I really didn't have time to read all the posts, even though I would love to...I'll just make a quick comment cause I can't resist about your view...

You know what bothers me mostly?

That those mistakes that America (and I mean those who take the decisions, not the entire nation of course) made in the past, and as you seem to agree as well were many, will just stay "unpunished" as always. US and a few more nations can make their "tiny, little" mistakes (that sometimes cause havoc to entire regions) but that's ok cause noone can touch them. There are war crimes as well, but it seems that lately this term has been replaced with the much more "delicate" "neraby casualties"...a perfect way to persuade everyone that "heck...this is a damn war...what do you expect?".

I hate Saddam...he is a dictator without doubt. But Bush is also just a churchy idiot who is obsessed with the term "evil", thinking that it's around him all the time. He is also very dangerous since he is the most powerful man on the planet atm. He thinks that he is something like a chosen knight of Revelation, ready to crush the legions of evil. I would just laugh with him if he wasn't in the position to cause extreme pain as he already does...

UN is just a puppet of US unfortunately. It has the power to enforce certain agreements only when they don't touch US and some of its allies (like Israel for instance). Some said (Neko I think) that in a democracy you just need the majority and he is right...it's only that in this case US-UK-SP's (mostly) plan was not supported by the majority. And heck...isn't France's right (or any country's) to use "veto" whenever it thinks that it should? Hasn't US done that already in the past? These are the rules, like it or not. But it seems that these rules have any power only when US supports them...

Here's a text that someone sent it to me...it's from a radio station if I remember correctly...I agree with everything...especially with the last paragraph which shows the hypocricy behind all these:

"Alright. Let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored.

We?re going to wage war to preserve the UN?s ability to avert war.

The paramount principle is that the UN?s word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its role in order to guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will.

Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?

Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honour bound to do that too, because democracy as we define it is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.

Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissention at home, we cannot afford to sanction among ourselves. We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein?s failure to allow opposing voices to be heard.

We are sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does.

And we are twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition.

We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people, and if our people and people elsewhere in the world fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them.

Listen, don't misunderstand. I think it is a good thing that the members of the Bush administration seem to have been reading Lewis Carroll. I only wish that someone had pointed out that Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass are meditations on paradox and puzzle and illogic and on the strangeness of things, not templates for foreign policy. It is amusing for the Mad Hatter to say something like "We must make war on him because he is a threat to peace", but not amusing for the commander of an army to say that.

As a collector of laughable arguments, I?d be enjoying all this, were it not for the fact that I know, we all know, that lives are going to be lost in what amounts to a freak circular reasoning accident."

Edit: Corrected a few spelling mistakes.

I agree on this (see what I added right while you posted ). Saddam is a monster for sure. HOWEVER: maybe you can help me explain this: since the USA seems to care so much about killing Saddam and thus help millions of Irakis, that they can't even stand waiting a few months... why the heck did they sit idle for 12 years before finally doing something ? It sounds a bit "artificial" to me

The 9/11 is the triggering event, no doubt. In Bush's mind : arab = islamic = terrorist = evil. See below:


Connected to 9/11 ? Oh, of course they are:
- the guys do share the same religion
- the action committed are horrible, in both cases.
- the guys are ugly and have a too big mustache, in both cases.

Come on !! No, that would need some solid confirmation, otherwise it's just speculation on a slippery slope.

To my mind, the "9/11 connection" claim has never been backed up by any evidence. See HA Terms Of Use, Rule #8


How do you know ? I mean, the brother of Bin Laden used to live near my neighborhood. The 19-year old daughter of one of the greatest mafia bosses in Italia is my brother's classmate. Most of her family and uncles are in prison now. So what ? Does she deserve to die painfully ? Well, I don't think so.


Yes, I wish they do, but I'm totally confident about it. I have much more doubts about the Iraqi people though. It seems like nobody cares. Look at the Iraqi soldiers ! They don't stand a chance. All they have is courage, proudness and old 50% working U.S.S.R equipment

Saddam (along with his military fellows in the regime) are basically S.O.A.B, tyrann, killers, and would deserve it. But that makes a handful of people - at most - so I don't think fighting the Iraqi population is fair.

Heh.. I read this from somewhere:

Bush is an anti-christ because he ordered the attack to begin on 20.03.2003.
And 20/3 is 6.666

@JohnV

LOL

You're not so bad yourself:
- before posting this, you had 1666 posts
- you posted this at 2:03AM, 21/3. Well, everybody knows that 203 + 213 + 250 = 666 !! B)

[Edit] By the way, you're member #6 in HA. I dare you find any Six in my profile [/Edit]

@bluewer than blue

Your post was really worth reading. Keep the good stuff coming

Alas it's true that the US can act as a global dictator without anyone daring to step into their way (the opposers would be labeled as "terrorists" and waged war upon). They can conquer or bomb any country they want without any danger of retaliatory action at all. What if some other country (let's for argument's sake say Iraq) would try to invade some other country (again, for argument's sake, let's say Kuwait) for political/ideological/economical reasons? That would be condemnable. But when the US does it, it's bringing freedom, democracy, happiness and pretty flowers to the world. Ugh.

Not that I already wouldn't be sick of the US cultural imperialism they've been practicing over the past few decades, the Bush administration takes the whole concept to astonishing new limits.

"If you won't accept our ways, our ideologies, our choice of ruling, our religion, our hamburgers and Coca Cola, you will be attacked upon."

Not everyone in the world regard democracy (as a form of government) and christianity as the highest pinnacles of human civilization.

I just wish the US will pick a very wrong target (wrong meaning someone that can strike back), like Russia or China for their next warmongering session...

niktheblak, your post was quite refreshing to read


That would indeed bring the world to a happy end, by Hollywood's standards ! Everyone's invited, and there would be all kinds of special FX and the like..

Trouble is, we wouldn't be there to laugh thereafter

Thanks for the links, but I already had them bookmarked.

Rob

http://www.thespeciousreport.com/2003_dixiechicks.html

Yeah right. France, Russia, and China all said no and they are next on list. Sheesh. Does the world really view all of us like this? Are you all in an XTC daze?

How about when Russia tries to snuff out the Chechnians. How about China and Tibet? How about France and the Ivory Coast? Is this different?

I don't know if this has already been touched upon (skipped the vast majority of sk1 ranting), but I heard an interesting comment on our public radio here in Canada. The exact source eludes me.

The gist of it was that the Bush/Blair camps are making huge deals out of bringing democracy to Iraq - and it doesn't take a genius to realize they have plans for 'democratizing' many more middle-eastern countries. The practicality or sanity of such a scheme comes into serious question once you consider that if many of these nations were democratic - Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc - they would likely elect governments that would be at least as anti-Israel/USA as the current governments, and maybe more militant.

Add into this mix the huge amount of hatred the USA is generating for itself in the Arab world and it's plainly laughable that regime change in the middle east can help USA whatsoever, and will likely further destabilize the region for the conceivable future.

About Israel and Palestine:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/artic...5&articleId=801
http://www.btselem.org/English/Publication...nd_Grab_Map.asp

You'll need to see both of those to really understand what's going on there.

And about Iraq, here's one of Kenneth Pollack's articles about it, a highly condensed form of his book "The Threatening Storm," which President Bush reportedly read with great interest:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020301faes...op-baghdad.html

Here's what Pollack thinks now:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/pollack.html

Required reading about just how overburdened the US military is:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...confessore.html

Good article on the new face of US military power vs. terrorism:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.04/sdi.html

Exceptional article (originally from New York Times Magazine) on building Democracy in Iraq:
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/cm...r/3_makiya.html

I'll some commentary in a bit, but for now those links should help out.

I just want to say: I' am really sad with this stupid war and with the Bush administration (no with the american people), AFAIK Bush pretends be a kind of KING of the world and he do that he wants, unknowning all UN mandatories
We must to up our voices against the war and death of innocent people, no more wars, peace!!!

Could you go ahead and be specific or would that distract from your hateful and convoluted tirade?



Whoa, those are some seriously harsh words compared to:



You have issues, and it's amusing that someone would read such a virulent diatribe and say "Your post was really worth reading. Keep the good stuff coming". I find you to be a hyprocrate who's only opinion is based on anti-American rage. You make blanket statements and don't back them up with examples, give Saddam a pass, completely ignore the subject of Resolution 1441 and which states that consequinces would be incured by not abiding by it, ignore the fact that it's not ONLY the US involved with this campaign, and only are only interested in ramblings about Bush and evil America. Other than that it was really worth reading.




Yeah, it's easy to pile it on isn't it? Again blanket statements, hyperbole, and nothing to back it up.



What would you specifically wish from that? You're implying "death to America" right?



I think I saw something like that too, might have been on CBC. So Iraq is better off with Saddam Hussein is the gist of it. Everyone criticizises, nobody has any answers. The feeling is if everyone just ignores the middle-east problem, it will all go away by itself. Canada's idea to deal with Iraq was to make a 30 day deadline for Hussein to comply. Very innovative, but after the 30 days there would have been a vote for another resolution to decide if there should be consequences or to give another deadline, at which time there will be another vote to see if there will be consequences or if the deadline should be extended.

Very good that you bring these cases as examples of other countries doing bad. Why hasn't the good almighty god-blessed USA do nothing about it? Simple, in the the two former cases you mention, they would certainly meet stronger (so to say) opposition than the weak Iraq will pose. In the later, we are talking about a, until a couple of weeks, "friendly nation". "We will let you break the law if later you help us break it", seems to be the US goverment reasoning.
The thing that all intelligent Americans (like the ones likely to read/post on this forum) should realize is that the US Administrations do not really embrace/respect/desire democracy/freedom everywhere. They just want it if it's any good to them, if it's not, they will be more than happy to support/tolerate fascist dictators or tyrannic regimes. 2 examples? In the early 70's, Chile FREELY ELECTED Salvador Allende as their president. Becausec the guy was close to socialism and the US did not want him, they supported a coup which put Pinochet in power for 17 years of tyranny and atrocity. In Mexico, we endured (well, I just endured a fraction of those) 70 years of the same governing party which was not exactly democratic nor did it care much for human rights. But it had the US blessing. Even Saddam, as everybody DOES KNOW, was supported by the US. As was Bin Laden. There's the 9/11 connection! The only one, I might say. If we research some more (as we ALWAYS do on this forum) we would notice that Saddam and Bin Laden are two very different kind of muslims. One of their few similarities would be that they both hate the US. But that's not really enough, to imply any cooperation going on.
Look, at one point in your life, you must realize that your parents, no matter how perfect they seemed when you were a kid and how much you loved them are flawed. But you still love them, and you carry on, don't you? Acknowledging that sometimes the actions of the US are morally unaceptable shouldn't mean that you are unpatriotic of worse, such a "supporter of terrorism". It just means that you know better. You should learn to listen to all opinions, no matter how distant from your own beliefs they may seem. You may end up understanding more things than you imagened. You may discover that some things you've always believed are not really accurate. Remember that you are in Hydrogen Audio, were it happens all the time.
And for those who say that they accept that the US past administrations made some mistakes but now they try to fix them, ask yourselves some little questions. 1) Were those actions, in their moment, considered to be "the only way" (to protect America)? Most were. 2) Has this administration, by means of some divine miracle, lost the capability of making mistakes? Not likely. 3) Could they be as wrong or mistaken as past administrations whose actions made so many human being suffer and are now regretable? Yes, they could.
Think, people.

Edit: Edited for clarity, expanded some arguments

Well. If it isn't left-wing well known terrorism supporters linkfest in here.
Some times the need for to fight half truths, twisted truths, and non-truths is just too great.
How about some good links for a change? With language human beings speak? As engrish as it may be, anything is better than your loved vague left-wing twisted language. Here you go.

First of all, fight media bias. http://www.honestreporting.com/

Victims of Palestinian violence and terrorism since September 2000 http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ia50

A little about your loved UN http://www.conceptwizard.com/imagine3.swf

Want some facts? http://www.christianactionforisrael.org/is...99/plomaps.html

Staged funeral anyone? http://www.idf.il/english/news/funeral.stm

When the palestinians say "end of the occupation" what do they mean? http://frontpagemag.com/media/slideshowima...ges/slide1.html

Get your anti Israel swf presentation http://www.a2zegypt.com/isr_heaven1.swf

If you use PowerPoint, get some free wake up calls http://www.stormpages.com/bambili/files/wa...ake_up_call.ppt
http://www.stormpages.com/bambili/files/mazeget.ppt

People need to defend themselves http://www.stormpages.com/bambili/files/Truth.swf

International terrorism attack search http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/attacksearch.cfm

Hmmm.. i wonder what kind of people are on the FBI's most wanted list. http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm

Read a real article for once in your life http://www.bambili.com/bambili_news_en/kat...d=78&sivug_id=1

Go to some good news sites for a change http://web.israelinsider.com/

All major Israeli news sites links http://www.bambili.com/right_asp/newslinks.asp

Can give more links, on and on, but what for? If you're not smart enough to find your way from here, i can't help you.
I wonder if anyone will request removal of "offening material" from this post, i wouldn't be surprised.

The single most disturbing part of this war, as has been mentioned, is just how little Bush cares about the opinions of the international community. The Americans claim to have 20 nations behind them, but which 20? The UK. Australia. Okay....

I'd venture that most UN nations are against the war waged as Bush is doing. Some are flat out against it, some are for a UN mediated solution. Were there two or three committed vetoes against action in the Security Council? Bush is acting without support. It's known that Hussein is a harsh dictator. It's known that atrocities have been committed. But the way to go about fixing it is not through impulsive action, but rather through diplomatic processes.

The world is now in the 21st century. There are many, many alternatives to direct conflict. [TIRADE]However, it seems as though many (and this is stereotypical, I know that few Americans on this board feel this way) Americans are so socially backwards that they believe the only way to do things is by brute force. Witness the man they voted in as President.[/TIRADE]

Finesse is no longer seen as a feasible solution, but really, the planet is beginning to become rather top-heavy. Armed conflict is going to increase as population pressures rise, and things are already tense enough that the only way to deal with things is through the diplomatic framework that so much time and money has been put into. I am very happy that my government (Canada) understands this.

Another bothersome point is that Iraq is not attacking anyone. The US is attacking Iraq. They have no real reason other than "Regime Change", and that is not backed by international authority in the slightest. When the US is attacked without international backing, it's "Terrorism". When the US attacks this way, it is not. I know this is a gross simplification, but there is an obvious double standard here.

The US needs to be reined in. I hope North Korea escalates their anti-American trend and there is armed conflict that significantly weakens the American forces. It needs to happen. Americans need to be stopped from acting as the world's police, as the Iraq conflict is shown that their idea of policing is disparate from the international perspective.

The protests in America are now leading to arrests. So much for civil liberties.

@Canar: Actually, the number of nations is around 30. It's still not very impressive, though.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/cr...er_Accident.asp
I sense a strong need to say FUCK THE ANTI-ISRAEL MEDIA.

Stupidly enough, i went to your linked articles with bullshit instead of remembering that "hey wait a minute, i need some real news source actually to get updated"

That always happens, nothing new.

Yeah, I know. I'm still disappointed every time it happens, though.
Here's a bit more on what happened.

The counter demonstrations are a bit more troubling.

SK1, the more "fucks" you insert in your posts, the more your views are laughed at. Either stop until you have calmed down or be prepared to be tagged as a hot-head and simply ignored.
Take a look at the rest of the posters...see the difference? Exactly.
Have a nice day.

Has it ever occurred to you that if you stated your opinions in a calm and rational manner that you might actually get cogent response? You've proven there's intelligence there, but you're overpowering it with blathering rant and inability to consider both sides of an issue.

canar and plastik, fuck you. yes, categorize me as a hot head, that's what's important now. why don't you go see the FUCK thread in the off-topic forum?
insulting? oh i'm so fucking sorry.
want me banned?

If you can't keep the debate civil, then do not participate at all.

Yelling, swearing, showing your frustration and anger, and desperately calling everyone against you a liar, pro-terrorist, biased, stupid, or whatever else, does not make your point. It does not support anything that you say, or make you correct in any way. Quite to the contrary, it gives the impression that you do not know what you are talking about and may predispose people to discount your claims as nonsense. It also makes you look quite immature which, like it or not, again reflects poorly on your argument.

If you want to make a point, back it up with logic, reason, and a proper use of rhetoric, and keep the fanaticism to yourself. And no, linking to sites which are pro-<insert your point of view> here does not make something factual either (or the other person you are quoting against wrong, evil, whatever) simply because it supports your own ideas. Regardless of whether or not the sites other people have linked to are biased, a site which is controlled by people on your side of the conflict is very likely going to be just as biased in reverse. One thing that you might like to consider is that in almost any situation in which a large group of people are involved, there is never going to be one side absolutely in the moral right, and one side absolutely in the moral wrong (we'll save the definition of morality for another discussion...). Simply given the nature of individual thought, it is impossible for things to be so absolute. Blanket statements and a lack of critical, discerning, and impartial judgement regarding transpired events help no one and only make the situation worse and more confused.

At any rate, If you're serious about having a civil debate also, you might, just might consider the validity of the other sides claims (whoever they may be in any debate). You've already been proven wrong once so far in this discussion, after much swearing and hand waving. Doesn't that say something about your possibility for being wrong, or at the very least not being 100% correct?

I realize that you have a rather large stake in the part in this debate that you are discussing, but many other people here are affected by these events as well in some way or another, at least in regards to the larger topic of terrorism and war. Please try to keep that in mind.

I'm not going to ask you again, SK1.

I don't see anything insulting in the FUCK thread, however I see a lot of insulting posts in this one. And guess who the poster is.....

Another question is out of those 20-30 countries, how many are joining the 'coalition of the willing' based on promises of US aid? Of course 'aid' in this case is a euphemism here for outright bribes. Other countries on the list have past political debts to the US and are following in hopes of paying those back in part. Not to mention that, like Japan, many of the US coalition countries are simply adding their names to the list, and not actively supporting the war in any way; Basically they are just giving the war rubber stamp approval to give the coalition a broader appearance.

I was very impressed how Turkey initially turned down $35 billion dollars in US aid.. er bribe money in return for the use of its military bases. Now, however, it looks like they have given in to providing the US with use of their airspace in return for a lesser bribe. Likely the US ratcheted up the pressure on them somehow...

Good call, Dibrom.

Good call.

I am getting tired of all this senseless American sentiment. People are so focused on hating America that anything else be damned.

You wanna know why America waited 12 years to finish the gulf war? Huh? Do ya? It is because they were waiting for the UN to get their thumbs out of their asses and make a decision. Bush senior made the mistake of listening to the UN 12 years ago and leave Sadam in power. The future was bright. The UN would run inspections and make sure that Iraq would never make weapons of mass destruction. But when Sadam blocked the inspectors from investigating some sites what did the UN do? They sat with their thumbs up their asses and did nothing. When Sadam kicked the UN inspectors out what did the UN do? They sat with their thumbs up their asses bickering with eachother. For nearly 12 yeas the UN made resolutions. And as the end of the resolutions passed and they were never complied with what did the UN do? They sat with their thumbs up their asses and made yet another resolution. And what happend when it expired and was not complied with? They sat on their thumbs and made yet another resolution. Need I go on? Guess who made it possible for the UN to go back in and restart inspections. No it was not the UN. It was America. Guess who made it possible for the UN to go and inspect the areas they were denied access to in previous inspections. No it was not the UN. It was America. But it was to late. Sadam had 12 years to prepare. He has underground bunkers/facilities and unmarked trucks constantly bussing around all the documents the UN inspectors wish they could get their hands on. And the UN knows this. But what did the UN do? They sat with their thumbs up their asses and made resolution after resolution which Sadam ignored.

I am all for democracy. But it only works if everyone plays. And it only works when it is not just words. There must be action and consequence. When it comes to the UN they are a democracy. A democracy of words. A democracy that amounts to nothing. The UN is a place where many nations get together and "play" democracy. All I can say is screw the UN. I would not want my fate in their hands. They could not even make a grilled cheese sandwich. They would never agree on the extra ingredients and would instead make a resolution that in thirty minutes they would re-evaluate what ingredients to use. But it would be to late as the sandwich would be charcoal. No that the UN would notice as they would be on their second or third ingredient resolution by then. All I can say is screw the UN. They have shown themselves to be mostly self absorbed bickering children. Not capable people who sould be left to handle such responsibilities.

Russia has to many problems at home to do much in handling Iraq. Germany was only recently allowed their independance back and has yet to elect responsible and diplomatic leadership. China also has alot going on at home. They are almost more likely to be next on the list than an ally. France...... well France has no excuse. What they did was spiteful. No offense to my friends in France though. I unlike most other people here seem to recognise a difference between a people and their government.

As I said before I am not going to cover for my governments bonehead moves in the past. They have done some stupid things. Though it kinda pales in comparrison to all the stupid shit other countries are pulling ATM. Iran had American hostages. Had America gone in and done something about it everyone would have all been saying things like "What the fuck do those Americans think they are doing? They have no business in Iran. They only have American hostages.". So the government at the time took what they though was the slightly better option and tried to play Iraq against Iran. In the end it was one of those damned if you do damned if you don't senarios. The international community would have damned us either way for no good reason. And America gave Iraq conventional weapons. Weapons which Iraq probably would have gotten from Russia or China had America not been foolish enough to provide them. So even if America had never given them the weapons we would still have this situation today. America never gave Iraq weapons of mass destruction or Nuclear technology. No we have France to thank for that. Good ole paccifist never make a mistake France.

You question the fact that Iraq was supporting terrorists and terrorism? What are you blind to the fact that Saddam has been paying the families of terrorists and suicide bombers large sums of cash for their actions for years now? Saddam supports terrorism. It is a fact. Live with it if you can.

You don't think America or Great Britain is telling you everything? Guess what. Your damn straight. And your government would do the same thing. In a game of chess you do not tell your opponent what your plans are. Where you are going to go. And everything you know about them. That's just stupid. Which says volumes about most of your thought processes. Special inteligence does you no good when it is common knowledge. The American people know just as much as the international community. But I have full confidence that once the data has been used to it's maximum effect the world will be told about it. After the fact you will know more than you ever wanted to know and be kicking yourself for being a nay-sayer.

To all the people who say "Stop the war!".... sodd off. You are twelve years to late. We tried it your way for twelve years and that got us nowhere reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal slowly. Every government has made mistakes. But that should not detract from the real issues here. There are many reasons to depose Saddam. And the reasons it is being done are many. My hopes are with the Iraqi people. I don't care what person X's reaon for the war is. Not if it will lead to the Iraqi people's independance. That is my reason to support it.


______________________________________________________________________
*edit* 1. typo fixed and extra venom added against the ignorant bickering children.

OK, I was oversimplifying; but you're not improving it much
The US alliance is not like the police! The UN should be.
So then we would end up with something like the police not being decisive as to what they should do: fine the fellan, arrest him, wait til he commits another capital crime to catch him red-handed? They know law has been broken, but aren't sure how to deal with it best. And then there's the angry civilian, ready to break the law and deal punishment where law has been broken. To make the story even tastier, the angry civilian has been in 'business' with the crook in the past; but now he has done something unacceptable.

Probably it's still too simple. But it contains most of the elements of the discussion here:

• people complain how the US alliance just go about by themselves, this arguably being undemocratic
  
  
• people complain how other countries can be so indecisive, not having a better plan and just lingering around in the UN assembly
  
  
• people point out that clearly Saddam has already crossed the line
  
  
• people point out that the US administration aren't angels either
  
  

I am thinking just now: say it would have been rape were talking about. Probably some people here would choose other sides in the discussion. Perhaps people would then have advocated that although it's not the right way, it's perfectly understandable if one takes right in his own hands... I'm not sure. But think about it; it makes me even more unsure of my own opinions.


Yes, you're right.



Well, he didn't seem too much of a dove when he was presenting his facts in UN assembly. But you're right, I hadn't even started about Cheney...
Bush's intellect: he just doesn't make the impression of a thinker. His way of putting things seems somewhat immature to me: either you're with us, or with them. That's the feeling he conveys.

Is this kind of thing necessary?

I thought I just typed up a post trying to explain why malice in a debate doesn't get anyone anywhere.

I agree with you on that first remark.

The rest of your text is quite good, too, and stuff for a proper discussion is in it. I would have some remarks in reaction, but I won't put them down.

I am sick of all those here who can not act normally in a discussion. Fine, if you want to say someone's argueing is weak, prove it. Use your reason (you did, actually).

But "sodd of"? "ignorant bickering children"? Bye, talk to someone else please.

well, france is in bed with everybody so to speak

they sold saddam a nuclear reactor in the mid 70s, knowing very well he was going to use it to develop a nuclear bomb to strike israel, and possibly even neighbouring arab states. france also supplied iraq with spare parts for military use two months ago, parts that are banned by UN resolutions. that's why i find it difficult to understand france's position, when they say things like UN resolutions should be obeyed (i.e. US and britain cannot go to war without UN approval)

of course, let's not forget that france received billions in industrial contracts from iraq to resist any attempt by the US and britain to remove him from power. and let's be realistic here, saddam is never going to fully disarm or go away peacefully into exile. he will stay in iraq, and while he will show the inspectors some of his weapons, he will always keep a few spare chemical and biological as a last card to play, just in case the "coalition of the willing" ever try to remove him from power using force

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

I hope you remember the guy from the picture - he doesn't look so French

It just means that nobody really cares about UN - when UN is not serving their purposes (this applies to all powerful countries)... that is really sad.

So, instead, let's just give in to vigilantism? The UN is a second-generation international democracy. What you're proposing is a system of international dictatorship or oligarchy, with the people with the most money having the most power, and acting as the world's police. Surely dictatorship is superior to democracy, no? I mean, dictators get a lot done. There'd be none of this pussy-footing around stupid things like caring whether or not the people they rule care about whether or not they're going to war. All of your anti-UN criticisms can be levelled as equally at democracies in general.

Instead, now, certain nations who believe they're better than the rest of the world and their opinions are completely disregarding the UN. This is frightening because the UN provides guidelines for countries to deal with each other. With the UN weakened, we are beginning to regress to pre-WW1/WW2 politics, and I'd rather not go there again.



If the issue of Iraq is as great as you claim it to be, why aren't these countries jumping all over it? Surely if the need to go and bomb a few thousand Iraqis is as pressing as Bush claims it is, they'd be lining up.



That's your opinion. Perhaps there is a pro-France apologist thinking: "The USA...... well the USA has no excuse. What they're doing is selfish and arrogant." Your argument here boils down to criticizing France for their opinion on the issue without argumentative backing.



Again, I don't agree with terrorism, but to them, it's not terrorism. It's an entirely different issue. Imagine being so impassioned about something that you were willing to die for it. Not only that, but you were willing to kill yourself to advance your cause. Alternately, the US has killed thousands of civilians in recent outings like Afghanistan, and the Balkan incident not too long back. Okay, the US kills thousands of innocents. Does that make them terrorists? What happens if the US was upholding some deeply ingrained moral philosophy? Do you see the parallel here?

For a little history in Israel, read this excellent document:

http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

A good history lesson, no doubt SK1 with chirp up it is all F****** lies.

The short version is, Brittain set out to set up a Jewish state, it went and disarmed the Arabs and removed them from certain areas, whilst at the same time arming the Jews (so they could defend them selves). Around 1947 the Jews started performing some of the worst terrorist acts against the Brittish which led to their eventual abandoning of the area, at that time as Israel was formed they only owned legally 6% of the land.

...skip a few decades and you have a situation where Israel is now armed to the teeth (they spend 10% of GDP on arms, UK is 2-3%, US 5%) and the arabs are constantly squeezed, subject to live in poverty, there is one thing in life I cannot stand and that is injustice. What is going on in that area is really evil.

What should be done? well the UN should send its troops and form a buffer zone between the two (worked in Cyprus), it should take back much of the land and should begin to disarm Israel - including the 400 odd Nuclear weapons they posses. Shame America will not allow the right thing to done, I am just sure the 2 Billion of extra arms about to land in Israel will bring much stability to the area.

Edit: remvoed an extra 'legally' before ' at that time as Israel was formed

I heard that >40...

OK. I'm thinking and here's what I've come up with:

The US should not intervene in anything not directly contained within its own borders. They should pull all troops out of every current locale. They should shut down it's borders to all non US citizens. (Sorry Canada and Mexico-stay home and deal with your own problems.) Pull all businesses out of non US controlled interests.

And most importantly: Immeadiately stop all foreign monetary aid. I'd just as soon have the policy makers in this country let me keep my hard earned money instead of sending it off to the rest of the world. Time to ween y'all.

This sounds like an astonishingly good idea to many US citizens. You'd be surprised. And when you get done wrangling with each other, give us all a call and let us know how things are going.

Bush invites one of American schools. He started his speech in school.
Suddendly one kid rises his hand.
Bush: You wanna ask something?
Johny: Yes, my name is Johny, i want only ask three questions:
1) Is that true, that war in IRAQ is because of OIL?
2) Why USA adimistration supported PINOCHET and SADDAM some years ago?
3) Is that true that USA betrayed Kurds, stopping supporting them?

Suddently bell for break sounds...

After the break Bush started to continue his speech.
Suddendly one kid rises his hand.
Bush: You wanna ask something?
Kevin: Yes, my name is Kevin, i want only ask five questions:
1) Is that true, that war in IRAQ is because of OIL?
2) Why USA adimistration supported PINOCHET and SADDAM some years ago?
3) Is that true that USA betrayed Kurds, stopping supporting them?
4) Why the break was 20 minutes earlier than normal?
5) And WHERE IS JOHNY??

"The bulldozer continued and accidentally crushed her."

It's the kind of line people put on dodgy car insurance claims!

If it's true - even if the whole article is true - is it wrong to be anti-american? anti-isreal? Doesn't the American constitution give you the right to burn the flag? You can love your country, but hate what it's doing.

At the very very worst, if the article is totally true, then this girl was as blinded to the "true" situation, and as totally convinced of the "rightness" of one side, and the "wrongness" of the other side, as you are. Think about it. I know it's so easy for me to say "see both sides" when I'm on neither. But whilever each side sees the other as "sub-human" the conflict will continue - really - there will be no solution, no peace.


I thought some of your other links were worth reading though. Not "unbiassed", but not full of lies either.


I'm concerned you point to a website called "honest reporting" which is anything but. (It's like religioustolerance.org which doesn't seem to tolerate any religion, except maybe witchcraft!) But then, if an organisation has to tell you how unbiassed they are, then.. well! Still, someone from Isreal tried to bomb the BBC world service building the other month - even though they happily let both sides speek, and criticise both. I believe that, if you had the time to read all the websites, all the reports worldwide on the situation, then you might be able to get an unbiassed picture by putting it all together. So thanks for the links.

David.

It is. First they're acting against separatists, second it happens on their territory.

As of chechnians (although there are quite a bunch of other nations involved as well):
how do you deal with regular army-like khaki units acting on your territory, stealing people and doing acts of terrorism for living.

Their major feats (taking to hostages the whole hospital full of people, or a theatre in Moscow full of people) represent quite a progressive way of freedom fighting (or way to work off other people money, some might say).

BTW, in case you didn't know it, second 'compaign' was 'inspired' by separatists invasion to neighbour republic.

If you see the analogies here, please enlighten me.

Neo Neko:


It's untrue, I like U.S.A and I think the Americans deserve a much better president (or at least, one that's able to think by himself). How to say it, would you have taken a random 15-year old from a random state (except Texas), and made it president, the results certainly wouldn't have been so disastrous. In other words, Joe average does take wiser decisions than him.


Well, at least for our planet, that would be great ! Think about it:
- 25% less CO2 emissions worldwide
- no more 20 liters per 100km cars running with a single person inside. They go to museum.
- a natural fall for dictators whose empires were built on oil money.

Please, do it at once !
Don't worry about the statue of Liberty, you can keep it

Not so fast...

• No more Denise Richards on TV
  
• No more South Park
  
• No more Burger King

Please reconsider your words, NumLock

With great pleasure, Patsoe !
Now let's see..

With joy... So be It !

With joy... So be It !

With j... what ? where ? where is She® ™ ? how ? Deniiise :-P :-P :-P ® ™ !?! why ? wait.. damn...

LOL!


Nah - she only has one look: pouting/miserable!


btw, more comments on war here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2833037.stm

D.

Sigh... she was so great in Wild things.. now how can that be ? Please, 2Bd tell me.. ? How this could happen ? WHY ? booo-hoo

Edit: Thanks for the link, by the way.

Wow. I always thought that was the name of my continent...

You're victim of a simple round-off (or quantization) error, my poor fellow:

USA + peanuts = America

Using the B.U.S.H 1-bit ALU, you get:

USA = America.

Worrying, isn't it.

[Edit]
When you deal with terrorists, you have to use the logical unit instead:
IRAK XOR Terrorist = 0
America XOR Terrorist = 1
USA XOR Terrorist = 1

thus:
America = USA
and: IRAK = Terrorist

see?
[/Edit]

You don't think Iraq's hostility towards the weapons inspectors (IIRC, it was the American and British inspectors specifically whose visas were withdrawn) were in any way connected with this: NY Times article, Washington Post article - also see fair.org?



I'm honestly not too big a fan of the UN myself, in many ways, and I agree that they are too ineficcient. This is an effect of having so many countries with many conflicting interest working together. I do not think, however, that going against the UN because a group of countries, or more properly a group of country leaders, feel they are "morally right" is an improvement over this situation.

Given USA's track record I also wouldn't consider them "capable people who should be left to handle such responsibilities". They seem to be doing nothing lately but trying to topple regimes and rebels they themselves fostered. More recently, the track record of the Bush administration isn't much better.



Really? France's nuclear program and foreign policies is a different story that I don't have too many good things to say about. But I don't think that means this should degenerate into a country name-calling show.



So what you're saying is "I don't have enough information, but I put my trust in my government that what they're doing is just, or at least I'm sure they'll come up with a good reason later for what they're doing". I'm glad you have so much trust in you, I prefer to remain sceptical. That reminds me of an American girl I saw interviewed on TV yesterday. She was in support of the war because (quoted from memory) "I do not know enough about politics to know what is right, but I trust that my government will do the right thing". In other words, she was saying "I support my government because I am ignorant".



Here I completely agree with you, and I sincerely hope that this is what will come out of this - a quick strike, Saddam removed and a goverment that the Iraqi people supports instated. What I find more likely to happen, though, is weeks or months of the "surgical" bombing the US seems to enjoy some much, then either years of US and British armed forces placed in Iraq to "uphold the peace", or a US puppet government installed which will either eventually be overthrown by people just as bad as Saddam, but this time with real support from the Iraqi people, or - completely unexpected - rise against the US in 20 years time.

The quantization error is logically impossible because those "peanuts" happen to occupy a vast majority of the continent. The XOR logic is although pretty valid

BTW, why George W. hasn't been assassinated yet? I recall they killed John F. Kennedy for much less reasons. Do the US citizens love the republicans that much?

Well, a pure quantization error is indeed not possible.

This proves some noise shaping was used ! The advantage is, you can shape the noise just like you want