PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Ace on February 27, 2003, 05:53:47 PM
-
Found this posted on another board.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refuting The Top Ten Most Annoying Anti-War ClichesBy John Hawkins
10) Why Is The U.S. Going To War With Iraq And Not North Korea? Let me answer that question with some questions. Why did we go to war with Hitler during WW2 and not Stalin immediately after? Why is Milosevic at The Hague today while Castro is still living in a palace in Cuba? Why is it that Mexico and Canada are in NAFTA, but Britain is not? For that matter, why are we going to invade Iraq and not France? Simple, they\'re different countries, different situations, and they require different tactics to deal with them. If you don\'t know what the differences are, it\'s not because there are no differences, it\'s because you\'re not sufficiently informed. If you do want to find out more about the differences, here\'s an editorial I wrote about the subject. If you don\'t want to learn more about it, but you want to keep claiming that we should be threatening to invade N. Korea and not Iraq, then go ahead. That\'s like putting an "ignorant and proud of it" stamp on your forehead and it should warn sensible people that they don\'t need to waste time paying attention to you.
9) Attacking Iraq Will Just Create More Terrorists: Setting aside the fact that many people in the Middle-East hate Saddam and would be pleased to see Iraq become a Democracy, the idea that going after terrorists and terrorist sponsoring nations will create more terrorists leads to circular logic that works like so...
1) Terrorists kill Americans!
2) We\'ve got to do something about the terrorists who want to kill us! Let\'s kill them and go after the people that sponsor them!
3) No! We can\'t do that because it\'ll only create more terrorists! Let\'s pretend the problem doesn\'t exist and work on socializing our medicine, raising taxes, and creating a liberal talk radio network!
4) Terrorists kill Americans! (Repeat ad infinitum).
Furthermore, history has provided us with plenty of evidence that you can win wars finally and completely without creating more adversaries. Ask Japan, Germany & what the heck, even Carthage about that -- if you can find any Carthaginians.
8) It\'s A Rush To War: Let\'s see if we can break down this headlong "rush to war". The Gulf War was in 1991 and Saddam has ignored how many UN Resolutions ordering him to disarm since then? 14? 15? 16 -- even I can\'t keep up with all of them and we\'re working on ANOTHER one as we speak. Bush himself has been talking about disarming Saddam incessantly for a full year. He has even gotten a new congressional resolution and went to the UN, neither of which was really necessary in this case. None of this has made any impression on the "rush to war" folks who would probably be screaming "it\'s a rush to war" even if Bush piddled around until his hair turned fully grey (I\'d give him about three years the way he\'s going).
7) We Must Let The Inspectors Work: The problem with that is that obviously inspectors DON\'T work. If inspections did work, then Saddam would be disarmed by now because the inspectors spent seven years puttering around Iraq and the only thing they could confirm when they left in 1998 was that they hadn\'t found all of Saddam\'s weapons. Even if they hadn\'t previously failed, it doesn\'t take a rocket scientist to figure out that a few hundred inspectors, some of whom look to have been compromised by the Iraqis, are not going to be able to completely disarm a police state the size of France that\'s doing everything in it\'s power to thwart them.
6) Bush Is A Nazi/Fascist: The very fact that we have these anti-Bush protests proves Bush isn\'t a Nazi or Fascist. If Bush were what these people claim he is, they\'d all be dead, starving to death in some gulag, or chained to a wall while a group of guards took turns bouncing nightsticks off their rock hard heads. Here\'s a little recommendation for these people crying "Bush is a Nazi" -- spend less time watching "Hogan\'s Heroes" reruns and more time cracking open history books that\'ll teach you what the Nazis were really like.
5) We\'re Going It Alone/Being Unilateral In Pushing For War On Iraq: Currently our "unilateral" attack is supported by Australia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. By the time it\'s all over, there will likely be at least another half dozen nations that publicly agree to an attack and there are probably a good 6-10 Middle-Eastern nations that are helping us out privately while they condemn us publicly (to keep their people happy). Since simply having one country with us would mean that we were no longer being "unilateral" or "going it alone," I\'d say having 22 nations with us means that we can we safely say that this will be a "multilateral" invasion.
4) It\'s All About The Oil: I have personally written two editorials (here & here) debunking this...I hesitate to call it a theory because even the people shouting "war for oil" can\'t really explain what they mean by it. Usually the fuzzy thinking goes something like this,
"Iraq has oil -- we use oil -- so, it must be a war for oil! Oh gawd, the bugs are crawling under my skin! Protesting the war and LSD don\'t mix! Get them out! Yarghghghghghgh."
Yes, they have oil -- which they already sell to us. If we wanted more, we could simply have the sanctions lifted. Remember folks, bumper sticker slogans, even ones that are repeated over and over, do not an argument make.
3) There\'s No Proof That Iraq Has Weapons Of Mass Destruction: To believe Hussein doesn\'t have WMD, you have to believe that after the inspectors left in 98, Saddam Hussein destroyed all of his WMD and then decided that he\'d lose billions of dollars in oil revenue because of the sanctions rather than tell anyone about it. Of course, that makes absolutely no sense and I\'ve never heard anyone even try to come up with a credible reason why Saddam would do that, but hey, who says anti-war arguments have to make any sense?
I could mention the fact that Saddam has refused to let his scientists and their families leave the country or even give private interviews, the defectors who\'ve talked about Hussein\'s WMD, all the rockets with empty chemical warheads on them, etc, but why shouldn\'t I just point out that the inspectors have actually found artillery shells tipped with mustard gas? That\'s no big secret, it was widely reported -- then promptly ignored.
Despite all of this common sense and evidence, there are legions of gullible & ill informed people claiming that there\'s no proof Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Come on, if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. But don\'t worry about giving me all of your money because the Easter Bunny will pay you back -- I promise!
2) Dissent Is Patriotic: The anti-war protestors tend to get very defensive about their patriotism which is understandable given that they\'re going to rallies run by communists that sometimes feature flag burning, people waving Iraqi flags, people with cute little signs like, "bomb Texas, not Iraq", etc. So they love to claim that the very fact they\'re dissenting makes them patriotic. Of course, that\'s the biggest load of kaka I\'ve ever heard -- which by their standards, makes me patriotic simply because I disagree with them.
Disagreeing with someone else does not make you patriotic. If it did, I could say, "America is the greatest country in the world" and you could reply, "No, it\'s a festering rat hole that I hope sinks into the ocean" and that would make you patriotic. To the contrary, dissent does not equal patriotism and in a free country like the US, it doesn\'t even take any courage to dissent. You want to impress me? Take your dissent to N. Korea or Iraq & protest against the governments in those countries and see how long you last. No, that still won\'t make you patriotic, but it would make you brave or stupid depending on how you look at it.
1) You\'re A Chickenhawk: This line of reasoning horse puck goes like so,
"If you haven\'t been in the military then you have no right to advocate war since you won\'t be risking your life. Furthermore, if you do advocate war, you should immediately sign up for the military."
Well, if you\'re anti-war and you really believe that only people who\'re willing to risk their lives should have a say, then shouldn\'t you be throwing yourself across one of Saddam\'s bunkers in Baghdad about now? Saddam can always use some more human shields.
Furthermore, if we take this whole "chickenhawk thing" to it\'s logical conclusion, aren\'t these peaceniks advocating a "Starship Troopers" style America run & voted on by the military? After all, it\'s essential that the President be able to declare war. So wouldn\'t that mean that every President would have to be a military man unlike that "chickenhawk" FDR who took us to war in WW2 despite never having been in the military?
This is a flighty idea for silly peaceniks who\'d rather argue about people\'s right to have an opinion than the actual issue itself. Considering the extremely weak anti-war position they\'d have to defend in a real debate, I\'m not sure that I can blame them for trying to skirt the issue.
-
Its a bit legnthy, but it certainly has a good point. Although I don\'t quite agree w/ all of those cliches, the arguments are valid. Nice post Ace!
-
Nice post Ace... amusing read! ;)
-
I wish I had written it, but it does make a nice point.
Ace
-
Great post Ace. That is exactly what I\'ve been trying to say (atleast on a couple points). That explains it all.
-
Great post. Great points. I find myself trying to say the same things as well.
-
9) Attacking Iraq Will Just Create More Terrorists: Setting aside the fact that many people in the Middle-East hate Saddam and would be pleased to see Iraq become a Democracy, the idea that going after terrorists and terrorist sponsoring nations will create more terrorists leads to circular logic that works like so...
Well, yes, for the majority, Iraqis and other middle eastern people hate Saddam. But, That doesn\'t mean that parts of Iraq are still loyal, and might go off and join a terroist group once his govermant is destroyed. Not To mention any person whos home and/or family is destroyed during the war, im sure he won\'t be very happy either.
Also, many people in the middle east would hate an American-made govermant more then a Saddam govermant... maybe not the Iraqis, but those who are willing to put a bomb on themselves would.
-
What\'s going on here? WHere are all the people blasting the US for wanting to go to war? How come all the replies have been good?
I guess this is just a tough thread to post a NO WAR comment.
Nice post ace!!!
-
Interesting... I\'ll try to translate into spanish.
-
Originally posted by videoholic
What\'s going on here? WHere are all the people blasting the US for wanting to go to war? How come all the replies have been good?
I guess this is just a tough thread to post a NO WAR comment.
Nice post ace!!!
Exactly. That article refutes every anti war argument that is floating around. I am sure if this forum was not private someone would try and use some twisted logic to dispute it, but seeing as though most members here (even the liberal ones) are intelligent it won\'t get many responses.
-
How is the forum private?
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
How is the forum private?
Ace
Its not a public forum - meaning people can\'t post anon. Also the TOS everyone agreed to when they signed up makes it not public.
I didn\'t mean that we are a secret society or anything ;)
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
didn\'t mean that we are a secret society or anything ;)
Ok, I thought maybe I was missing something. :laughing:
Ace
-
Originally posted by videoholic
What\'s going on here? WHere are all the people blasting the US for wanting to go to war? How come all the replies have been good?
I guess this is just a tough thread to post a NO WAR comment.
Nice post ace!!!
B/c it is a well written article for the most part. I dont agree with alot of the idea\'s or their opinions, but it is certainly a good read with alot of intelligent explanations.
Im almost tempted to to comment on some that I disagree with. Maybe tonight when I have some more time.
welp, here is what Ive come up with so far.
10. Is just dodging the question with insults
9. Has no point at all. It\'s just arguementative and intentionally insulting.
8. Valid point
7. Valid point
6. Places an extremely narrow view as to what constitutes fascism.
5. Valid point
4. Incredibly naive. We would take no action and have no opinion on events in the Middle east if it were\'nt for thier oil. To think otherwise is just dumb.
3. Valid point
2. Disagreeing with someone else does not make you unpatriotic either. It\'s the reasons behind it that matter. For example an anti-war protester who is against war because America is rogue nation bent on taking over the world is unpatriotic. One who is against it because he doesn\'t see any value in a bunch of red blooded American boys dying for people who will turn around and try to kill us a few years from now is patriotic.
1. Is flat out bullshit. Any person willing to send someone into a position they wouldn\'t go into themselves is a coward. Real men fight thier own battles, they don\'t send children to do it for them. Any arguement to the contrary is just making excuses for that persons lack of moral backbone.
-
Originally posted by Ace
How is the forum private?
Ace
Because I can sit here naked and you won\'t know :)
Seriously though, its owned by the site so technically its private, not open to all of the public (like full freedoms and shit)
-
Well the image of you sitting there naked is a bit much, unless you you look like your avatar. :)
Ace
-
I knew I forgot to add to some things.
In addtition to 10
Haliburton already has signed a contract if US takes over Iraqi oil they will be in charge. They\'ll make billions upgrading old iraqi oil refinaries. Oh yeah, guess what Cheney was head of Haliburton in 95 til his new job, VP of the good ol\' USA. N. Korea has the same if not more capability of attacking the US. News agency have reported that N. Korea has the capability to attack the US, unlike Iraq.
I doubt its one big koinky dink. :)
In addition to 8
Isreal, how many UN regulations have they broken in the past/present and still are to this day.
In addition to 3
Yeah I believe they have WMD also, so does N. Korea. Iraq just has no way in hitting the US long range.
When is he going to refute my argument of "If we want to kill terrorists, then would stop looking to invade apparently either unrelated, or only loosely related countries, and actually LOOK FOR, AND KILL TERRORISTS.”
-
So now no one wants to respond to me? :(
-
Please explain how nine and ten are insulting. I don\'t see the insults.
Number six: Well, I have to say, the left is quite willing to use these terms. It\'s a similar situation when someone on the left will call someone a racist just for bringing up affirmative action. The words are used too easily.
Number four: I will agree that it is important for the world economy to not have Saddam controlling the oil fields of the Middle East. I do not believe that the only reason we are doing this is for oil. Why did we not take the oil fields last time around? Also, we are powerful enough to go in and do it at any time. Is 9/11 just a convenient excuse for us to go to war for oil? I would call that silly and naive.
Number two: I think that the protesters have every right to do what they are doing. The soldiers who are ready to fight are willing to die for that right. It is a ashame that these protests are giving comfort to Saddam, though. It is also sad that a lot of these protesters are not so much protesting the war but protesting GWB.
I\'ll add one more. We hear a lot of "what happened to the war on terror? Shouldn\'t we finish that job first? How can we root out terrorists while we are occupied with Iraq? Just read the news and you can see we can do more than one thing at a time.
More later!
Ace
-
I guess I should have clarified a little more. When I said insulting, I meant his *circular logic* is insulting to anyone with avergae intelligence. Insulting in 10 refers to him stating "That\'s like putting an "ignorant and proud of it" stamp on your forehead and it should warn sensible people that they don\'t need to waste time paying attention to you."
just b/c ppl dont agree with his stance and think we shouldn\'t deal with NK with a hard stance as we do with Iraq.
I dont think oil is the only reason. I also dont think we will just go in and take it either. Look at afghanistan. An oil pipeline they have been pushing to have built there for years instantly gets approved within a week of installing the dummy government. I see similar things happening after Saddam is ousted.
-
What... that was suposed to justify the war ?
or was it just to sling mud at the Anti-war camp.... ?
me =:confused:
-
The people who say that we should go after North Korea more are also the people who push for more inspections which Iraq. Saddam is FINALLY (supposively) destroying missles (6 out of the 100s that we know of) that we found, and according to a number of articles, is even "willing" to talk about some VX gas (funny, why didn\'t they say this in the first place?). Its not like we are "disregarding" their opinion. But letting up on Iraq now, could also mean that NK (which is still an apple to orange comparison. More on this later) will get more belligerant and dangerous. Also, supposing that Saddam is finally admitting what is obvious (after 3 months of inspections, 12 [count em] 12 years of deceit, does that mean what he is trying to do now for real?), what is the weapons he is NOT talking about?
Also, it is an apple to orange case. Iraq is surrounded by Middle Eastern nations that, are partly with Saddam, and are not, say any local "super powers" other then Europe (which France and Germany being behind Iraq) and Israel (Israel having any influence with Iraq? :rolleyes: ). If anything, England and the US are pretty much the only ones who are taking the Iraq situation seriously (it took the UN a month or so to get the resoultion passed, and another 2 or so months to admit that the resolutions HAVE been violated and are waiting for the UN to come up with an appropriate action [which for the French...is more "inspections"]). North Korea on the other hand, has Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea. NONE (especailly China) WANT a nuclear Korean Peninsula (a nuclear Korean Peninsula could lead to a local arms race with Japan getting nukes. Which is NOT goog for China). Currently, we ARE (yes, we didn\'t ignore North Korea) trying to get China to lean on North Korea more since China is "buddie buddies" with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. South Korea is trying to open talks as well. US isn\'t alone when it comes to North Korea despite the rheteric of the North Koreans and the media slant.
As for it being about "oil", again, the argument has been refuted by the original refutation. Now, yes, the simple fact that Iraq has oil could be good news to the US (as well as other nations I might add since it would add a LOT more oil to the open [keyword here, open] market). Now, this is supposing that Saddam doesn\'t blow them up. If Saddam does blow them up (well documented that HE will go this route when attacked), it helps nobody. If it was solely about the oil, simply lifting the sanctions would be a LOT better economically to the oil arguement (not good for the Iraqs, but who cares about the Iraqis when we could have cheap oil right?).
As for Afganisthan, so what? Again, like Iraq, the pipeline will help the Afganisthan. The same way as Iraq will help the local people.
[edit]Also, just because you have the right to do something, doesn\'t make you "patriotic".
Definition of patriotism according to the American Herritage Dictionary...
SYLLABICATION: pa·tri·ot·ism
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: ptr--tzm KEY
NOUN: Love of and devotion to one\'s country.
Many of the people who ARE in those parades, they do NOT have the love and devotion to one\'s country (that being the United States).
Now, before you flame me, did I say that "all anti-War protesters are \'unpatriotic\'"? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There ARE anti-war people who ARE patriotic! All I\'m saying, many of the ones protesting, carrying the signs, are NOT patriotic (the Bush is a Facist, America is a Terrorist State, Bush is a Moron, Blood Not Oil crowd). NOT THE SCINCERE ANTI-WAR PERSON WHO SIMPLELY DOESN\'T WANT WAR!
-
So what??? You dont find it odd that Cheney and Bush, both of which have intrest in the company who will make insane amounts of money b/c of this pipeline all of a sudden get to build it? Hell, they could have made it less obvious and waited a while in the least.
Who said anything about having the right to do something makes them patriotic?
-
No one in this thread in particular. But it is an arguement the radical protesters, the Hollywood left makes when trying to say they are "patriotic" while holding up a sign like "America is Evil" or going to another country and protest the US, or something along those lines. Patriotism is a clearly defined term.
And for Bush and Cheney, so what? Even if they somehow profited from it (I believe Cheney had to give up his share of the company in order to be the Vice President in the first place), oil is a way of life, like it or not. Didn\'t say that every decision made is a moral decision, that doesn\'t mean it is the right decision.
And like I said, Iraq has oil, given. Whoever owns those oil fields (which would be the Iraqi people if Saddam doesn\'t blow them up) will profit from it. That doesn\'t mean that Bush and Cheney will the be the ones racking in the cash.
Besides, speaking of moral decisions, it IS well documented that France and Iraq have oil deals. No one is innocent when it comes to Iraqi oil.
-
Lets get one thing clear.
[size=10]THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE DO NOT SUPPORT A WAR WITH IRAQ WITHOUT UN PERMISSION[/size]
so take us off that list.
-
You ARE talking about the people. NOT the leaders. LEADERS ARE THE ONE WHO DETERMINE WHAT GETS DONE, WHO GETS SUPPORT, AND WHO DOESN\'T!
Same can be said with Tony Blair, and to a lesser, lesser, lesser extent Bush (since a majority does support war, but still, that drops when UN isn\'t involved).
-
Originally posted by Avatarr
Lets get one thing clear.
THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE DO NOT SUPPORT A WAR WITH IRAQ WITHOUT UN PERMISSION
so take us off that list.
you forgot to add
THE BIRTISH PEOPLE TOO :D
Down with TONY BLAIR !
-
Originally posted by Simchoy
You ARE talking about the people. NOT the leaders. LEADERS ARE THE ONE WHO DETERMINE WHAT GETS DONE, WHO GETS SUPPORT, AND WHO DOESN\'T!
Same can be said with Tony Blair, and to a lesser, lesser, lesser extent Bush (since a majority does support war, but still, that drops when UN isn\'t involved).
I\'m not sure about the US anymore, but in Australia, we vote in the leaders (yes I can vote now :D ) so they can do the micro management. Big issues like deciding to go to war or not.. that\'s decided by the people.
-
Originally posted by Avatarr
Big issues like deciding to go to war or not.. that\'s decided by the people.
That is very scary!!!
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
That is very scary!!!
Ace
How is it ?
after all its the People who carry the Can if a War is or isn\'t waged on their behalf.
Remember Politicians are elected to SERVE the PEOPLE !
Also its the people who send their Son\'s and Daughters off To fight and sometimes DIE....Not the Politicians.
When is the last time a Politicians Son was KIA or MIA ?
-
That\'s not the point. In the USA we send our politicians to Washington to vote on issues. We put a certain amount of trust in our leaders to do the right thing. They do not make their decisions by a poll. I should say, they should not decide an issue on a poll. Unfortunately some do.
I am a citizen of the USA and I am not privy to all the information our leaders have at their disposal.
Ace
-
We elect leaders to do the right thing. If they do stuff by the polls, things will not be all that great.
If I\'m not mistakened, Australia DID vote for PM Howard and even PM Tony Blair, both of which support this war. The fact that the people don\'t support him now is illrelevent until the next election. Same with Bush. Now, you can say "but but but but but but Bush didn\'t get the popular vote", doesn\'t matter. Its the way our election works. By the electorial system. Prevents mob rule which is one of the flaws if a true Democracy IMO (no, I\'m not against freedom, whatever. :rolleyes: Just a true Democracy. If 90% of the voters all voted to kill all black people, is that a good thing? You talk about how people have become sheeps, imagine if these sheeps voted one way instead of educating themselves about the issue.).
Leaders should NOT determine their policies by the polls. Only determine their policies by what is right and what is wrong. Obviously many leaders don\'t lead this way.
-
Well, atleast we can get Bush outta here in a year and whatever .... get the democrats in office, have some sexual relations, and no war ! whoo!
-
Hopefully he will be gone after this term. I dont really see him being re-elected. I just hope the next dumb ass bush( Jeb) doesnt decide to run.
-
As you know, IMO, Bush is a good President (not great. Even I have some misgivings with Bush). Certainly better with Clintoon and his sex problems (and no, it was NOT all about sex. If it was, I wouldn\'t have a problem with it. The problem I had with Clintoon is, he TRIED to cover it up [you\'re the President Of the United States, isn\'t there more IMPORTANT issues to be involved rather then covering up his personal problems?], AS WELL as lying to Americans ["I did not have sex with that fat hog...ehhh...I mean that woman, Ms. Lewinsky] and LYING under oath [he told a Grand Jury that he didn\'t have sex...blah blah blah. Lying under oath, doesn\'t matter what the reason, IS breaking the law. He BROKE THE LAW]).
Now, after that diatride...;)
Bush is certainly better then all the Dems vying for the nomination. With the exception of Howard Dean and that good for laughs Al Sharpton (my candidate for choice :laughing: ), all the other candidates (Kerry, Lieberman, Kucinich, Edwards, Graham, Gephardt) are checking the wind to see where the polls are pointing. Hence, the reason why they try to have it both ways (they gave Bush the resolution to go to war, yet they say that they oppose the war?). Kucinich is an interesting candidate, until he announced he was running for the nomination, he was pro-life. Now, he says he is pro-abortion. None of those candidates have any moral conviction even to their ideology. Howard Dean on the other hand, has been running to the left, being the most liberal and anti-war candidate of them all. But at the same time, he isn\'t a senator or congressional leader like the others. Given that he is currently last in the polls...Hmmmmmmmm.
Then there is Hillery Clinton. Not officially running, but if the Democratic Party drafts her, somehow, I have a feeling she would accept. But again, another Dem with no conviction. Says she is for war in one voice, but against Bush\'s plan on the other. Another Dem who follows the polls instead of the her conviction...if she has any. :rolleyes:
Oh, and back to Afghanistan, turns out, THERE IS NO PIPELINE. I now look like a moron thinking there was one being built. At the moment (yes, things can change, but at the moment) there are no plans to build it. Unocal had a plan to build the pipeline during the Taliban days, but all plans to build it were dropped in 2000. Can\'t even use the pipeline arguement since...its at the mement, just a "pipedream".
-
Originally posted by Simchoy
We elect leaders to do the right thing. If they do stuff by the polls, things will not be all that great.
If I\'m not mistakened, Australia DID vote for PM Howard and even PM Tony Blair, both of which support this war. The fact that the people don\'t support him now is illrelevent until the next election. Same with Bush. Now, you can say "but but but but but but Bush didn\'t get the popular vote", doesn\'t matter. Its the way our election works. By the electorial system. Prevents mob rule which is one of the flaws if a true Democracy IMO (no, I\'m not against freedom, whatever. :rolleyes: Just a true Democracy. If 90% of the voters all voted to kill all black people, is that a good thing? You talk about how people have become sheeps, imagine if these sheeps voted one way instead of educating themselves about the issue.).
Leaders should NOT determine their policies by the polls. Only determine their policies by what is right and what is wrong. Obviously many leaders don\'t lead this way.
Really Simchoy, I love you and all, but you can\'t say anything about our political systems because you don\'t know shite about it. Right now the head of state of Britain and Australia is The Queen (this\'ll change when Australia becomes a republic). We did not elect our Prime Ministers. They are the Prime Minsters because they are the leaders of the party that won the most seats in parliament.
The thing you must understand is that this isn\'t a local issue anymore. This isn\'t some conflict about the industrial relations laws, a fight for funding or a tax issue. WE ARE GOING TO WAR. It isn\'t some complex debate about economic policy that regular people don\'t really know much about. WE ARE GOING TO WAR. Do you get it yet? WE ARE GOING TO WAR.
Like I said, we elected our governments to do the micromanagement. We didn\'t elect them to tell us to go to war just because it pleases them. If they want one, they\'ll have to convince the people before they can proceed.
-
Originally posted by Simchoy
Oh, and back to Afghanistan, turns out, THERE IS NO PIPELINE. I now look like a moron thinking there was one being built. At the moment (yes, things can change, but at the moment) there are no plans to build it. Unocal had a plan to build the pipeline during the Taliban days, but all plans to build it were dropped in 2000. Can\'t even use the pipeline arguement since...its at the mement, just a "pipedream".
I havent seen otherwise and last I knew it was Halliburton and not unocal that is building the pipeline. I may be ignorant to the fact that Halliburton and Unocal may be affiliated, Im not sure on that. Looking for info at the moment though.
*edit* I have found the connection between Unocal and Halliburton.
-
There will always be a faction that will never want to go to war no matter what the evidence is. Especially if the media is controlled by left leaning organization (BBC, The Gaurdian, New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC [I know they are trying to outfox Fox with getting more "conservative" now, but before then, it is still left leaning]) tells it their way. And believe it or not, Blair, Bush, and Howard HAVE tried to make the case (IMO, have made the case) but the mass population. One of the reasons why Bush went to the UN in the first place was to get the approval of Europe as well as the world. Obviously, it backfired since he is now hated more then before (and before he wasn\'t that liked either).
We elect leaders to lead. We elect a party to lead the nation in one direction or another. One great thing about a Democracy (Parlimentary or Presidential) is that the nation can change course through the will of the people if the people feel that the nation is heading in the wrong direction or the policy is wrong (like if the people don\'t want war in Iraq...vote them out in the next election cycle).
However, if they are elected, unless they are poll watchers like Clinton was, they will lead the nation with or without the people consent. Leadership IMO, should come before the masses.
Not to mention, people are pretty finicky. Bush Sr. did a TERRIBLE job promoting Persian Gulf War 1. He had very low approval ratings. When the actually war happened, it went up to 70%.
And speaking of electing officials...
Avataar, in a way, they did elect the PM...by electing his party. Same can be said with Israel who has a similar system. The winner was Sharon not because they elected him personally (since they can\'t. Their system is JUST like England\'s and Austraila\'s parimentary government), but elected his party Likud. Now, we are simply talking symantics here.
Now, yes, techincally, the head of state for both Australia and England (and Canada I believe) is the Queen, but the Queen really has no power now. I know that. England is a Constitutional Monarchy. Maybe one day they will no longer have a Monarchy and then they could be a true Democracy (or better yet, a Republic). But until then, they still have a Queen or a King.
-
Right, all that direction stuff is all well and good Simchoy. The Liberals, Howard\'s party did a whole lot of reform that many people were against. The biggest thing is they completely overhauled the taxation system and implemented a GST. A lot of people were against it before, but now everything is fine and dandy. I can appreciate that sometimes leaders must lead and go to places where poeple dont like to go.
Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Raegan (sp?) both stepped into cold water by adopting a different (at the time) philosophy for economy: "Less economic regulation is good. The government shouldn\'t spend too much money. The government shouldn\'t control the utility companies." People didn\'t like it at first, but because ot that stance, peopole have it better now.
I can appreciate all that, but let me tell you again: this issue isn\'t about that stuff anymore. WE ARE GOING TO WAR. And again I say WE ARE GOING TO WAR. Did you hear that? WE ARE GOING TO WAR. If you\'re still sticking to that lead not follow thing, then you I tell you again: WE ARE GOING TO WAR. Do you get it now? WE ARE GOING TO WAR.
-
Whats your point that we are going to war? Do you believe that peace only means the absense of war? Sometimes, war IS the only option left in order to protect us, and the free world (even if others are unwilling to do that).
We went through the UN in the hopes that "maybe" that wouldn\'t be the case. Unforetunetly, the UN is showing us how much illrelevent it is when it isn\'t taking the UN situation very seriously.
The problem with many pacifist is, the only way their thinking can work, is if EVERYONE is naturally good and trustworthy. Unfortuenetly, this isn\'t how the world works. Chamberline found that out when he tried to appease Hitler and procliamed that "There will be Peace in Our Time".
-
Yes Simchoy, but at that time they attacked first. This time, we\'re saying we should attack them before they attack us. Now what we\'re all scared about is there might be a time when the letters u and s will only mean The United States of America...... and our country is "them".
-
Hitler did attack first ONLY because Britian and France ALLOWED them to. Remember, to "prevent" war, Chamberlain gave Hitler parts of Cezhoslovakia when Hitler threatened war. This despite the fact that Czechslovakia was an ally of Britian (not to mention, the Czech did have one of the most powerful army besides Germany and...even France. So Britain gave up a somewhat powerful ally to appease Hitler). Heck, when Hitler entered the Rhineland, France still didn\'t do anything (despite the fact that it was a clear violation of the Versaille Treaty). Since Chamberlain didn\'t stop Hitler before he became a big threat later on, millions of Europeans (thousands of Americans and other nations too) are dead because of it.
Remember, Churchill was one of the few critics of Chamberlian and in fact, wanted to fight Hitler before it became a destructive and deadly war. Like today, many in the public opposed that view and sided with Chamberlain. If Churchill got his way, its possible that Hitler\'s Germany would\'ve NEVER reached the height as it did in WW2.
BTW, in a way, this could be an extention of the original Persian Gulf War. It was Saddam who was supposed to give up all his weapons as part of the treaty signed after the first Gulf War. Since he has violated that (even Clinton bombed Iraq because Saddam was found to be in violiation of that treaty [he didn\'t follow through of coarse, but he did go in for the same reason Bush is now. Oh, and he didn\'t go through the UN either]).
Pre-emptive strike has become a dirty word by liberals and the media. The thing is, sometimes, it is neccessary in order to take out a threat before it becomes are catostrophic desaster. In the age of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons, in the wake of 9-11, Al Queda, Abu Sayaad, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations, heck, even North Korea (if Clinton didn\'t give food and aid, as well as a reactor, we might not have to deal with them at this point as we are today) pre-emptive strike could be the only way to protect millions of people (Americans, Europeans, Middle Easterners, Asians, whatever).
-
Yes yes, we agree with all that. We just want the action to happen through the UN. Not a single country doing it by herself.
-
Which is why the US went to the UN in the first place. Which, unless the UN wants to become the League of Nations, must act now if they have any serious power left.
But like the original thread noted, we are NOT going at it alone with or without the "almighty" UN. Strictly talking about political support of coarse. After all, going at it "alone", doesn\'t that mean...well, alone? Those nations (public support excluded) behind us with or without the UN isn\'t exactly alone.
-
Political support is public support. I can\'t speak for other countries, but John Howard has already been censured by The Australian Senate. If he does anything stupid, The Australian Parliament will too and that means bye bye Johnny.
-
True and false. Political support is sometimes determined by the public. The same can be said with President Bush. If Bush were to...say, fall flat for whatever reason and for whatever issue, and somehow, a Democratic Presidential candidate successfully...say, demonize Bush and got his message out (whatever message it is [in this case, the war with Iraq which the only one who is consistent with their message is Howard Dean]) bye bye Bush. At the moment, the public is behind Bush, but, like Bush Sr., public support can change (he had great approval rating after the Gulf War, but came election time, Clinton was able to win due to the continued recession the US was in [note however, if it wasn\'t for Perot though, Clinton wouldn\'t have won. In a way, Bush Sr. was "Nadarize" so to speak]).
[edit]I believe the same can be said with Tony Blair. Tony Blair is facing a revolt from his own party over Iraq. However, a recent poll shows that, Tony Blair\'s message is getting through and the public will support a war with Iraq...with the backing of the UN of coarse. :cool:
However, like the Reagan and Bush Sr. example (the issue of the Persian Gulf War. The fact that he didn\'t win reelection is another example for another issue ;)), political leaders do not (and sometimes, should not) use polls in determining the best policy. While getting public behind a certain policy is always a good thing (well, okay, maybe a good thing to leaders only), what the public support may not be whats best for any situation.
-
Originally posted by Simchoy
[edit]I believe the same can be said with Tony Blair. Tony Blair is facing a revolt from his own party over Iraq. However, a recent poll shows that, Tony Blair\'s message is getting through and the public will support a war with Iraq...with the backing of the UN of coarse. :cool:
.
Not only that but he is also faceing a revolt over Health Care "Reforms" to make the set-up in England and Wales more like the US....
So far 100 Labour MP\'s have singed a letter of protest and the drive to gather votes against is growing day by day...
-
stop saying coarse for when you say of course. caorse means rough and the only time you see an of in front of it is in little phrases like "of coarse material."
-
Now you are simply criticizing my spelling instead of the issues I brought up. Wonder why? :rolleyes: Of course, its still helpful to me for pointing things out. ;)
-
Conservitives labeling all Liberals traitors and communists is the same as Burning an american flag...
-
I agree. While I am of the group "conseravtive", there are "liberals" who are not "triators" or "communist" (however, communist do believe in things like socialized medicine, welfare state, etc. Something many people who call themselves "liberal" [didn\'t say all of them. But many of them] stand for).
That still doesn\'t make many of those on the streets "patriotic" either.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Conservitives labeling all Liberals traitors and communists is the same as Burning an american flag...
I\'m a conservative (mostly atleast) and I don\'t label liberals as traitors. Occasionally I do agree with them or I agree with them but the timing isn\'t right for what they are fighting for. I do hate liberals like PETA and antiwar protesters. No they are not traitors (except for PETA ;) ), they just fight for what they believe in.
-
Originally posted by Simchoy
Now you are simply criticizing my spelling instead of the issues I brought up. Wonder why? :rolleyes: Of course, its still helpful to me for pointing things out. ;)
I don\'t remember how many times I repeated my point. It just didn\'t seem worth it. But what the heck, WE ARE GOING TO WAR. Also, here\'s a quote I stole form someone.
"Naturally the common people don\'t want war, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are going to be attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Hermann Goering in 1946 Sound Familiar?
-
I understand your point. But if that is your only point, then there is no reason in debating since all you are doing is going around in circles clinging onto a catch phrase that doesn\'t fly in the real world. NO ONE wants a war (except maybe lunitic warmongers [which I do NOT believe the leaders are if you are trying to paint them as such]) and yes, war, people die in war. I can give you all these reasons why I don\'t want war (yes, I don\'t) but believe that if it had to come to that, then it has to come to that. We went to the UN in the hopes that they would disarm Saddam, and if Saddam did just that then and there, things would be fine and \'maybe\' there wouldn\'t be a need for war (especially if the UN showed balls and forced Iraq\'s hand then). However, Saddam didn\'t disarm, didn\'t tell everything even to the UN (which, even the UN knows that Iraq hasn\'t complied), and the UN...France and Germany taking their extreme stance that anyone can see is only because of their deals with Iraq, and their anti-American, all this means that war is inevitable.
Now yes, you CAN say that Nazism remained in power by the misuse of patriotism. But, so what? The fact that the Nazis came to power and started the WW2 in the first place also shows the opposite is true.
Peace, though appeasing with dictators and murders can lead only to greater distruction later. Funny how people have selective memory about historic events.
-
I kept repeating that point, because it has several other implications. I thought u understood this. Let me explain what they are. If the US goes it alone, she will set a dangerous precedent that\'ll have other countries thinking they can go it alone too. If the US goes it alone in Iraq, they\'ll be less reluctant to go it alone in other places, in the future. We\'ll have little wars all arround the world and there\'ll be one big hawk flying everyone, striking whoever it sees fit.
-
We are not going at it alone.
Ace
-
You kids are so hard to get through to. I\'ll hang up my towel.
-
Originally posted by Avatarr
You kids are so hard to get through to. I\'ll hang up my towel.
Alright, I\'ll admit I did not read all of the posts so I am not sure what your point is. Sorry about that. I\'ll go back and read.
Calling me a kid? :) I am probably old enough to be your father.
Ace
-
yeah, if you\'re 103 years old... :)
-
Originally posted by Avatarr
yeah, if you\'re 103 years old... :)
Alrighty then, glad to see that there are a few of us old folk shuffling around here.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
We are not going at it alone.
Ace
yeah its only because US top Brass and the general public would get a "tad" upset if all of the Body bags comming home were American.
in other words Tony BLIAR is willing to pay the BLOOD price for this "conflict".
-
We were told of mass casualties during the Persian Gulf War and it was poppycock. I\'m sure the Iraqi army is busy making white flags as we speak.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
We were told of mass casualties during the Persian Gulf War and it was poppycock. I\'m sure the Iraqi army is busy making white flags as we speak.
Ace
no most of them are diggin in citys near hospitals.. and other sensitive areas which will result in a limitation in Air Strikes.
they will most likely want to draw our Forces into dirty urban / Hand to Hand Fighting.
End result a Costly Drawn out war and Not a Repete of the Last one were it was war from 50,000 Ft.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
End result a Costly Drawn out war and Not a Repete of the Last one were it was war from 50,000 Ft.
Not likely, but that is my opinion and many others who know a lot more about the possibilities than me.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
Not likely, but that is my opinion and many others who know a lot more about the possibilities than me.
Ace
What.. The UK & US top Brass will consider bombing on sensitive areas?
Result = International Condemnation , plus Growing Resentment within the Islamic world
End Result = Creation of more Terroist willing to givetheir lifes to avange this action
Or will they Para drop forces into a urban conflict
Result = much the same my previous post only more intense
-
So your policy is do nothing and hope they like us for not doing anything.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
So your policy is do nothing and hope they like us for not doing anything.
Ace
no...i would continue a policy of containment.
More Weapons inspections (triple the amount)
condition to lift UN Sanctions in return for UN Peacekeepers to intiate a state of provisional govement control.
For the Iraq army esp the Republican Gaurd to STAND DOWN on a condition that the nation will not be attacked and will be defended by the UN peacekeepers.
For the UN peaceKeeper force to be made up of 50% of Arib nations. and to seeten the deal only 10% is UK and US.
The Etablishment of The immediate demand of elections .., monitored by the UN.
option to remove saddam to a nutral country made to him by the UK & US.
lifting of the No fly Zones the peaceful removal of Saddam.
the setablishment of trade and new system of Technical support (re building) for oil.
-
And you think that can happen without a full out war?
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
And you think that can happen without a full out war?
Ace
yes..its what termed as the Carrot and Stick approch...
You offer an insentive while on the other hand "threaten" the use of Force or further diplomatic punishment.
You cann\'t just sit back and say....
Do it or Else !
i know Saddam is a monster like the next man.. but its possible to acheive the same results without the all out WAR...
-
What have we accomplished in 12 years of doing nothing? Answer:Nothing. Saddam won the first round. This time he will either comply with the wishy washy UN resolutions or we will make him comply.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
What have we accomplished in 12 years of doing nothing? Answer:Nothing. Saddam won the first round. This time he will either comply with the wishy washy UN resolutions or we will make him comply.
Ace
DID I SAY WE DO NOTHING ?
No...
i outlined a strategy for an end to the Saddam recheme(sp) through peaceful means....
yes it would take longer than the initial action that an invasion whould last for.
but it still would be far better and far quicker than the aftermath of an invasion.
Remember once an invasion has occured the possibility for forces being stationed to help with the aftermath could take years.
that plan that i outline would and should of took place at the end of the first gulf war and ans a result would of lead to a productive and democratic Iraq.
but then again where would the profit be for all the warmongers (Mr Runsfeld inc)..be ? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by ooseven
no...i would continue a policy of containment.
More Weapons inspections (triple the amount)
condition to lift UN Sanctions in return for UN Peacekeepers to intiate a state of provisional govement control.
For the Iraq army esp the Republican Gaurd to STAND DOWN on a condition that the nation will not be attacked and will be defended by the UN peacekeepers.
For the UN peaceKeeper force to be made up of 50% of Arib nations. and to seeten the deal only 10% is UK and US.
The Etablishment of The immediate demand of elections .., monitored by the UN.
option to remove saddam to a nutral country made to him by the UK & US.
lifting of the No fly Zones the peaceful removal of Saddam.
the setablishment of trade and new system of Technical support (re building) for oil.
Poppycock. This would never work with a leader like Saddam. Do you have any clue how much money he extorts for himself from the oil????? Any clue??? You do realize that the Iraqi\'s sell all their oil to small companies right, who in turn sell to shell, mobile, etc.... These small companies kick money right back to Saddam.
That country is run like the mafia and this dude is not and will not step down. There is no chance in hell this guy will leave that country without huge pressure from his people and that is going to happen when bombs start dropping.
When a 20,000lb missle hits saddam\'s palace and puts a mushroom cloud up in the air, it\'s going to scare the shit out of the iraqi\'s...
-
Originally posted by videoholic
Poppycock. This would never work with a leader like Saddam. Do you have any clue how much money he extorts for himself from the oil????? Any clue??? You do realize that the Iraqi\'s sell all their oil to small companies right, who in turn sell to shell, mobile, etc.... These small companies kick money right back to Saddam.
but i thought it wasn\'t about OIL ;) j/k
anyway.. i was on my way home when i heard that Blair is now saying that he would offer a peaceful solution if Saddam and Co were to leave Iraq in exile.
-
Peaceful solution has been offered up ever since 1991. All he has to do is give up his weapons and step down.
-
Believe it or not, I\'m all through a peaceful solution to ending this conflict. IF Saddam does leave, no need for war. Heck, even other Arab ARE ASKING him to leave into exile. The problem, he isn\'t leaving. If we continue to do this thing called "containment", and Saddam is still there, that only continues him more time to develop his weapons. He has 12 years to develop them, how long do you want to continue.
"But, but...triple the inspectors! That will solve the problem!" the UN couldn\'t even find the weapons he has now. How will tripling the inspections work?
As for the Republican Guard, that "great" army couldn\'t surrender fast enough during the first Persian Gulf War (another war that was supposed to have ended disasterously). Now yes, Saddam will "try" to make this a bloody war. But if the Republican Guard did what they did the last time, it won\'t. Yes, people will die, even civilians. This, unforetuently is NOT aviodable in any war. But, if there is a war, it won\'t be another "Vietnam" either that the left likes to mantra.
Lifting the no-fly zone and lifting sanctions. Again, only if Saddam is gone. In other words, I agree with you. Now, if it is done peacefully, great! I\'m with you again. But the way the wishy washy UN is doing, peaceful solution at the moment isn\'t is still out of grasp.
Now, UN monitored elections...this I\'m fine with. Thats supposing that they can get elections which can only be done with Saddam gone.
The only flaw in your arguement I see ooseven is, the UN isn\'t even doing what you are asking! If they did, maybe I would be on their side for once. But instead, its "more inspections" instead of enforcing their own resolutions.
Second, Avatarr, WE ARE NOT GOING AT IT ALONE! I thought you knew this? We have many nations behind us. The only thing we might not be doing is doing it with the UN. And at the moment, we ARE going through the UN. Which, if anything, going with the UN has only made the situation worse. Again, you are going around in circles.
BTW, Clinton DID go at it alone when he when he bombed that "bomb making" plant in Sudan, bombed Kosovo (if you remember, the US was rejected by the UN, and Clinton went in anyways), AND when he first bombed Iraq, and when he first bombed Afghanistan. Where were you when you were complaining that we shouldn\'t go at it alone? Some precedent.
-
Oh my God, someone who makes sense.
-
I\'m all for a peaceful ending to the war, but it doesn\'t really look like war will be avoided. Unless Hussein resigns, gets cancer or murdered, we will go to war and get him out of power. He\'s also broken so many treaties that result in acts of war by the UN and we haven\'t done crap to him.
-
Titan, what about Isreal? They have violated NUMEROUS UN policies as well, what to do about them?
Now I wouldnt hold Sharon up there with Hussein, but still, wrong is wrong no?
-
I wasn\'t aware of Israel to be honest. I really have nothing to say. You caught me by suprise. I\'ll think of something and get back to you.
-
How about Israel funding terrorists is nil.
-
I don\'t really know of any treaties that Israel has broken though. luckee, enlighten me.
-
What terrorist funded group has Israel EVER funded?
Now, there are "extremist" on the Israeli side (especially the Religious extremist when it comes to the settlements) but NONE when it comes actual killings (unlike the Palistinians TERRORIST groups like Hamas, Al Aqsa Marytr Brigade, Islamic Jihad, groups that ARE linked to PLO and ARE funded in part by Iraq [Saddam? Prabably, but since that link can\'t be "proven", all we can say now is Iraq]).
As for breaking UN treaties and so forth, I\'m unaware of the UN doing this with Israel. That being said, I DO know that Israel has always been condemned by the UN. The thing is, the Palistinians are the ones who are killing men, women, and children with those suicide bombers let, seemingly get a free pass from the UN. It is the Palistinians (okay, the PLO) who, when given 98% of what they wanted from Israel, they rejected it. Israeli has killed more technically, but MOST have been men. The few children and women have, unforetently, been the case of "collateral" damage. Which the world has rightly condemned Israel on. However, I don\'t hear the same ferver for the Palistinian killings as they do with Israel.
I\'m not saying Israel should get a free pass on what they do (far from it), but the double standard I see disgust me to the point that its hard for me to shed any tears over the Palistinians and their suicide bombers.
-
Well first off, the Palestiniens had there land taken away, but im not trying to justify Suicide bombing civilian targets. And Israel isnt much better, in retaliation Israel has slaughtered MANY innocent people in civilian areas.
-
Like I said, Israel should NOT be giving a free pass. HOWEVER, Israel has NEVER targeted civilians as the suicide bombers (should call them what they really are, HOMICIDE bombers) have. It has always been militant (terrorist) leaders and supporters. NEVER children and women that get the headlines (its tragic these cases happen. But NEVER were they the targets of the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] unlike the terrorist groups which are PROUD of killing civilians).
As for having their land taken away, Palistinians (a made up word by the Romans BTW) was given their land during the creation of Israel (which at the time of its creation, had a significant Jewish population). The borders were what the PLO wanted (well, without the complete destruction of Israel) at the time. In fact, there was no "Palistinian" state then either. Just Jordan. However, Arabs didn\'t think it was enough (since Israel and the Jews shouldn\'t be there at all in their thinking) and so, went and had their little war (the Six-Day War). Israel won that war and is now where it is today.
The thing is, at this point, unless all Jews are killed and Israel is no more, the violence will never stop as long as the PLO and Yasser Arafat exist and the brainwashing that is taking place with Palistinian children from their hatefilled leaders continues.
And really, ever look at a map? Look at the size of Israel, and look at the Arab nations in general. I heard a comparison once, that said the Arab nations is a football field, and Israel is a matchbox. If Israel gives half of that, think they will stop?
[edit]Dirty little secret...no other Arab nation wants the Palistinians in their territory either. Lets say, Israel is REALLY the evil monster the world believes it is, and sent all the Palistinians to another Arabic nation. Most will say no. In fact, Kuwait kicked out Palistinians nationals, as well as neigboring Jordan. The only reason why people in these nations side with the Palistinians and their "fight" isn\'t because they are great friends, but because of the common hatred. The Jews and the West [which Israel is said to be an extension of the West by many muslims, the Islamofacist]).
[edit2]BTW, NO, I\'m not saying EVERY Arab or Muslim is a terrorist. NEVER DID I STATE THIS. I am not some blind hatemonger who sees everyone in one group or another as part of everything. Just that, the LEADERS, and the Imams who spout this vile are.
They say only 1% of all Muslims believe in the bastardized version of the Koran that says that people should kill all infidels (non-muslims). The thing is, there are 1 billion followers of Islam. 1% of 1 billion is a lot of believers even though they are the obvious minority.
One day, "maybe" there will be a Palistinian state. But unless the suicide bombing stops and the leaders (PLO and Israel) get together and have real conversation and isn\'t one sided (which the "world community" like the EU and the UN), there will never be one.
-
beheh.. can I backtrack on this thing a bit and say: One thing to the US\'s credit, they have a totally kick ass military thats trained very well. If there is going to be a war, Iraq will loose very quickly. :D Also, me n bobo r the same age :D so u prolly are old enuf to be my dad Ace :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Well first off, the Palestiniens had there land taken away, but im not trying to justify Suicide bombing civilian targets. And Israel isnt much better, in retaliation Israel has slaughtered MANY innocent people in civilian areas.
The Palestinians never got their land taken away. What happened was the British government promised Israel to the Jewish people and the Palestinians with two different treaties after Britain had left there early this century. They promised the country to both groups which is like giving two fat three year olds one cookie. It doens\'t work. The kids would be fighting for it and is the same reason the jews and Palestinians are fighting for it right now.
-
They\'ve never killed Civilians? A couple of months ago when the Iraeli army marched through Palestine land, and killed many people, and also beat up random people on the streets.
-
I said they never targeted civilians. NOT killed civilians. As opposed to the homicide bombers who ARE targeting civilians.
If you have read my replies, you would see, I HAVE condemned Israel of civilian killings (in fact, the simple fact that I stated this, doesn\'t that mean I acknowledge that Israel has killed civilians? :rolleyes: ). BUT, I also know that they were not targeted like the Palistinian homicide bombers. And the Palistinians are NOT getting the same anger that is towards Israel.
BTW, there are reports that, a few of those "deaths" are faked! Film crew, actors, etc. Shows how far the Palistinian extremist will go to win over support from the world against Israel.
Note, I did NOT say that all those killings (the ones on camera at least) were "faked". Obviously, they don\'t need to fake all the killings. But, for those that seem "too good" (cameraman was a the right place at the right time sort of deal), this could be why.