US is going to war tomarrow... dang...
Sunday, March 16, 2003 by IPlural | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
opps
 |
|
Page 2 of 85 | |
|
|---|
IPlural
Reply #22 Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:05 PM
Reply #22 Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:05 PM
lol, counting votes huh 
no, they do not love Saddam anymore than the people loved PolPot..
The thing is, isn't it up to them to kill the tyrant?
anyway...
the claim that Saddam is a global threat is rather hallow to me, North Korea is another story, they ARE a global threat and will sell anything they can to anyone who wants it. They have gulags where over 200,000 people die each year, some used as attack dog chew toys, others a test bunnies for bio and chem weapons research, others just worked to death and their cot filled when they croak... I dunno, seems to me we got the guns pointing in the wrong direction,at least at this moment.
no, they do not love Saddam anymore than the people loved PolPot..
The thing is, isn't it up to them to kill the tyrant?
anyway...
the claim that Saddam is a global threat is rather hallow to me, North Korea is another story, they ARE a global threat and will sell anything they can to anyone who wants it. They have gulags where over 200,000 people die each year, some used as attack dog chew toys, others a test bunnies for bio and chem weapons research, others just worked to death and their cot filled when they croak... I dunno, seems to me we got the guns pointing in the wrong direction,at least at this moment.
Jafo
Reply #23 Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:11 PM
Reply #23 Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:11 PM
In Iraq it's a good survival trait to 'love Saddam'...
In Australia, the other day, we had another 'War protest'...this time it was by Iraqi immigrants now living in Oz IN FAVOUR of the attack and the removal of Saddam...except, of course, for a few others of them who were dead against it because their families were still there and would most likely be targetted if those in Oz got too vocal...
In Australia, the other day, we had another 'War protest'...this time it was by Iraqi immigrants now living in Oz IN FAVOUR of the attack and the removal of Saddam...except, of course, for a few others of them who were dead against it because their families were still there and would most likely be targetted if those in Oz got too vocal...
wombat_1
Reply #24 Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:15 PM
Reply #24 Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:15 PM
"This is a key to catching Bin Laden"
Bollocks!
Beating the snot out of Iraq and the Iraqi people will just add another grievance to the long list in the extremist anti-US faction's propaganda machine, and a whole new generation of Muslim martyrs to generate more terrorist actions.
Bin Laden is still out and about, who says Hussein will be captured or even killed, certainly the past year has shown how not to deal with terrorist cells.
Sadam Hussein was a 'good 'ol boy' when he was fighting the Iranians, Ollie North should know and Bill Casey sure liked him!
"With Iraq gone .."
The object is not the destruction of the country and the ordinary people.
Then again, ordinary civilians were the targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki so that's not out of line with US policy.
Bollocks!
Beating the snot out of Iraq and the Iraqi people will just add another grievance to the long list in the extremist anti-US faction's propaganda machine, and a whole new generation of Muslim martyrs to generate more terrorist actions.
Bin Laden is still out and about, who says Hussein will be captured or even killed, certainly the past year has shown how not to deal with terrorist cells.
Sadam Hussein was a 'good 'ol boy' when he was fighting the Iranians, Ollie North should know and Bill Casey sure liked him!
"With Iraq gone .."
The object is not the destruction of the country and the ordinary people.
Then again, ordinary civilians were the targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki so that's not out of line with US policy.
Delicious
Reply #25 Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:44 PM
Reply #25 Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:44 PM
Violence is never a solution to a problem.
However,
Saddam has proved to the world that the UN is bogus and speaks with a forked tongue.
However,
Saddam has proved to the world that the UN is bogus and speaks with a forked tongue.
kona0197
Reply #26 Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:55 PM
Reply #26 Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:55 PM
Hey Karmagirl i got in trouble for writing a thread like this. What up? I thought someone said this is to controversial for the message board.
DavidK
Reply #27 Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:58 PM
Reply #27 Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:58 PM
An editorial statement about Bush's campaign in 2000: "Many conservatives thought the Clinton administration was over-involved in the world, especially in nation-building, and hectoring in its diplomacy. So Bush argued that America should be “a humble nation,” scale back its commitments abroad and not involve itself in rebuilding other countries." (from Newsweek magazine.)
In the blueprint for the Bush administration, the document called "Preparing for a New American Century" which was written by (among others) Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Lewis Libby (all cabinet members) and Jeb Bush, they call for American dominance in a unilateral fashion. Declaring that America must prevent other nations from achieving parity economically or militarily, and that the US must seize the opportunity of being "the only world superpower" to ensure America's dominance into the next century.
They state a goal of controlling the Middle East by taking over Iraq ("even if Saddam is no longer there"), for strategic control of the region and to secure the oil reserves for American control. They said that for their plans to be accepted by the general public America needed "another Pearl Harbor", a wish fulfilled by the events of 9/11.
They say that using nuclear weapons would be a key ingredient in this plan as would the development of new strategic nuclear and biological weapons.(!) There's even a statement that biological weapons that could "target a specific genome type would raise biological weapons from an instrument of terror to a politically useful tool".
Is this a "humble nation"?
Are we to assume (since all budgets and timetables in this 'blueprint' have been mirrored in the Bush administration's record so far) that the group who wrote these plans are directing America and the world to a vision all their own without any chance of public or legislative debate on the plan?
The 2000 Presidential campaign and public discourse on the administration's goals differ widely from what we are noew finding out to be our future. Within 48 hours after 9/11 Rumsfeld was pushing to invade Iraq. It was recently revealed that in 1997 Pearle and Rumsfeld tried to convince then President Clinton to invade Iraq and install an American-friendly government.
My point is, Americans are not informed as to what their foriegn policy really is. The public discussion of reasons for toppling Saddam has had little to do with the Bush administration's real motivations and real future goals.
So, who is really running America and why don't they discuss their goals openly before the plans are put in place?
In the blueprint for the Bush administration, the document called "Preparing for a New American Century" which was written by (among others) Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Lewis Libby (all cabinet members) and Jeb Bush, they call for American dominance in a unilateral fashion. Declaring that America must prevent other nations from achieving parity economically or militarily, and that the US must seize the opportunity of being "the only world superpower" to ensure America's dominance into the next century.
They state a goal of controlling the Middle East by taking over Iraq ("even if Saddam is no longer there"), for strategic control of the region and to secure the oil reserves for American control. They said that for their plans to be accepted by the general public America needed "another Pearl Harbor", a wish fulfilled by the events of 9/11.
They say that using nuclear weapons would be a key ingredient in this plan as would the development of new strategic nuclear and biological weapons.(!) There's even a statement that biological weapons that could "target a specific genome type would raise biological weapons from an instrument of terror to a politically useful tool".
Is this a "humble nation"?
Are we to assume (since all budgets and timetables in this 'blueprint' have been mirrored in the Bush administration's record so far) that the group who wrote these plans are directing America and the world to a vision all their own without any chance of public or legislative debate on the plan?
The 2000 Presidential campaign and public discourse on the administration's goals differ widely from what we are noew finding out to be our future. Within 48 hours after 9/11 Rumsfeld was pushing to invade Iraq. It was recently revealed that in 1997 Pearle and Rumsfeld tried to convince then President Clinton to invade Iraq and install an American-friendly government.
My point is, Americans are not informed as to what their foriegn policy really is. The public discussion of reasons for toppling Saddam has had little to do with the Bush administration's real motivations and real future goals.
So, who is really running America and why don't they discuss their goals openly before the plans are put in place?
paxx
Reply #28 Sunday, March 16, 2003 11:13 PM
Reply #28 Sunday, March 16, 2003 11:13 PM
David, not that I disagree with you, but I'm not the type of person to believe anything thrown at me. I find it extremely interesting that this document was ever written.
Do you know for a fact that the said document called "Preparing for a New American Century" exists? Where did you read about it?
I would really like to read it, if it's available anywhere.
Cause I'm afraid that without more proof about the existance of that document, I can't really believe it. It would sure reinforce what I think of the Bush administration, but I would really doubt that they would write such words on paper.
Do you know for a fact that the said document called "Preparing for a New American Century" exists? Where did you read about it?
I would really like to read it, if it's available anywhere.
Cause I'm afraid that without more proof about the existance of that document, I can't really believe it. It would sure reinforce what I think of the Bush administration, but I would really doubt that they would write such words on paper.
IPlural
Reply #29 Monday, March 17, 2003 12:10 AM
Reply #29 Monday, March 17, 2003 12:10 AM
actually paxx, yes it does in PDF format, happen to have it, it was downloaded before it was removed from the server...
IPlural
Reply #30 Monday, March 17, 2003 12:13 AM
Reply #30 Monday, March 17, 2003 12:13 AM
I'll see about diging it up on the system it is on and let you know...
The space based defense they are pushing for, spare trained soilders for protecting these weapons and also for jumping into space and then dropping back in for fast strikes anywhere on the planet.
even went as far as the explaining that the only way the citizens would get behind such a thing as they propose throughout the document, would be a thing as big or bigger than PerlHarbor....
The space based defense they are pushing for, spare trained soilders for protecting these weapons and also for jumping into space and then dropping back in for fast strikes anywhere on the planet.
even went as far as the explaining that the only way the citizens would get behind such a thing as they propose throughout the document, would be a thing as big or bigger than PerlHarbor....
IPlural
Reply #31 Monday, March 17, 2003 12:15 AM
Reply #31 Monday, March 17, 2003 12:15 AM
this administration and some from the DOD and Pentagon are key members, or where, key members in a political think tank up in dc which was very closed door and quiet... that is where the pdf was released from and it was reported on in europe, and posted for download, in a matter of hours the sitehad pulled the file and any indication of its existance or the articals about it and the administration...
RustyBlade
Reply #32 Monday, March 17, 2003 12:40 AM
Reply #32 Monday, March 17, 2003 12:40 AM
Hard for my to be clear in thinking on this, the fact that Bush has wiped out my health insurance July 1st, and the fact his dad wiped out my business along with my peers of that day. Are we as a nation innocent. No even a forced recluse as myself knows better. But if the decision has been made I wish he would launch with what little surprise as is possible.
da_zman20
Reply #33 Monday, March 17, 2003 12:44 AM
Reply #33 Monday, March 17, 2003 12:44 AM
I can't believe anyone would say taking out sadam wouldn't help with Bin Laden, remember everyone that died september 11th... I do, and President bush promised that anyone behind it was taken out... saddam funded that, so give me that no need to take him out, he's a murderer. Anything he for America in the past is in the past, Bin Laden is still at large, that's fine, but anyone associated with him needs to be taken down too, and as for WW2, the US did what they had to save the country we live in, not our finest hour, but like alot of other things that happened we learned from it. Look at what came from slavery, now every man in the US is equal, no matter how much money, or what color, EVERYONE is equal, and I will stand beside any descision George Bush makes, because I voted for him, and I believe in him. As for the Middle East, people claim we interfere, they brought us into it from the begining, the US minds their own business... but the men, and women that died, they did nothing wrong, but they died just like I will, and every American will weather they choose to accept it or not. they Died, I will die, and every American Will FREE
DavidK
Reply #34 Monday, March 17, 2003 12:50 AM
Reply #34 Monday, March 17, 2003 12:50 AM
paxx - The group is called The Project for a New American Century" and the "blueprint" was titled "Preparing for a New American Century" and was written months before the 2000 election. I have a copy of the pdf also, I'll try to find it for you. It was downloaded from the PNAC's own website. It's been discussed on CNN and almost all the other mainstream press. They always play it down and neglect to mention some of the more alarming statements, like the one about biological weapons. It's a group commonly referred to as "Neo Conservatives" or "Neocons". As of a few months ago it's widely known that their vision of the future is what America is pursuing as domestic and foreign policy.
This is extremely alarming to people who have reported on or interacted with these guys in the past (many were in Reagan's administration, like Rumsfeld and Richard Pearle). ABC News Nightline had one of the authors on (William Kristol on March 5th) to defend this secretive shift in in the government with some interesting comments and observations from the host and a couple interviewers. I found a link to a transcript of that show: http://www.rense.com/general35/lanne.htm
It's real, there's no question about that. The original story broke in Scotland's Sunday Herald. Since then it's been discussed widely everywhere but here. It's only becomming a topic in the last week or so on the cable news channels and as soon as the war starts any talk of a secret agenda for world domination will be moot (und verboten).
This is extremely alarming to people who have reported on or interacted with these guys in the past (many were in Reagan's administration, like Rumsfeld and Richard Pearle). ABC News Nightline had one of the authors on (William Kristol on March 5th) to defend this secretive shift in in the government with some interesting comments and observations from the host and a couple interviewers. I found a link to a transcript of that show: http://www.rense.com/general35/lanne.htm
It's real, there's no question about that. The original story broke in Scotland's Sunday Herald. Since then it's been discussed widely everywhere but here. It's only becomming a topic in the last week or so on the cable news channels and as soon as the war starts any talk of a secret agenda for world domination will be moot (und verboten).
DYSEQTA
Reply #36 Monday, March 17, 2003 2:22 AM
Reply #36 Monday, March 17, 2003 2:22 AM
Quote: "Then again, ordinary civilians were the targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki so that's not out of line with US policy."
This still stands to date as the single most heinous war crime ever commited. I find it sickeningly ironic that America continues to stomp around the planet dictating democracy and putting up people left right an centre on war crime charges and yet to my knowledge no American has ever been called to account for that particular atrocity. One other thing, why should Saddam disarm? If America is allowed to have big guns and big bombs, including nukes, why is Iraq not? Who has given America the right to decided who does what in countries not under their rule? And before anyone says "Because we've got the guns" think about it, that's exactly the attitude that a dictator has.
This current situation illustrates exactly what is wrong with America, it's not goverened by anything, America does what America wants because "It's got the guns". The biggest member of the "Axis of evil" on this planet is America. Stop killing people in the name of peace for God's sake!
Disclaimer: I am not condoning the negative actions of any nation. I am not refering to american people when I am saying "America" I am refering to it as a politcal entity. Most Americans I have met are reasonable people, as is the case with most Iraqi's I have met. People are people, regardless of what banner they gather under.
Feel free to flame the hell out of me....I really don't care.
This still stands to date as the single most heinous war crime ever commited. I find it sickeningly ironic that America continues to stomp around the planet dictating democracy and putting up people left right an centre on war crime charges and yet to my knowledge no American has ever been called to account for that particular atrocity. One other thing, why should Saddam disarm? If America is allowed to have big guns and big bombs, including nukes, why is Iraq not? Who has given America the right to decided who does what in countries not under their rule? And before anyone says "Because we've got the guns" think about it, that's exactly the attitude that a dictator has.
This current situation illustrates exactly what is wrong with America, it's not goverened by anything, America does what America wants because "It's got the guns". The biggest member of the "Axis of evil" on this planet is America. Stop killing people in the name of peace for God's sake!
Disclaimer: I am not condoning the negative actions of any nation. I am not refering to american people when I am saying "America" I am refering to it as a politcal entity. Most Americans I have met are reasonable people, as is the case with most Iraqi's I have met. People are people, regardless of what banner they gather under.
Feel free to flame the hell out of me....I really don't care.
Old_Crab
Reply #37 Monday, March 17, 2003 2:38 AM
Reply #37 Monday, March 17, 2003 2:38 AM
Afganistan, Iraqi, what nation will the U.S. next call a threat and invade? The trust and respect the U.S. once held with the rest of the world for liberty and justice is vanishing fast. Orwellian democracy is on the rise. I wonder if G.Bush if re-elected will he continue on the war path. If not will he declare an emergency and suspend representative rule? Yes as an American I'm upset by Bush policy. I'll support the troops in the field, but I'm against this attack policy of Bush from the getgo. His policy are like H.Bush policies, at home wide spread unemployment, bad economy, but hey, we've got another war. It's the tail wagging the dog.
IPlural
Reply #38 Monday, March 17, 2003 2:42 AM
Reply #38 Monday, March 17, 2003 2:42 AM
frankly it is damn scary because people will still not accept it even if it was right in front of their face and they admited to it...
Look, anyone thought about what would happen when we attack iraq and then terrorists start up here? Complete and utter Martial Law, congress gets suspended, the White house is in complete control and legally so, this move with Homeland defense, every single first responder is now under homeland defense and under the presidents direct rule of thumb...
I am not saying this is a plan, but it damn well is a possibility and very scary one and a very real one...
Taking this country over really isn't that hard, and congress handed it over lock stock and barrel just about, people sat back and still sit back and watch the media pump them with the chosen dogma of the day based on the political agenda of the administration...
I do not care if it was clinton or any other dem in office, I would fel the same way about trusting them if they had the same track record as those in the white house do ...
Hell all but Bush are the same exact ones who brought us Vietnam and the body count as a means of justification that we won the day, moment, what have you... They are also the ones who turned their backs on those who returned home from it, hell they are just these last few months admiting that in GWI our troops were exposed to chem and bio weapons we blew up and it made a huge cloud which drifted right over the ones exposed miles away....
anway...
Look, anyone thought about what would happen when we attack iraq and then terrorists start up here? Complete and utter Martial Law, congress gets suspended, the White house is in complete control and legally so, this move with Homeland defense, every single first responder is now under homeland defense and under the presidents direct rule of thumb...
I am not saying this is a plan, but it damn well is a possibility and very scary one and a very real one...
Taking this country over really isn't that hard, and congress handed it over lock stock and barrel just about, people sat back and still sit back and watch the media pump them with the chosen dogma of the day based on the political agenda of the administration...
I do not care if it was clinton or any other dem in office, I would fel the same way about trusting them if they had the same track record as those in the white house do ...
Hell all but Bush are the same exact ones who brought us Vietnam and the body count as a means of justification that we won the day, moment, what have you... They are also the ones who turned their backs on those who returned home from it, hell they are just these last few months admiting that in GWI our troops were exposed to chem and bio weapons we blew up and it made a huge cloud which drifted right over the ones exposed miles away....
anway...
sig101
Reply #39 Monday, March 17, 2003 3:59 AM
Reply #39 Monday, March 17, 2003 3:59 AM
I'm not gung ho for war. I thought the Bush Administration made up its mind months ago to go forward on Iraq, going to the UN was an afterthought and that any outcome there wouldn't make much difference.
But I don't recall even the Administration claiming that Iraq provided funding for Sept 11 or Bin Laden. If the Administration had any evidence of that, that would be the smoking gun that they would have loved to have. But they don't and that hasn't been the basis of the Administration's case for taking action.
But as for just the question, why should Saddam disarm? Because he lost the Gulf War and those were the terms of the peace along with UN inspections to ensure that he was doing it. The time to have done something about it was in '98 when Saddam violated the terms by kicking out the UN inspectors. Evidently no one was sufficiently interested at that time to take action, although it was (and presumably is still) warranted under the terms of the previous UN resolutions which haven't been superceded.
But I don't recall even the Administration claiming that Iraq provided funding for Sept 11 or Bin Laden. If the Administration had any evidence of that, that would be the smoking gun that they would have loved to have. But they don't and that hasn't been the basis of the Administration's case for taking action.
But as for just the question, why should Saddam disarm? Because he lost the Gulf War and those were the terms of the peace along with UN inspections to ensure that he was doing it. The time to have done something about it was in '98 when Saddam violated the terms by kicking out the UN inspectors. Evidently no one was sufficiently interested at that time to take action, although it was (and presumably is still) warranted under the terms of the previous UN resolutions which haven't been superceded.
IPlural
Reply #40 Monday, March 17, 2003 4:13 AM
Reply #40 Monday, March 17, 2003 4:13 AM
well, I am pretty much resigned to the fact that we are going to war and nothing will stop it. Lets just hope that they can protect the country here at home half way and do not allow death and destruction becasue everything is out of the country as far as intel and such goes.
Let it get over and then pull the hel out and let the UN do the rest, because we sure as hell do not belong controlling that country or its oil...
Talk about a holy war, look out....
Let it get over and then pull the hel out and let the UN do the rest, because we sure as hell do not belong controlling that country or its oil...
Talk about a holy war, look out....
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 85 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Sunday, March 16, 2003 8:57 PM
And the day the poll was taken saddam was goin everywhere kissing babies and stuff like that