US is going to war tomarrow... dang...
Sunday, March 16, 2003 by IPlural | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
opps
 |
|
Page 3 of 85 | |
|
|---|
sig101
Reply #42 Monday, March 17, 2003 4:43 AM
Reply #42 Monday, March 17, 2003 4:43 AM
Publications available on the Project for a New American Century website:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm
DavidK
Reply #43 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:02 AM
Reply #43 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:02 AM
It looks like the UN is being cut out of the rebuilding effort in Iraq as are the usual agencies like Care, Save the Children, and the Red Cross. The spoils of war are already being invested by big American firms that are being awarded contracts worth 1.5 billion dollars to do the necessary health and safety infrastructure repairs. In the spirit of private enterprise, private companies are winning big in the "battlefields" of Iraq.
Halliburton has also made a killing securing the lucrative (potentially billions of dollars) contract for exclusive rights to repair and outfit all the oil fields in Iraq. I'm sure Vice President Dick Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton won't shed many tears for the destruction in Iraq as it was recently discovered that he is still getting paid by Halliburton, recently getting a one million dollar check for some contract they got.
As for Saddam disarming, according to Madeline Albright and Henry Kissinger, Iraq's military is about 30% of what it was 12 years ago and there is no evidence he actually has any WMD's but there is a suspicion that he would like to get them. No evidence of these weapons has been brought forth by the Bush administration or the UN inspectors (who were doing an excellent job of seeking them out).
According to the CIA, in a quote from George Tenet, its Director, Saddam posed no threat to the US because he was not capable of nor interested in attacking America on its own soil. He further stated that the only way Saddam could become a threat to the US is if we pushed him into a corner at which time he could concievably seek to do us harm. Interestingly, Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI, was quoted as saying (about six months ago) that to this day we have not found one shred of evidence that anyone in Afganistan (including Osama Bin Laden) was involved in the 9/11 attack.
and yet... we go to war, bombing the living hell out of cities and towns with people that look just like you and me. Cities that might be very much like the city you live in will be leveled in what the Pentagon is calling the "Shock and Awe" tactic of bombing on a scale that surpasses even the Hiroshima bomb in total destructiveness. People will try to hide in their homes, in shops or government buildings, but thousands will perish, maybe even hundreds of thousands. The survivors probably won't feel very "liberated" after the shock and awe wears off. I doubt they or their neighbors will love us for making them safe and free to live under a US military dictatorship led by Tommy Franks for two years while we go liberate their neighbors too (Iran, Syria, who's next?).
Obviously, I'm against this war. Thanks for letting me put my opinion here and I hope I don't offend anyone...
Halliburton has also made a killing securing the lucrative (potentially billions of dollars) contract for exclusive rights to repair and outfit all the oil fields in Iraq. I'm sure Vice President Dick Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton won't shed many tears for the destruction in Iraq as it was recently discovered that he is still getting paid by Halliburton, recently getting a one million dollar check for some contract they got.
As for Saddam disarming, according to Madeline Albright and Henry Kissinger, Iraq's military is about 30% of what it was 12 years ago and there is no evidence he actually has any WMD's but there is a suspicion that he would like to get them. No evidence of these weapons has been brought forth by the Bush administration or the UN inspectors (who were doing an excellent job of seeking them out).
According to the CIA, in a quote from George Tenet, its Director, Saddam posed no threat to the US because he was not capable of nor interested in attacking America on its own soil. He further stated that the only way Saddam could become a threat to the US is if we pushed him into a corner at which time he could concievably seek to do us harm. Interestingly, Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI, was quoted as saying (about six months ago) that to this day we have not found one shred of evidence that anyone in Afganistan (including Osama Bin Laden) was involved in the 9/11 attack.
and yet... we go to war, bombing the living hell out of cities and towns with people that look just like you and me. Cities that might be very much like the city you live in will be leveled in what the Pentagon is calling the "Shock and Awe" tactic of bombing on a scale that surpasses even the Hiroshima bomb in total destructiveness. People will try to hide in their homes, in shops or government buildings, but thousands will perish, maybe even hundreds of thousands. The survivors probably won't feel very "liberated" after the shock and awe wears off. I doubt they or their neighbors will love us for making them safe and free to live under a US military dictatorship led by Tommy Franks for two years while we go liberate their neighbors too (Iran, Syria, who's next?).
Obviously, I'm against this war. Thanks for letting me put my opinion here and I hope I don't offend anyone...
craeonics
Reply #44 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:04 AM
Reply #44 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:04 AM
This horse has been beaten to death numerous times. I'm really developing a "que sera sera" attitude towards it all.
Anyhow, war or no war, what stings me is the shady argumentation of why such an attack would be necessary. Very very shady. With logic like that, any nation can be considered a threat.
Ah well, ethics and politics. Fire and water?
craeonics merrily continues to circle Terra Barbaria in his space station
Anyhow, war or no war, what stings me is the shady argumentation of why such an attack would be necessary. Very very shady. With logic like that, any nation can be considered a threat.
Ah well, ethics and politics. Fire and water?
craeonics merrily continues to circle Terra Barbaria in his space station
yrag2
Reply #46 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:26 AM
Reply #46 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:26 AM
I think conversation is moot...US just advised all inspectors to leave Iraq.
IPlural
Reply #47 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:30 AM
Reply #47 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:30 AM
yeah.. it is... I m finished with it also, been moot since the first time Saddams name was uttered by Bush...
yrag2
Reply #49 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:35 AM
Reply #49 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:35 AM
I agree. Why not talk about something simple like....computers and skins(?) 
craeonics
Reply #50 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:50 AM
Reply #50 Monday, March 17, 2003 5:50 AM
Why not just leave the "computer" bit out of it and focus on the "skin" aspect?
paxx
Reply #51 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:04 AM
Reply #51 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:04 AM
I found it, the original article from the Sunday Herald (the Scottish newspaper) http://www.sundayherald.com/print27735 and the PDF of the actual document http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf .
Now, that document was was written by any of the cabinet members. It says it was written FOR them, not BY them. So, from what I've read about it so far, there is still no proof that the current administration endorsed the document. Because a group of nuts wrote that document and submitted it to them does not mean they took it and used it as a base for anything. Of course, it would explain the reason for this war, cause right now, no matter how much I try, I cannot understand the motive of attacking Iraq. The UN is against it (not just France, but pretty much all but 3 of the current 15 members), the inspectors are satisfied with Iraq's cooperation, so why?
And, by the way, while the US tries to convince people that Iraq was involved with Al Quaida, France's secret service have said that there exists no link whasoever between Iraq and Al Quaida. So believe who you want. It's one word against another.
About the dying children: we have our share of responsability too. The embargo on Iraq for the last 11 years have kept the population starving and dying. That's the problem with embargos of 3rd world countries: the actual target (the governement) is hardly ever affected, but the innocent population always is).
BTW: in North Korea, as much as half the population is littereally DYING of starvation right now.
Now, that document was was written by any of the cabinet members. It says it was written FOR them, not BY them. So, from what I've read about it so far, there is still no proof that the current administration endorsed the document. Because a group of nuts wrote that document and submitted it to them does not mean they took it and used it as a base for anything. Of course, it would explain the reason for this war, cause right now, no matter how much I try, I cannot understand the motive of attacking Iraq. The UN is against it (not just France, but pretty much all but 3 of the current 15 members), the inspectors are satisfied with Iraq's cooperation, so why?
And, by the way, while the US tries to convince people that Iraq was involved with Al Quaida, France's secret service have said that there exists no link whasoever between Iraq and Al Quaida. So believe who you want. It's one word against another.
About the dying children: we have our share of responsability too. The embargo on Iraq for the last 11 years have kept the population starving and dying. That's the problem with embargos of 3rd world countries: the actual target (the governement) is hardly ever affected, but the innocent population always is).
BTW: in North Korea, as much as half the population is littereally DYING of starvation right now.
joetheblow
Reply #52 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:06 AM
Reply #52 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:06 AM
I agree with you craeonics. The way the policy is being stated, any nation can be a threat.
What bothers me is the new way American policy deals with the world. What if some one else does a 'pre-emptive strike'?
I don't agree with how the bush administration moved forward with this at all. I think it could have been done way better than it was. Nevertheless, it would seem that Iraq is in breech. Saddam is not a normal leader and I do believe that he would attack American soil if he could find a way that would not be detected. I have read how he treats his people and how he sees the world and he would attack once he had a way and enough material.
1)
America, Canada, England, Russia, France, and other countries have 'big guns' because they are suppossedly stable - Iraq is not a country that is stable
2)
Iraq, unlike other war torn countries, has a large amount of money to fuel its want for weapons
3)
UN Inspectors are not there to find weapons, they are there to be shown by Saddam how those weapons were destoyed or to be destoyed if they have them.
4)
Unlike other countries under UN sanctions, Iraq has 10 some odd resolutions of disarmament, human rights, and economic exclution.
5)
Terrorist will attack whether we go into Iraq or not. Worring about more attacks because of this action is like putting a criminal in jail and the criminal blaims you for him being in jail.
While I believe the case is clear, Bush could have gone about it WAY differently than he did. You can not slap people around, even for a good cause, and expect people to follow you.
I want Saddam to somehow just be forced to treat his people better. 200 or so UN inspectors is not enough if Saddam is not going to give the information fast enough ( I doubt Saddam just destoyed these weapons and did not document that destruction... remember this is the same guy who shot at the inspectors many years ago.)
I always thought, how come they just could not increase the UN ispectors to 10,000, have U2 flights everyday, helicopter flights, search squads, and have UN peace troops occupy the country to feed the people, and to protect the inspectors who now are in 'find' mode and not relying on the 'help' of Saddam.
I think there is a way out of this, but Bush made it very hard to just back away now.
Wed.
What bothers me is the new way American policy deals with the world. What if some one else does a 'pre-emptive strike'?
I don't agree with how the bush administration moved forward with this at all. I think it could have been done way better than it was. Nevertheless, it would seem that Iraq is in breech. Saddam is not a normal leader and I do believe that he would attack American soil if he could find a way that would not be detected. I have read how he treats his people and how he sees the world and he would attack once he had a way and enough material.
1)
America, Canada, England, Russia, France, and other countries have 'big guns' because they are suppossedly stable - Iraq is not a country that is stable
2)
Iraq, unlike other war torn countries, has a large amount of money to fuel its want for weapons
3)
UN Inspectors are not there to find weapons, they are there to be shown by Saddam how those weapons were destoyed or to be destoyed if they have them.
4)
Unlike other countries under UN sanctions, Iraq has 10 some odd resolutions of disarmament, human rights, and economic exclution.
5)
Terrorist will attack whether we go into Iraq or not. Worring about more attacks because of this action is like putting a criminal in jail and the criminal blaims you for him being in jail.
While I believe the case is clear, Bush could have gone about it WAY differently than he did. You can not slap people around, even for a good cause, and expect people to follow you.
I want Saddam to somehow just be forced to treat his people better. 200 or so UN inspectors is not enough if Saddam is not going to give the information fast enough ( I doubt Saddam just destoyed these weapons and did not document that destruction... remember this is the same guy who shot at the inspectors many years ago.)
I always thought, how come they just could not increase the UN ispectors to 10,000, have U2 flights everyday, helicopter flights, search squads, and have UN peace troops occupy the country to feed the people, and to protect the inspectors who now are in 'find' mode and not relying on the 'help' of Saddam.
I think there is a way out of this, but Bush made it very hard to just back away now.
Wed.
paxx
Reply #53 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:06 AM
Reply #53 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:06 AM
I heard a joke the other day. Not every one will find it funny, but a few will:
A journalist asks president Bush:
- How do you know for sure that Irak has biological and chemical weapons?
- Oh, says Bush, that's easy. We kept the receipt.
A journalist asks president Bush:
- How do you know for sure that Irak has biological and chemical weapons?
- Oh, says Bush, that's easy. We kept the receipt.
bakerstreet
Reply #54 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:13 AM
*************** If you read any of this, read this part *********************
I am so sick of people who can mourn the dead in Nagasaki, and forget the untold numbers that were raped, tortured, experimented upon, and finally killed in mainland Asia by the Japanese; or the *children* the Japanese government were pressing into service and sending off to die.
Did german soldiers man the bomb factories in Germany? Heck no, it was a civilian population churning out the tools of war, just as it was here. Should we have allowed them to crank out buzz-bombs by the ton just because we couldn't guarantee that the employees were military? Have you seen images of post-WW2 urban Germany? Is there really a difference between two atomic bombs and millions of pounds of conventional ones?
OOOOH... wait, I get it, there IS a difference!!! The people the Germans were slaughtering were WHITE! Since the germans were killing people that are recognizable to us, we don't mind that we leveled as much of Germany as we could with little regard for civilian casualties. The Japanese, though, were doing their genetic experiments, forcibly impregnating whole populations, and systematically exterminating people of a *different* culture than ours. Which, I suppose, makes it all okay to those who can't remember why we dropped a couple of big bombs on them.
***************************************
Where were the champions of 'civilian casualties' when millions were tortured, executed, and hacked to death in Serbia, Rwanda, and the countless other conflicts that france and the rest turned a blind eye to when there was no money to be made. They didn't just ignore the events, they voted *no*; actively tried to prevent something being done about the slaughter. Just as they are doing now.
If the US is fighting because they want Saddam's oil, the french are letting a evil man stay in power because they *have* his oil. french oil producers have an agreement with Saddam Hussein worth 60 billion dollars over the next few years. They visit him, give him trophies, swords, awards and presents, and generally kiss his hairy butt. Iraq owes france ( and russia ) billions of dollars already. All of which will be null-and-void if the regime falls. It is more economically viable for anti-war europe to protect the most evil minority in Iraq while pretending to care about the 60% of the population that would starve without foreign aid.
Most of all, I hate every pig-headed, gas-guzzling idiot that thinks they are smart enough to make policy and yet can't recognize that prosperity is *always* paid for with someone else's suffering. If you have a starry-eyed, Disney view of how things oughtta be, it is because someone, somewhere far away, is suffering for your leisure; you're just too blinded by that leisure to see it.
Sure, this war is about self-interest, but the peace being called for is even more bitterly self-absorbed. france and the rest have a good thing going, why stop a madman when you can make a cottage industry out of him?
Reply #54 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:13 AM
*************** If you read any of this, read this part *********************
I am so sick of people who can mourn the dead in Nagasaki, and forget the untold numbers that were raped, tortured, experimented upon, and finally killed in mainland Asia by the Japanese; or the *children* the Japanese government were pressing into service and sending off to die.
Did german soldiers man the bomb factories in Germany? Heck no, it was a civilian population churning out the tools of war, just as it was here. Should we have allowed them to crank out buzz-bombs by the ton just because we couldn't guarantee that the employees were military? Have you seen images of post-WW2 urban Germany? Is there really a difference between two atomic bombs and millions of pounds of conventional ones?
OOOOH... wait, I get it, there IS a difference!!! The people the Germans were slaughtering were WHITE! Since the germans were killing people that are recognizable to us, we don't mind that we leveled as much of Germany as we could with little regard for civilian casualties. The Japanese, though, were doing their genetic experiments, forcibly impregnating whole populations, and systematically exterminating people of a *different* culture than ours. Which, I suppose, makes it all okay to those who can't remember why we dropped a couple of big bombs on them.
***************************************
Where were the champions of 'civilian casualties' when millions were tortured, executed, and hacked to death in Serbia, Rwanda, and the countless other conflicts that france and the rest turned a blind eye to when there was no money to be made. They didn't just ignore the events, they voted *no*; actively tried to prevent something being done about the slaughter. Just as they are doing now.
If the US is fighting because they want Saddam's oil, the french are letting a evil man stay in power because they *have* his oil. french oil producers have an agreement with Saddam Hussein worth 60 billion dollars over the next few years. They visit him, give him trophies, swords, awards and presents, and generally kiss his hairy butt. Iraq owes france ( and russia ) billions of dollars already. All of which will be null-and-void if the regime falls. It is more economically viable for anti-war europe to protect the most evil minority in Iraq while pretending to care about the 60% of the population that would starve without foreign aid.
Most of all, I hate every pig-headed, gas-guzzling idiot that thinks they are smart enough to make policy and yet can't recognize that prosperity is *always* paid for with someone else's suffering. If you have a starry-eyed, Disney view of how things oughtta be, it is because someone, somewhere far away, is suffering for your leisure; you're just too blinded by that leisure to see it.
Sure, this war is about self-interest, but the peace being called for is even more bitterly self-absorbed. france and the rest have a good thing going, why stop a madman when you can make a cottage industry out of him?
craeonics
Reply #55 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:26 AM
Reply #55 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:26 AM
I see you've been following the direction this thread has taken. Been reading some conspiracy novels lately?
craeonics
Reply #56 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:36 AM
Reply #56 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:36 AM
By the way, Japan had a bad record on the human rights thing way before the war. See what stunts they pulled in China. In the decades beforehand. Or in other words, dropping a bomb on Nagasaki in order to stop all that (as you make it sound), was rather late, no?
I think it had more to do with not wasting so many men on trying to invade them.
Anyhow, different topic.
I think it had more to do with not wasting so many men on trying to invade them.
Anyhow, different topic.
bakerstreet
Reply #57 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:46 AM
Reply #57 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:46 AM
Ask me why I don't look in that often...
Every other post alienates me and vilifies my beliefs, but sure crea, i'm all 'serious and stuff', i'll go away and let you guys have your circle jerk.
Every other post alienates me and vilifies my beliefs, but sure crea, i'm all 'serious and stuff', i'll go away and let you guys have your circle jerk.
craeonics
Reply #58 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:53 AM
Reply #58 Monday, March 17, 2003 6:53 AM
Oh no, let's do it this way: I'll go out for lunch and in the meantime you can be your serious, disgruntled self. 'Cause obviously me being around nullifies all seriousness in here.
Or perhaps you should come lunch with me to clear your system? Nasty cough you have there.
Or perhaps you should come lunch with me to clear your system? Nasty cough you have there.
IPlural
Reply #59 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:12 AM
Reply #59 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:12 AM
oh christ on a crutch...
what is this, my dogs better than your dog?
come on peeps
things is going to go bang and boom and people are going to die, and it is going to open up around the world...
conspericy theroy, of course that is what it is called up until such time as proff comes about making it reality...
Or doesn't and it sells papers and votes just the same...
what is this, my dogs better than your dog?
come on peeps
things is going to go bang and boom and people are going to die, and it is going to open up around the world...
conspericy theroy, of course that is what it is called up until such time as proff comes about making it reality...
Or doesn't and it sells papers and votes just the same...
Lecrayon
Reply #60 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:24 AM
Reply #60 Monday, March 17, 2003 7:24 AM
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/01A33C10272BF7A2CA256CE500837A10
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 3 of 85 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Monday, March 17, 2003 4:37 AM