routinely practice extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions throughout the country. The total number of prisoners that have been executed in the past five years runs into thousands, including hundreds of arbitrary executions in the last months of 1998 at Abu Gharib and Radwaniyah prisons near Baghdad. In the 1970�s and 1980�s, the Iraqi regime destroyed over 300 Kurdish villages. The destruction of Kurdish and Turkomen homes is still going on in Iraqi-controlled areas of northern Iraq. In northern Iraq the government is continuing its campaign of forcibly deporting Kurdish and Turkomen families to southern governments. As a result, approximately 900,000 citizens are internally displaced throughout Iraq. Human rights organizations and opposition groups continue to receive reports of women who suffered from severe psychological trauma after being raped by Iraqi personnel while in custody. These personnel also videotape the rape of female relatives of suspected oppositionists and used the videotapes for blackmail purposes to ensure their future cooperation. Iraqi security agents reportedly decapitated numerous women and men in front of their family members. According to Amnesty International, the victims� heads were displayed in front of their homes for several days. Iraq�s 1988-1989 Anfal campaign subjected the Kurdish people in northern Iraq to the most widespread attack of chemical weapons ever used against a civilian population. In the town of Halabja alone, an estimated 5,000 civilians were killed and over 10,000 were injured. In March 1999, the regime shot and killed grand Ayatollah al Sayid Muhammad SADIG AL Sadr, the most senior Shi�a religious leader in Iraq. Since 1991, dozens of senior Shi�a clerics and hundreds of their followers have been murdered or arrested, and their whereabouts remain unknown. In 2000, the Iraqi authorities reportedly introduced tongue amputations as a form of punishment for persons who criticize Saddam Hussein or his family. The Iraqi security services routinely torture detainees. According to former detainees, torture techniques include branding, electric shocks to the genitals, beating, burning with hot irons, suspension from rotating ceiling fans, dripping acid on the skin, rape, breaking of limbs, denial of food and water, and threats to rape or otherwise harm relatives. There are widespread reports that food and medicine that could have been made available to the general public, including children, have been stockpiled in warehouses or diverted for the personal use of government officials. Amnesty International reported that Iraq has the world�s worst record for numbers of persons who have disappeared or remain unaccounted for. Saddam Hussein does not permit freedom of speech or of the press and does not tolerate political dissent in areas under his control. In November 2000, the U.N. General Assembly criticized Saddam Hussein�s �suppression of freedom of thought, expression, information, association, and assembly�. The Special Rapporteur stated in October 1999, that citizens lived �in a climate of fear�, risking arrest and interrogation by the police or military intelligence. He noted that �the mere suggestion that someone is not a supporter of the president carries the prospect of the death penalty�. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.