Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue



Play Time: Move Your Feet (Shockwave required). Thanks Nick Brigden.
Links of the Day: Cannot find server make your time. Thanks Berklee. All your 404 error belong to us.
Stories of the Day: Smothers Brother's son is porn star. Thanks Chuck!
A web of cheating. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Iraq war could send German cars in wrong direction. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Wild Science: Riddle of 'Baghdad's batteries'. Thanks crazy0ne.
Cat on the Cutting Edge. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Weird Science: Secret to sleep is to have sex about five times a week. Thanks Bob James.
Images of the Day: Bubbacomp. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Digital Eel GDC Mystery Tour 2003.

View
412 Replies. 21 pages. Viewing page 13.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >

172. Crispy Mar 23, 2003, 02:22 Trinitrotoluene
 
"Could the US possibly be any MORE provocative? It's almost as if they're trying to force Korea into making a move.

HELLO!?! We're talking about nuclear freakin' weapons."

An excellent point, crispy. Does anyone know what the heck happened after Bush broke that Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia? Did he actually BUILD more anti-ballistic sites, or just break the treaty? Are we safe from ballistic missiles, so our only real concern right now is terrorists? No, this is not a rhetorical question. Please respond if you know.

____________________
I am the uber troll.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
171. Re: Interesting Read Mar 23, 2003, 02:03 c r i s p y
 
Great idea! Lets attack North Korea and guarantee ourselves a nuclear showdown.

I don't want to drag this thread too far off topic, but since the Korea thing has been raised I was wondering if anyone else out there finds the whole situation extremely disturbing?

I mean, here we have a delusional psychopath who is CONVINCED that the US intends to lauch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against him (despite a complete lack of any evidence or precedent for such an action on the US's part.) Yet the US's solution to this problem is to move a carrier and a bunch of B1 and B52 aircraft to positions within striking distance, all the while claiming that they are there strictly for the purpose of training exercises.

Could the US possibly be any MORE provocative? It's almost as if they're trying to force Korea into making a move.

HELLO!?! We're talking about nuclear freakin' weapons.
 
---
Chris.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
170. Max.. Mar 23, 2003, 01:56 bigp3rm
 
I happen to be in my mid 30's.. As to your statement about how the US has been after oil in the middle east for 30 years.. At the end of the Gulf war the US controlled Iraq from An Nasiriyah to the Kuait border. Now, do you understand what "control" means?

conĚtrol ( P ) -
1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct
2. To hold in restraint

This region happens to be Iraq's largest oil reserve (wow look at that, the largest) . Iraq also happens to have the worlds 4 largest reserve. Now.. Explain to me how the US has been trying to get their oil when we had "complete" control of the region. The US pulled out of Iraq in agreement of the cease fire. And they left! Now.. since your a history buff you should remember the US pulled out because Iraq agreed to destroy and stop the development of WMD and disarm within 45 days (including the Scuds that happened to descend on Kuait this week). I mean they were complying with weapons inspections right?

Also.. You skipped over my quote about the people in Iran that want the same freedoms we have. They want the US to liberate them next.. And I hope the US does..

It was the French's chemical companies that supplied Iraq with what they needed to make these weapons. Not to mention in August the French sold "banned" fuel (under the UN resolution) that was purchased from China in secret and sold to Iraq.. In AUGUST 2002!

ban ( P ) banned, banĚning
1. A prohibition imposed by law or official decree.
2. To prohibit, especially by official decree.

Hey look at that they have been complying since the cease-fire agreement signed March 3, 1991!!

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
169. Re: Interesting Read Mar 22, 2003, 23:30 DrEvil
 
Great idea! Lets attack North Korea and guarantee ourselves a nuclear showdown. Why even bother bringing that up? The motives for this war aren't clear at all but its rediculous to just throw out a broad statement that its all completely about oil. IMO its about trying to create some stability in that region. We would have their oil already if it was as big of a deal as some of you pretend it to be. I have no doubt we intend to BUY a bunch of oil from Iraq, if/when Sadaam is gone, and hopefully for a better price. Maybe with a decent government Iraq could evolve out of the stone age with the money they make off of the ocean of crude they sit on, instead of lining dictators pockets.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
168. Re: Interesting Read Mar 22, 2003, 23:05 Greenish
 
It's kinda difficult to reply, considering that it's a very heated debate and in politics like in other touchy subjects people are very passionate about their point of view, and the thing im not looking for is to continue a thread of "we are right, and you are wrong" that's been going so far.
I just have some comments that remain as objective as my opinion, which is probably not a lot.
If US and allies involvement isn't fueled by factors such as the oil, but because they're doing the "right" thing, and want to bring "democracy" to Iraq, then how come in other countries, especially African countries in the past years, they haven't intervened? How come this is a special case in which they feel they need to intervene. If it's about Iraq having WOMD then it's kinda understandable, but again, there are far more important threats such as North Korea, and how come they are not invading them? It's difficult to accept such different positions to similar situations.
I understand people's pro-war point of view posted in this forum that can basically be resumed in "Iraq didn't meet with what was asked of them from resolutions, so they must pay", but why the urgency? if they (UN and US) let Iraq go not meeting up to requirements from resolutions for the last 12 years, why the sudden urgency?
And the thing is, im not against military action, im just against it being taken with such a sense of hurry, and disregarding other nations opinions in the process. But i understand what you all people say, that maybe enough is enough and it was time to take things into action. Hopefully, and that's probably the best we can all do, is wish that things dont go as bad as they can go in a war, and also that we try to see the whole scope of things, the opinions of both the people that are against war, and those that support it. That, can probably give us a broader picture of the situation.
Again i would urge you to read the link:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp
It's long, and everything but it's certainly a good read.

Cheers!

Greenish

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
167. Re: 1st war was never over... Mar 22, 2003, 22:45 DrEvil
 
"No, I posted it in response to someone saying that they were proud of Bush because he wasn't hitting civilians. Obviously civilians are being hurt...again without cause."

babar, once again you twist around someones comment to mean something completely different than what it clearly says. you like to see what you want to see out of peoples comments, and just about all of it is nowhere close to what the poster clearly stated. its completely pointless to try to debate with someone like that. you will just find a way to distort it for your own counter points.


on a different note, how about some evidence that this war is about oil, and not a bunch of opinions. I havent been following as closely as I would like given the time.


This comment was edited on Mar 22, 22:49.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
166. Re: 1st war was never over... Mar 22, 2003, 21:20 Pellet Puppy
 
Max please tell us how history proves the war is all about oil. I'd like to hear you(not a website) explain it.


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
165. Re: 1st war was never over... Mar 22, 2003, 21:01 Max
 
Barbar you never responded to the link..
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

Never forget that once, the US government was providing weapons to that same Iraq, that Iraq that was torturing people and killing with chemical weapons.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
164. Re: 1st war was never over... Mar 22, 2003, 20:58 Max
 
For the people of the oil argument you make me laugh. If we wanted that oil we would have "taken" it a long time ago

I'm sorry kid but that's exactly what the US is trying to do since the last 30 years. When the CIA's way is not working, they try to get a good opportunity like the current one to go in. Get yourself a good history lesson and see how the US are trying to control the Middle-East since the last 30 years at least for the sole purpose of controling the oil reserve.

This comment was edited on Mar 22, 21:02.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
163. Re: Ohh yeah Mar 22, 2003, 20:55 Max
 
Canada, France, Germany and Russia are refusing to expel Iraqi diplomats. Turkey wants to move into Iraq. No wonder they didn't want our troops in there. Our true friends have show their faces at home and abroad. You better watch yourself...

You see, you can't accept that somebody doesn't think exactly like you, that's the reason why nobody in the world like you.


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
162. Ohh yeah Mar 22, 2003, 20:43 bigp3rm
 
Canada, France, Germany and Russia are refusing to expel Iraqi diplomats. Turkey wants to move into Iraq. No wonder they didn't want our troops in there. Our true friends have show their faces at home and abroad. You better watch yourself...

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
161. 1st war was never over... Mar 22, 2003, 20:29 bigp3rm
 
Funny thing is that the 1st war was never over. For the people of the oil argument you make me laugh. If we wanted that oil we would have "taken" it a long time ago.
Let me tell you something, I have friends in Iran and listen to their point of view. They have witnessed 1st hand the brutality of this man. Being so close to Iraq I think this makes them a bit more knowledgeable about why we are there. They know why, and they ALSO hope that we come to FREE them next. I invite you to move to any of these countries to live 1st had under that oppression. Your spoiled little life of freedom is only dream to many others.
And for you anti-war protesters.. You are degrading the security of this nation. I have never seen so many so called "peace protesters" march in such a way. If you are for peace then go home.. Let the police protect us from harm. You people are anti-american. You can't have it both ways. I'll pay for your ticket to Iran.

Barbar you never responded to the link..
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

Thats a good enough reason to be back there..


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
160. Re: For Babar Mar 22, 2003, 19:53 JM
 
That happened over 14 years ago and we are just now getting around to doing something about it? Could you imagine another country bombing us today for something we did 14 years ago?

I won't bother trying to explain it to you, but that wasn't my point in posting the link. However, since you decided to make the analogy, there is no statute of limitations for murder in the United States. You can be punished for murdering someone yesterday or 50 years ago. No distinction is made. So why does the fact that it's been 14 years since Saddam committed mass murder of his own people excuse the act in your mind? As I said, this wasn't the point I was trying to make and no one ever claimed this was our reason for going to war. Then again, it sure as hell makes me feel a whole lot better about what were doing today. The bottom line is, the world will be better off without people like Saddam Hussein in it. And for all you broken records out there going on about how this war is all about oil...whatever. The fact is I could care less what our "official" reason is for removing Saddam from power. People like him have no place running a 7-11 let alone an entire country. He's an oppressive, brutal, thug dictator who murders his own people. If it is about oil (which I don't believe it is) then I'll bet you the Iraqi people are grateful as hell to have something that is motivating us to help rid them of Saddam.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
159. Re: For Babar Mar 22, 2003, 18:26 babar
 
>Babar, is the link to the two photos of wartime casualties supposed to open our eyes to the realities of war?

No, I posted it in response to someone saying that they were proud of Bush because he wasn't hitting civilians. Obviously civilians are being hurt...again without cause.

> If so, here's a link for you.

That happened over 14 years ago and we are just now getting around to doing something about it? Could you imagine another country bombing us today for something we did 14 years ago?

Besides, Rowanda decapitated about 600,000 people in 60 days in a mass genocide a few years ago and the US did nothing.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
158. Re: No Reason To Protest Mar 22, 2003, 18:17 babar
 
>Anyway, have fun, enjoy the big "peace" party. It'll be something you can tell your kids about some day. And hopefully some day you'll have your eyes opened.

I've never been to a peace rally, I don't want to get arrested for voicing my beliefs. I'm also in my 30's, married with a 3 year old with another one on the way. But hey, you were pretty close in your stereotyping, huh?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
157. Re: For Max and Babar Mar 22, 2003, 17:06 Max
 
Trinitrotoluene,

At least you are realistic. What is incredible is that most americans believe that same reason and don't realize that the Bush administration (or most other administration before them) is fighting only for oil reserve control. But I agree that it's not the best selling pitch if you ask your own troops to go and get killed for oil...WMD and terrorism is way better.

Max

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
156. For Max and Babar Mar 22, 2003, 16:39 Trinitrotoluene
 
"If there was no oil reserve in Iraq, the United States would never go there...even if the iraqi people were tortured each days!

Come on...you can go to war but at least, be honest and tell the world (and your own people) the real reason of it. "

Of COURSE the oil is beneficiary, but we need a good reason that most other countries will buy. And we found one. The educated people know the real reason. That's good enough. That's WAR. It's what made this country.

Babar:
"So let me get this straight. We are bombing Iraq with WOMD because he won't get rid of his WOMD. We are disobeying the UN to force Iraq to obey the UN. Should Russia, China, France and Germany start bombing us for using WOMD and not complying with the UN? If not, why not?"

I wouldn't say we are using WOMD to attack Iraq- we are just using hundreds small missiles (tomahawks, I think). The reason that other U.N. members should not attack us for having WOMD is that we didn't sign a big fat 'cease-fire' that says we won't have any. Iraq did.

" If this war is all about Iraq having WOMD why aren't we bombing the crap out of North Korea? They threatened us with nuclear war today which is a whole lot more than Iraq ever did to us."

I sincerely doubt North Korea will EVER be touched without resorting to a World War III. The reason I say that is North Korea is very close to China, and China is not to be touched.

">We WILL leave the Iraqi people better then what they were before we came. And frankly, that is all that matters to me.

Yeah, I'm sure these 2 are much better off http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/1586174.php "

It's horrible that civillians had to die, but how many thousands of those people has Saddam already killed? Are you one of those kinds of people who believes that taking babies from the womb is okay, but killing animals for feeding purposes is wrong?



____________________
I am the uber troll.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
155. Re: My Two Cents.. Mar 22, 2003, 16:15 fredrickson
 
because the united states is a bunch of rednecks that dont know the meaning of the word "justification"

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
154. My Two Cents.. Mar 22, 2003, 16:08 Pedle Zelnip
 
Well, I suppose I'll jump in with a comment/question.

Many of the posters on here claim that the US is going to "liberate", "free", "bring democracy to" the Iraqi people.

Could someone please explain to me why the US is justified in imposing it's political beliefs and systems onto a whole other country without the universal consent of the UN?

(for that matter, even if they had the consent of the UN, this would still be a valid question)




PZ
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
412 Replies. 21 pages. Viewing page 13.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo