Prisoners Of War executed
T4 Primera
03-25-2003, 02:18 PM
Lets get some facts in here then shall we ;): source is World Oil Fact Sheet (http://www.apiinformation.org/factsheets/oil_supplies.html) prepared by the American Petroleum Institute.
U.S. CRUDE OIL NEEDS:
U.S. 2002 consumption of crude and products: 19.7 million B/D
Between 1991 and 2001, U.S. demand for refined products increased by 17 percent, compared to 7 percent worldwide (7 percent for Europe).
U.S. gasoline demand grew by 19 percent during same time period.
U.S. distillate demand grew by 23 percent
Estimated Proved Crude Oil Reserves (barrels):
U.S. 22.0 billion in 2002
So after your 5 year (your figure) stockpiled reserves run out you have enough oil for:
Estimated Proved Crude Oil Reserves (barrels): U.S. 22.0 billion in 2002
divided by
U.S. 2002 consumption of crude and products: 19.7 million B/D
which = 1117 days or just over 3 years providing oil consumption doesn't grow as it has done over the last decade.
Notice also that the figures for proved oil reserves from the US are being revised downwards over time while the oil reserves in the Middle East, Russia and Eastern Europe are being revised upwards.
U.S. CRUDE OIL NEEDS:
U.S. 2002 consumption of crude and products: 19.7 million B/D
Between 1991 and 2001, U.S. demand for refined products increased by 17 percent, compared to 7 percent worldwide (7 percent for Europe).
U.S. gasoline demand grew by 19 percent during same time period.
U.S. distillate demand grew by 23 percent
Estimated Proved Crude Oil Reserves (barrels):
U.S. 22.0 billion in 2002
So after your 5 year (your figure) stockpiled reserves run out you have enough oil for:
Estimated Proved Crude Oil Reserves (barrels): U.S. 22.0 billion in 2002
divided by
U.S. 2002 consumption of crude and products: 19.7 million B/D
which = 1117 days or just over 3 years providing oil consumption doesn't grow as it has done over the last decade.
Notice also that the figures for proved oil reserves from the US are being revised downwards over time while the oil reserves in the Middle East, Russia and Eastern Europe are being revised upwards.
Prelewd
03-25-2003, 02:35 PM
Those oil reserves include Alaska?
Milliardo
03-25-2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by GTStang
If you think we need foriegn oil you are clueless. We buy foriegn oil so we don't have to tap our domestic oil.
Look at T4's post. U.S. oil reserves are going down, so yeah, you guys need Iraq badly. And occupying it would give your oil people all the mullah and oil they can get.
To make your statement of Bush becoming America's Hitler shows that you have a total lack of understanding of Germany the years before Hitler came into power and how he actually came into the power he had.
Well, yes there were differences. Hitler came to power at a time when Germany was down economically. Hitler's blaming Jews for their misfortunes gave Germans a rallying cry. But those are just the differences. The tone, the speeches, are very much eerily like Hitler's. In fact, Norwegian students who studied one of Bush's speech, taking away references about America and Iraq, concluded Hitler made the speech. If that shouldn't frighten you, then I don't know what will.
Do you question his motives for this war since WE were attacked?
Attacked by what? Al-Queda attacked you, not Iraq.
Would you just lay over if some terrorsts attacked your country?
No, but neither would I just attack another country just to root out all possible terrorists. It took Hitler the same logic in attacking nations around him, and rounding up Jews in the process.
Maybe we should have just let Japan bomb pearl harbor without retalliation.
I fail to see what that has got to do with this issue, but that incident made by Japan was an act of war by another country. The terrorist attacks were not made in the name of any country, if you noticed.
If you think we need foriegn oil you are clueless. We buy foriegn oil so we don't have to tap our domestic oil.
Look at T4's post. U.S. oil reserves are going down, so yeah, you guys need Iraq badly. And occupying it would give your oil people all the mullah and oil they can get.
To make your statement of Bush becoming America's Hitler shows that you have a total lack of understanding of Germany the years before Hitler came into power and how he actually came into the power he had.
Well, yes there were differences. Hitler came to power at a time when Germany was down economically. Hitler's blaming Jews for their misfortunes gave Germans a rallying cry. But those are just the differences. The tone, the speeches, are very much eerily like Hitler's. In fact, Norwegian students who studied one of Bush's speech, taking away references about America and Iraq, concluded Hitler made the speech. If that shouldn't frighten you, then I don't know what will.
Do you question his motives for this war since WE were attacked?
Attacked by what? Al-Queda attacked you, not Iraq.
Would you just lay over if some terrorsts attacked your country?
No, but neither would I just attack another country just to root out all possible terrorists. It took Hitler the same logic in attacking nations around him, and rounding up Jews in the process.
Maybe we should have just let Japan bomb pearl harbor without retalliation.
I fail to see what that has got to do with this issue, but that incident made by Japan was an act of war by another country. The terrorist attacks were not made in the name of any country, if you noticed.
T4 Primera
03-25-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Prelewd
Those oil reserves include Alaska? Well, as far as I know, Alaska is part of the United States isn't it?:silly2: Anyway, it's in there:2002 Estimated Proved Crude Oil Reserves (barrels), Top 5 States:
Texas 5.3 billion
Alaska 4.9 billion
California 3.8 billion
New Mexico 0.7 billion
Oklahoma 0.6 billion
So there you have the REAL reason why the US imports oil instead of using it's own domestic supplies.
Those oil reserves include Alaska? Well, as far as I know, Alaska is part of the United States isn't it?:silly2: Anyway, it's in there:2002 Estimated Proved Crude Oil Reserves (barrels), Top 5 States:
Texas 5.3 billion
Alaska 4.9 billion
California 3.8 billion
New Mexico 0.7 billion
Oklahoma 0.6 billion
So there you have the REAL reason why the US imports oil instead of using it's own domestic supplies.
T4 Primera
03-25-2003, 03:50 PM
And from the same fact sheet by the American Petroleum Institute:
World Oil Fact Sheet (http://www.apiinformation.org/factsheets/oil_supplies.html) Because U.S. petroleum companies want to remain competitive, it is reasonable to expect them to join companies from other countries in exploring opportunities in a free Iraq - as they would in any other country with vast oil reserves. Hmmmnnnnn...............Before nationalization in the mid-70s, U.S. and British oil companies played a major role in developing Iraqi oil. Hmmmmnnnnn............guess who hasn't been making money in Iraq since Saddam Hussein took over.More recently, China, France, Japan and Russia have negotiated contracts to develop oilfields. This gets more and more interesting doesn't it. Look who is missing out - that's right.....The U.S. and Britain..........double Hmmmmnnnnn.............
World Oil Fact Sheet (http://www.apiinformation.org/factsheets/oil_supplies.html) Because U.S. petroleum companies want to remain competitive, it is reasonable to expect them to join companies from other countries in exploring opportunities in a free Iraq - as they would in any other country with vast oil reserves. Hmmmnnnnn...............Before nationalization in the mid-70s, U.S. and British oil companies played a major role in developing Iraqi oil. Hmmmmnnnnn............guess who hasn't been making money in Iraq since Saddam Hussein took over.More recently, China, France, Japan and Russia have negotiated contracts to develop oilfields. This gets more and more interesting doesn't it. Look who is missing out - that's right.....The U.S. and Britain..........double Hmmmmnnnnn.............
Prelewd
03-25-2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you question his motives for this war since WE were attacked?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attacked by what? Al-Queda attacked you, not Iraq.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you just lay over if some terrorsts attacked your country?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but neither would I just attack another country just to root out all possible terrorists. It took Hitler the same logic in attacking nations around him, and rounding up Jews in the process.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe we should have just let Japan bomb pearl harbor without retalliation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I fail to see what that has got to do with this issue, but that incident made by Japan was an act of war by another country. The terrorist attacks were not made in the name of any country, if you noticed.
Alright, maybe you should read the post again, or just read the post period.. All of those things you are referencing were my rebuttle to the "first war" that bush waged. Our reasons for being in Afganistan.
The attack on pearl harbor was made by the Japanese and we waged war on the Japanese. The attack on the trade center was made by terrorists and we waged war on terror. There's your correlation.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you question his motives for this war since WE were attacked?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attacked by what? Al-Queda attacked you, not Iraq.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you just lay over if some terrorsts attacked your country?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but neither would I just attack another country just to root out all possible terrorists. It took Hitler the same logic in attacking nations around him, and rounding up Jews in the process.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe we should have just let Japan bomb pearl harbor without retalliation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I fail to see what that has got to do with this issue, but that incident made by Japan was an act of war by another country. The terrorist attacks were not made in the name of any country, if you noticed.
Alright, maybe you should read the post again, or just read the post period.. All of those things you are referencing were my rebuttle to the "first war" that bush waged. Our reasons for being in Afganistan.
The attack on pearl harbor was made by the Japanese and we waged war on the Japanese. The attack on the trade center was made by terrorists and we waged war on terror. There's your correlation.
Milliardo
03-25-2003, 04:26 PM
Hhhmm....I'll join in on that, T4. Looks like the smoking gun--only it's pointed on the U.S. and Britain. So it's all about oil? Your guess is as good as mine. :D
Milliardo
03-25-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Prelewd
Our reasons for being in Afganistan.
What are you still doing in Afghanistan? Al-Queda's gone from there, the Taliban have fled. You've no reason to still be there, unless the U.S. thinks it's far better to hold on to something.
The attack on pearl harbor was made by the Japanese and we waged war on the Japanese. The attack on the trade center was made by terrorists and we waged war on terror. There's your correlation.
As Bush himself said earlier, the war on terror has no boundaries. Looks like he backtracked on that, and now is saying that the war on terror must involve other countries as well.
Our reasons for being in Afganistan.
What are you still doing in Afghanistan? Al-Queda's gone from there, the Taliban have fled. You've no reason to still be there, unless the U.S. thinks it's far better to hold on to something.
The attack on pearl harbor was made by the Japanese and we waged war on the Japanese. The attack on the trade center was made by terrorists and we waged war on terror. There's your correlation.
As Bush himself said earlier, the war on terror has no boundaries. Looks like he backtracked on that, and now is saying that the war on terror must involve other countries as well.
T4 Primera
03-25-2003, 04:37 PM
Here's something I've always wondered - the difference in definition between The US and the rest of the world of the term "Surgical Strike":
Worldwide meaning = send in a crack military unit (SAS etc.) to secure the target.
US meaning = launch a missile from 1000 or more miles away at a building suspected of containing the target. Then follow it up with a full scale invasion to confirm whether or not the target was hit.
Worldwide meaning = send in a crack military unit (SAS etc.) to secure the target.
US meaning = launch a missile from 1000 or more miles away at a building suspected of containing the target. Then follow it up with a full scale invasion to confirm whether or not the target was hit.
jon@af
03-25-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
What are you still doing in Afghanistan? Al-Queda's gone from there, the Taliban have fled. You've no reason to still be there, unless the U.S. thinks it's far better to hold on to something.
The fact that YOU dont think there is a reason to be there doesnt mean the government doesnt have their reasons. Granted there are some things many would view as stupid, such as this war, but there are also reasons behind them. Some of these reasons me be unbeknownst to you and the public for a reason, and other reasons may be left open to the public for a reason.
What are you still doing in Afghanistan? Al-Queda's gone from there, the Taliban have fled. You've no reason to still be there, unless the U.S. thinks it's far better to hold on to something.
The fact that YOU dont think there is a reason to be there doesnt mean the government doesnt have their reasons. Granted there are some things many would view as stupid, such as this war, but there are also reasons behind them. Some of these reasons me be unbeknownst to you and the public for a reason, and other reasons may be left open to the public for a reason.
Milliardo
03-25-2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by T4 Primera
US meaning = launch a missile from 1000 or mor miles away at a building suspected of containing the target.
Of course, the U.S. method is more effective--you take out an entire building, along with "potential" terrorists (civilians, in other words). Hey, at least that's a hundred less "potential" terrorists. Makes the world safer, or at least makes the U.S. safer. :D
US meaning = launch a missile from 1000 or mor miles away at a building suspected of containing the target.
Of course, the U.S. method is more effective--you take out an entire building, along with "potential" terrorists (civilians, in other words). Hey, at least that's a hundred less "potential" terrorists. Makes the world safer, or at least makes the U.S. safer. :D
Milliardo
03-25-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars
The fact that YOU dont think there is a reason to be there doesnt mean the government doesnt have their reasons. Granted there are some things many would view as stupid, such as this war, but there are also reasons behind them. Some of these reasons me be unbeknownst to you and the public for a reason, and other reasons may be left open to the public for a reason.
Then what happened to the public's right to know? The lives of an entire nation is on the line, and the U.S. can care any less, just as long as the U.S. is safe? And we're supposed to simply accept each and every drivel that comes out of the U.S. government, even if that drivel doesn't even have a reason, or have hidden reasons? If there are hidden reasons, I would think U.S. citizens should be protesting on the streets, since there is apparently no transparency, and that those reasons kept from the public might be even more sinister than whatever Saddam, or Bin Laden, can come up with. So much then for "world security". Has the U.S. become such a police state that people there accept such nonsense such as "reasons unbeknownst to the public"? It becomes silly when you accept such things.
The fact that YOU dont think there is a reason to be there doesnt mean the government doesnt have their reasons. Granted there are some things many would view as stupid, such as this war, but there are also reasons behind them. Some of these reasons me be unbeknownst to you and the public for a reason, and other reasons may be left open to the public for a reason.
Then what happened to the public's right to know? The lives of an entire nation is on the line, and the U.S. can care any less, just as long as the U.S. is safe? And we're supposed to simply accept each and every drivel that comes out of the U.S. government, even if that drivel doesn't even have a reason, or have hidden reasons? If there are hidden reasons, I would think U.S. citizens should be protesting on the streets, since there is apparently no transparency, and that those reasons kept from the public might be even more sinister than whatever Saddam, or Bin Laden, can come up with. So much then for "world security". Has the U.S. become such a police state that people there accept such nonsense such as "reasons unbeknownst to the public"? It becomes silly when you accept such things.
jon@af
03-25-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
Then what happened to the public's right to know? The lives of an entire nation is on the line, and the U.S. can care any less, just as long as the U.S. is safe? And we're supposed to simply accept each and every drivel that comes out of the U.S. government, even if that drivel doesn't even have a reason, or have hidden reasons? If there are hidden reasons, I would think U.S. citizens should be protesting on the streets, since there is apparently no transparency, and that those reasons kept from the public might be even more sinister than whatever Saddam, or Bin Laden, can come up with. So much then for "world security". Has the U.S. become such a police state that people there accept such nonsense such as "reasons unbeknownst to the public"? It becomes silly when you accept such things.
There are many things known only to the government that could cause frenzy among the people of the US should it be known. The public knows as much as it needs to know to be(for the most part anyways) satisfied. Besides, what are you going to do, sue the government for the top secret information they have? I believe you said above in the quote, it doesnt really matter what they people dont know, as long as the US is safe. People live in ignorance everyday, not just in the US either. guess what? the people really arent worried about the things they dont know about, if their life is ok then they dont care. I dont care about what secrets the government has, Im not going to spend my time worrying about something that I dont even know about. Sometimes those things that are unknown to the public are best left unknown to the public.
Then what happened to the public's right to know? The lives of an entire nation is on the line, and the U.S. can care any less, just as long as the U.S. is safe? And we're supposed to simply accept each and every drivel that comes out of the U.S. government, even if that drivel doesn't even have a reason, or have hidden reasons? If there are hidden reasons, I would think U.S. citizens should be protesting on the streets, since there is apparently no transparency, and that those reasons kept from the public might be even more sinister than whatever Saddam, or Bin Laden, can come up with. So much then for "world security". Has the U.S. become such a police state that people there accept such nonsense such as "reasons unbeknownst to the public"? It becomes silly when you accept such things.
There are many things known only to the government that could cause frenzy among the people of the US should it be known. The public knows as much as it needs to know to be(for the most part anyways) satisfied. Besides, what are you going to do, sue the government for the top secret information they have? I believe you said above in the quote, it doesnt really matter what they people dont know, as long as the US is safe. People live in ignorance everyday, not just in the US either. guess what? the people really arent worried about the things they dont know about, if their life is ok then they dont care. I dont care about what secrets the government has, Im not going to spend my time worrying about something that I dont even know about. Sometimes those things that are unknown to the public are best left unknown to the public.
Prelewd
03-25-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
Of course, the U.S. method is more effective--you take out an entire building, along with "potential" terrorists (civilians, in other words). Hey, at least that's a hundred less "potential" terrorists. Makes the world safer, or at least makes the U.S. safer. :D
Have you even been following this war, or just watching Iraqi state run TV? We are bombing military and government installments. There is a VERY low number of civilian casualties. How do you suppose we go about this anyway, since Saddam is hiding his forces in Mosques, and hospitals. If this war was fought on our front, and Bush was hiding troops and weapons amongst our hospitals, schools, and religious buildings, it wouldn't bother me anymore if Saddam bombed them and they weren't there. We are trying to be humanitarian about this war, if such a thing is possible, but Saddam is making that awful hard.
Civilian casualties are a fact of war. Do you really think nobody is going to die in a war? Grow up and out of your Sanc Kingdom anime fantasy world.
Of course, the U.S. method is more effective--you take out an entire building, along with "potential" terrorists (civilians, in other words). Hey, at least that's a hundred less "potential" terrorists. Makes the world safer, or at least makes the U.S. safer. :D
Have you even been following this war, or just watching Iraqi state run TV? We are bombing military and government installments. There is a VERY low number of civilian casualties. How do you suppose we go about this anyway, since Saddam is hiding his forces in Mosques, and hospitals. If this war was fought on our front, and Bush was hiding troops and weapons amongst our hospitals, schools, and religious buildings, it wouldn't bother me anymore if Saddam bombed them and they weren't there. We are trying to be humanitarian about this war, if such a thing is possible, but Saddam is making that awful hard.
Civilian casualties are a fact of war. Do you really think nobody is going to die in a war? Grow up and out of your Sanc Kingdom anime fantasy world.
jon@af
03-25-2003, 06:09 PM
Milliardo, I find it interesting how you attack the tactics of the US army, and the US government and this entire war. I can understand how you might be against the war, but why the people who are fighting it? They are doing what they feel they should. It hurts every soldier over there when they see someone who thinks that what they are doing is worthless and stupid, especially when they are risking their lives for what they believe is right, otherwise, they wouldnt be there would they? And for the record, I believe there have been only a few instances of civilian casualties, which cannot be avoided all together in a war situation. It's war, people die, this is not a cartoon where BANG he's shot and get's back up. Not everything goes to plan, including where bombs or bullets may strike. By the way, what about civilians who trick the marines into thinking they are surrendring and then blow the hell out of them? is that justifiable? Hmm, they couldve just taken out these "Potential terrorists" but they dont, do they?
rsxer45
03-25-2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
What are you still doing in Afghanistan? Al-Queda's gone from there, the Taliban have fled. You've no reason to still be there, unless the U.S. thinks it's far better to hold on to something.
To my knowledge, there are still pockets of al-Qaeda still within Afghanistan. But, the main reason why I think the US is still within Afghanistan is the fact that the new government isn't stabilized yet. A well organized attack by warlords and other factions within Afghanistan could easily destabalize the gov't and possibly lead to the formation of another Taliban if the US was not there to provide protection. The gov't is still extremely delicate---I think Hamid Karzai has probably had like three or four assasination attempts already. Once reconstruction is finished and the gov't is given a firm footing and a strong Afghani military is developed I think there will be a smaller if any US presence within Afghanistan.
What are you still doing in Afghanistan? Al-Queda's gone from there, the Taliban have fled. You've no reason to still be there, unless the U.S. thinks it's far better to hold on to something.
To my knowledge, there are still pockets of al-Qaeda still within Afghanistan. But, the main reason why I think the US is still within Afghanistan is the fact that the new government isn't stabilized yet. A well organized attack by warlords and other factions within Afghanistan could easily destabalize the gov't and possibly lead to the formation of another Taliban if the US was not there to provide protection. The gov't is still extremely delicate---I think Hamid Karzai has probably had like three or four assasination attempts already. Once reconstruction is finished and the gov't is given a firm footing and a strong Afghani military is developed I think there will be a smaller if any US presence within Afghanistan.
GTStang
03-25-2003, 06:33 PM
Those are great oil numbers. You really proved me wrong. Oh wait those are API's numbers . Do you know who the API is?
The API is an associatioon paid for and funded by American Petroleum companies. In other words. this is a type of lobbyist organization. So why would this matter?
Well they want to lobby the US people and government to give them more funding. How could they accomplish this... I know! by creating an image of an a badly out matched US oil industry. Oh no we better help them so we are not depending on foriegn oil, we better send them millions of US taxpayer dollars! Even if those numbers were accurate you are aware that we only have drilled for about 30% of the oil pools that we know exist in Alaska.
Also the Oil Reserve is a strategic device of the U.S.. Do you honestly think they would let it be common knowledge the exact numbers of oil we have stored?
I don't know why are fighitng about oil anyway. This war is not about oil. The first one oil had something to do with it no doubt. But this one oil is not the driving force.
Let's say Bush is the next Hitler in what he wants to do. So what??? He will never be able to do anything he wanted to. The US isn't Germany and the governments are totally different. Everything Bush does he is allowed to do cause that American people allow him to.
Also I know you didn't mean to but in a perverse way you complimented Bush. Hitler is infamously been know as a great speech maker and a extremely charismatic leader. Many historians have attributed this to his rise to power.
There is no point to argueing this either. Like the oil niether is valid
The API is an associatioon paid for and funded by American Petroleum companies. In other words. this is a type of lobbyist organization. So why would this matter?
Well they want to lobby the US people and government to give them more funding. How could they accomplish this... I know! by creating an image of an a badly out matched US oil industry. Oh no we better help them so we are not depending on foriegn oil, we better send them millions of US taxpayer dollars! Even if those numbers were accurate you are aware that we only have drilled for about 30% of the oil pools that we know exist in Alaska.
Also the Oil Reserve is a strategic device of the U.S.. Do you honestly think they would let it be common knowledge the exact numbers of oil we have stored?
I don't know why are fighitng about oil anyway. This war is not about oil. The first one oil had something to do with it no doubt. But this one oil is not the driving force.
Let's say Bush is the next Hitler in what he wants to do. So what??? He will never be able to do anything he wanted to. The US isn't Germany and the governments are totally different. Everything Bush does he is allowed to do cause that American people allow him to.
Also I know you didn't mean to but in a perverse way you complimented Bush. Hitler is infamously been know as a great speech maker and a extremely charismatic leader. Many historians have attributed this to his rise to power.
There is no point to argueing this either. Like the oil niether is valid
Milliardo
03-25-2003, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by GTStang
Let's say Bush is the next Hitler in what he wants to do. So what??? He will never be able to do anything he wanted to. The US isn't Germany and the governments are totally different. Everything Bush does he is allowed to do cause that American people allow him to.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the German people basically allowed Hitler to do what he did. As one book charges, they were Hitler's willing executioners. The government systems might be different (Germany is parliamentary while the U.S. is Presidential), but freedom before Hitler's election was basically the same, and Hitler didn't introduce his totalitarian policies in one day. If one were to look at the similarities, both Hitler and Bush introduced them piecemeal. Dictators often introduce their policies in that way, not in one fell swoop. So, yeah, in sum, Bush can practically do anything he wants. He has the power and authority. He still finds use in a willing Congress which supports him, but who knows when time will come when he finds them more a hindrance than a willing tool. I've seen this argument before, and I keep telling those who say these things: anyone with the motive, the drive, the ambition, will do anything to get his way. If Bush wants to, he can do away with Congress and declare Martial Law in the U.S. But we are going too fast on that one...
Also I know you didn't mean to but in a perverse way you complimented Bush. Hitler is infamously been know as a great speech maker and a extremely charismatic leader. Many historians have attributed this to his rise to power.
Yes, Hitler was a great and persuasive speaker. He also used it to his own advantage. I wonder if that would still be a compliment...
There are many things known only to the government that could cause frenzy among the people of the US should it be known.
So we must assume that those kept must be so nefarious that if it were revealed, all hell would break loose.
the people really arent worried about the things they dont know about, if their life is ok then they dont care.
Yes, but most nations aren't wont to keep sinister secrets, since they don't make it a matter of routine to spark wars or engage in proxy wars either.
There is a VERY low number of civilian casualties
I must have imagined what I read about the dead children and adults in one Iraqi town. As I see it, the bombings might be concentrated on a particular target, but the blasts sure aren't--meaning, the resulting blasts might affect surrounding buildings and establishments.
I can understand how you might be against the war, but why the people who are fighting it?
Yes, the ultimate tear jerker. Not. Let me ask you this: have you considered first the lives of the many Iraqi civilians who will be caught in this war? You say, what about those fighting it? What about those who are should not be involved in it, but thanks to your war, are in it? If it hurts every soldier, then the more that the march to war should have been thought a thousand times over. But as most see it, there is nothing in Bush's mind except war--war at any cost, at any way.
It's war, people die
Needlessly. The more it should've been thought about then.
Let's say Bush is the next Hitler in what he wants to do. So what??? He will never be able to do anything he wanted to. The US isn't Germany and the governments are totally different. Everything Bush does he is allowed to do cause that American people allow him to.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the German people basically allowed Hitler to do what he did. As one book charges, they were Hitler's willing executioners. The government systems might be different (Germany is parliamentary while the U.S. is Presidential), but freedom before Hitler's election was basically the same, and Hitler didn't introduce his totalitarian policies in one day. If one were to look at the similarities, both Hitler and Bush introduced them piecemeal. Dictators often introduce their policies in that way, not in one fell swoop. So, yeah, in sum, Bush can practically do anything he wants. He has the power and authority. He still finds use in a willing Congress which supports him, but who knows when time will come when he finds them more a hindrance than a willing tool. I've seen this argument before, and I keep telling those who say these things: anyone with the motive, the drive, the ambition, will do anything to get his way. If Bush wants to, he can do away with Congress and declare Martial Law in the U.S. But we are going too fast on that one...
Also I know you didn't mean to but in a perverse way you complimented Bush. Hitler is infamously been know as a great speech maker and a extremely charismatic leader. Many historians have attributed this to his rise to power.
Yes, Hitler was a great and persuasive speaker. He also used it to his own advantage. I wonder if that would still be a compliment...
There are many things known only to the government that could cause frenzy among the people of the US should it be known.
So we must assume that those kept must be so nefarious that if it were revealed, all hell would break loose.
the people really arent worried about the things they dont know about, if their life is ok then they dont care.
Yes, but most nations aren't wont to keep sinister secrets, since they don't make it a matter of routine to spark wars or engage in proxy wars either.
There is a VERY low number of civilian casualties
I must have imagined what I read about the dead children and adults in one Iraqi town. As I see it, the bombings might be concentrated on a particular target, but the blasts sure aren't--meaning, the resulting blasts might affect surrounding buildings and establishments.
I can understand how you might be against the war, but why the people who are fighting it?
Yes, the ultimate tear jerker. Not. Let me ask you this: have you considered first the lives of the many Iraqi civilians who will be caught in this war? You say, what about those fighting it? What about those who are should not be involved in it, but thanks to your war, are in it? If it hurts every soldier, then the more that the march to war should have been thought a thousand times over. But as most see it, there is nothing in Bush's mind except war--war at any cost, at any way.
It's war, people die
Needlessly. The more it should've been thought about then.
jon@af
03-25-2003, 08:41 PM
This is the point where I would like to say: This war is happening right now and you nor anyone else you know is going to stop it. Get over the fact that people will die, and let it go. This is going to continue whether anyone likes it or not, and it will continue until the job is done. If this means US officials must stay in Iraq for a long period of time then so be it, but bitching about it isnt going to change anything at this point in time. You complain about the people who will die, how will you change their fate? Call up and tell the troops "hey, make sure that there isnt a person that shouldnt be there around before you shoot at those people attacking you" ? GET OVER IT, PEOPLE DIE IN WAR, NEEDLESSLY OR NOT, PEOPLE DIE. You dont think allied forces havent died? Are they not as important as the civilians in Iraq? Do they not have families who will be devistated upon learning their loved one will never come home? You dont like the war? what are you going to do about it, just decide to call the president and say "hey, I want this war to end, so do it"? NO. Does anyone understand my point? The war is happening and complaining about it wont make it go away or stop.
The_ScareCrow
03-25-2003, 09:04 PM
Milliardo, take a chill pill and relax man, you're all worked up over something you'll never be able to do anything about.
T4 Primera
03-25-2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by GTStang
Those are great oil numbers. You really proved me wrong. Oh wait those are API's numbers . Do you know who the API is?
The API is an associatioon paid for and funded by American Petroleum companies. In other words. this is a type of lobbyist organization. So why would this matter?
Well they want to lobby the US people and government to give them more funding. How could they accomplish this... I know! by creating an image of an a badly out matched US oil industry. Oh no we better help them so we are not depending on foriegn oil, we better send them millions of US taxpayer dollars! Even if those numbers were accurate you are aware that we only have drilled for about 30% of the oil pools that we know exist in Alaska. So an association paid for and funded by American petroleum companies needs to lobby for funding? ... That one sentence is almost a contradiction in terms of itself
Ok then, so show me your numbers.....
Those are great oil numbers. You really proved me wrong. Oh wait those are API's numbers . Do you know who the API is?
The API is an associatioon paid for and funded by American Petroleum companies. In other words. this is a type of lobbyist organization. So why would this matter?
Well they want to lobby the US people and government to give them more funding. How could they accomplish this... I know! by creating an image of an a badly out matched US oil industry. Oh no we better help them so we are not depending on foriegn oil, we better send them millions of US taxpayer dollars! Even if those numbers were accurate you are aware that we only have drilled for about 30% of the oil pools that we know exist in Alaska. So an association paid for and funded by American petroleum companies needs to lobby for funding? ... That one sentence is almost a contradiction in terms of itself
Ok then, so show me your numbers.....
GTStang
03-25-2003, 10:01 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by T4 Primera
So an association [b]paid for and funded by American petroleum companies needs to lobby for funding? ... That one sentence is almost a contradiction in terms of itself
The American Petroleum companies invest money to create this API. The API is like an advertising agency that puts out info for people like yourself to find. Also they have paid lobbyist that are in D.C. convincung senators/HOR to give GOVERNMENT!!!! funding to the American Oil Companies.
This funding is hopefully greater than the investment, this would make a profit.
Get it now?
Back to Hitler....
I don't want to get into a huge pre-socialist party economic/political/social history lesson of Germany. So simply put Germany had a much less stable and weaker government. All this set the stage for the ability for him to kill opposing politicians then eliminate the Parliament.
The difference of the U.S. is the whole U.S. government is a system of checks and balances. 3 branches of government all kept into check by each other. You can say the check s won't work but in America's history they have been tested frequently and everytime they have proved succesful. Not also to mention the totally different social/cultural issues(willing cohorts).
Read Albert Speers biography. Some of his opinions are biased cause he was Hitler's right hand man and he tried to save his own ass. Then read Gitta Sereny's book on Speer. It will help.
So an association [b]paid for and funded by American petroleum companies needs to lobby for funding? ... That one sentence is almost a contradiction in terms of itself
The American Petroleum companies invest money to create this API. The API is like an advertising agency that puts out info for people like yourself to find. Also they have paid lobbyist that are in D.C. convincung senators/HOR to give GOVERNMENT!!!! funding to the American Oil Companies.
This funding is hopefully greater than the investment, this would make a profit.
Get it now?
Back to Hitler....
I don't want to get into a huge pre-socialist party economic/political/social history lesson of Germany. So simply put Germany had a much less stable and weaker government. All this set the stage for the ability for him to kill opposing politicians then eliminate the Parliament.
The difference of the U.S. is the whole U.S. government is a system of checks and balances. 3 branches of government all kept into check by each other. You can say the check s won't work but in America's history they have been tested frequently and everytime they have proved succesful. Not also to mention the totally different social/cultural issues(willing cohorts).
Read Albert Speers biography. Some of his opinions are biased cause he was Hitler's right hand man and he tried to save his own ass. Then read Gitta Sereny's book on Speer. It will help.
T4 Primera
03-25-2003, 11:56 PM
Ok, I concede and retract my earlier foray into the capacity of US oil reserves.
However, I still contend that oil has alot to do with this invasion. The following links go some way to explaining why I hold this view and why the French and Russians oppose the invasion as well.
Iraq: the Struggle for Oil (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm)
Oil in Iraq: the heart of the Crisis (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/12heart.htm)
However, I still contend that oil has alot to do with this invasion. The following links go some way to explaining why I hold this view and why the French and Russians oppose the invasion as well.
Iraq: the Struggle for Oil (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm)
Oil in Iraq: the heart of the Crisis (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/12heart.htm)
Milliardo
03-26-2003, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars
Get over the fact that people will die, and let it go....GET OVER IT, PEOPLE DIE IN WAR, NEEDLESSLY OR NOT, PEOPLE DIE.
I have never seen anything more callous, more insensitive post than this. So, we are to forget that people are being killed, needlessly, since, hey, it's a war anyway. People die, right? So let's go to war, because people will die one way or the other. Darn, that is so insensitive that I cannot even believe such an outrageous statement would be posted here.
You dont think allied forces havent died? Are they not as important as the civilians in Iraq? Do they not have families who will be devistated upon learning their loved one will never come home? You dont like the war?
Yes, both sides are suffering casualties. The more that people who wanted war should've stopped and asked if such a thing is even necessary. What will it all achieve? A glorious victory for the U.S., another feather in their (bloody) cap, for obliterating another nation all the way back to the 19th century? Yes, cheer on. Drink your beer and watch your news. Cheer your troops as they barge in and kill. People die anyway, and we don't have to care. We can't stop the war, and we don't have to because it will go on anyway. Such insensitivity.
The difference of the U.S. is the whole U.S. government is a system of checks and balances
Yes, yes, I've seen this argument before. And just like in any society, such things can be done away with. It has been done, and it can be done. All that is needed is to first have a state wherein a crisis is present. Hitler made sure that that crisis is present, and reminded Germans about it constantly. Sounds familiar? With the crisis in place, it is not hard to have the two other branches of government agree. A crisis galvanizes a people, and whatever differences in opinions they might have, once a crisis comes, they act in unison to avert that crisis. Now, see how this goes: a crisis comes, the President asks Congress to make bills that would grant him more leeway, or else more power, to act against that crisis accordingly. Congress, seeing that there is such a crisis, then grant those. The laws or acts passed have been carefully crafted, of course, to circumvent any law it might violate. Doesn't that sound rather familiar in the American landscape? So now we have the crisis and the acts in place. Where is your check and balance now? The next step would be critical: with the acts in effect, it is easy to tighten one's grip by using that crisis as an excuse. Think of it as the boy who cried wolf: he'll drill into people's minds that as long as the crisis is there, then the President will need more power to subdue it. Congress agrees, seeing the validity of the request, and the Judiciary steps aside, as the need is there. Where is your check and balance now? More power given, the less the check and balance is present. All these things done in incriments, mind you, without people noticing anything amiss. The crisis is always there to justify the need. Familiar? Hitler employed this tactic to his advantage, and Germany followed suit. America is now following the same path. Look at the comments I quoted above: war is justified! People die, so get over it! Do you see now the effect? Germany thought the same way: the Jews are to blame, so let's all round them up. Again, is the scenario familiar? Look around you and see: it is happening. America is slowly being turned on its head, and you barely notice it, content are you in marching to the beat of its drum.
Get over the fact that people will die, and let it go....GET OVER IT, PEOPLE DIE IN WAR, NEEDLESSLY OR NOT, PEOPLE DIE.
I have never seen anything more callous, more insensitive post than this. So, we are to forget that people are being killed, needlessly, since, hey, it's a war anyway. People die, right? So let's go to war, because people will die one way or the other. Darn, that is so insensitive that I cannot even believe such an outrageous statement would be posted here.
You dont think allied forces havent died? Are they not as important as the civilians in Iraq? Do they not have families who will be devistated upon learning their loved one will never come home? You dont like the war?
Yes, both sides are suffering casualties. The more that people who wanted war should've stopped and asked if such a thing is even necessary. What will it all achieve? A glorious victory for the U.S., another feather in their (bloody) cap, for obliterating another nation all the way back to the 19th century? Yes, cheer on. Drink your beer and watch your news. Cheer your troops as they barge in and kill. People die anyway, and we don't have to care. We can't stop the war, and we don't have to because it will go on anyway. Such insensitivity.
The difference of the U.S. is the whole U.S. government is a system of checks and balances
Yes, yes, I've seen this argument before. And just like in any society, such things can be done away with. It has been done, and it can be done. All that is needed is to first have a state wherein a crisis is present. Hitler made sure that that crisis is present, and reminded Germans about it constantly. Sounds familiar? With the crisis in place, it is not hard to have the two other branches of government agree. A crisis galvanizes a people, and whatever differences in opinions they might have, once a crisis comes, they act in unison to avert that crisis. Now, see how this goes: a crisis comes, the President asks Congress to make bills that would grant him more leeway, or else more power, to act against that crisis accordingly. Congress, seeing that there is such a crisis, then grant those. The laws or acts passed have been carefully crafted, of course, to circumvent any law it might violate. Doesn't that sound rather familiar in the American landscape? So now we have the crisis and the acts in place. Where is your check and balance now? The next step would be critical: with the acts in effect, it is easy to tighten one's grip by using that crisis as an excuse. Think of it as the boy who cried wolf: he'll drill into people's minds that as long as the crisis is there, then the President will need more power to subdue it. Congress agrees, seeing the validity of the request, and the Judiciary steps aside, as the need is there. Where is your check and balance now? More power given, the less the check and balance is present. All these things done in incriments, mind you, without people noticing anything amiss. The crisis is always there to justify the need. Familiar? Hitler employed this tactic to his advantage, and Germany followed suit. America is now following the same path. Look at the comments I quoted above: war is justified! People die, so get over it! Do you see now the effect? Germany thought the same way: the Jews are to blame, so let's all round them up. Again, is the scenario familiar? Look around you and see: it is happening. America is slowly being turned on its head, and you barely notice it, content are you in marching to the beat of its drum.
Milliardo
03-26-2003, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by GTStang
[QUOTE]Originally posted by T4 Primera
So an association [b]paid for and funded by American petroleum companies needs to lobby for funding? ... That one sentence is almost a contradiction in terms of itself
The American Petroleum companies invest money to create this API. The API is like an advertising agency that puts out info for people like yourself to find. Also they have paid lobbyist that are in D.C. convincung senators/HOR to give GOVERNMENT!!!! funding to the American Oil Companies.
This funding is hopefully greater than the investment, this would make a profit.
Get it now?
Actually, T4, I don ot see how this contradicts your post about U.S. oil reserves. Basically, it only solidifies the suspicion that the war in Iraq is nothing other than for oil. Thanks to these U.S. oil companies, their lobbying paid off: Bush is now in his war, eager to please the very people who supported his Presidential bid. Expect another Presidential bid next year, if there are still elections.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by T4 Primera
So an association [b]paid for and funded by American petroleum companies needs to lobby for funding? ... That one sentence is almost a contradiction in terms of itself
The American Petroleum companies invest money to create this API. The API is like an advertising agency that puts out info for people like yourself to find. Also they have paid lobbyist that are in D.C. convincung senators/HOR to give GOVERNMENT!!!! funding to the American Oil Companies.
This funding is hopefully greater than the investment, this would make a profit.
Get it now?
Actually, T4, I don ot see how this contradicts your post about U.S. oil reserves. Basically, it only solidifies the suspicion that the war in Iraq is nothing other than for oil. Thanks to these U.S. oil companies, their lobbying paid off: Bush is now in his war, eager to please the very people who supported his Presidential bid. Expect another Presidential bid next year, if there are still elections.
T4 Primera
03-26-2003, 01:31 AM
I've only retracted the part about how long the US could supply it's own consumption....nothing else. Alaska is a bit of a mystery as far as unexplored potential but it is expensive to extract oil there anyway.
You are exactly right about the lobbyists Milliardo. I'd like to think I put that one in there as a booby trap, but in reality I completely missed the connection - I must be tired :o - thanks.
Anyone who cares to read the links I posted will see that US and UK oil companies can drop their production costs from $15-$16 per barrel down to $1.50 per barrel if given access to Iraqi oil.
Prior to the invasion, the US and UK were shut out of Iraq since the Russians, French and Chinese had already sewn up agreements once the sanctions were lifted. Guess which oil companies will get preference for developing the resources in Iraq while a US-UK coalition occupying army and coalition freindly government is present.......
You are exactly right about the lobbyists Milliardo. I'd like to think I put that one in there as a booby trap, but in reality I completely missed the connection - I must be tired :o - thanks.
Anyone who cares to read the links I posted will see that US and UK oil companies can drop their production costs from $15-$16 per barrel down to $1.50 per barrel if given access to Iraqi oil.
Prior to the invasion, the US and UK were shut out of Iraq since the Russians, French and Chinese had already sewn up agreements once the sanctions were lifted. Guess which oil companies will get preference for developing the resources in Iraq while a US-UK coalition occupying army and coalition freindly government is present.......
Prelewd
03-26-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Milliardo
Yes, both sides are suffering casualties. The more that people who wanted war should've stopped and asked if such a thing is even necessary. What will it all achieve? A glorious victory for the U.S., another feather in their (bloody) cap, for obliterating another nation all the way back to the 19th century? Yes, cheer on. Drink your beer and watch your news. Cheer your troops as they barge in and kill. People die anyway, and we don't have to care. We can't stop the war, and we don't have to because it will go on anyway. Such insensitivity.
..
America is slowly being turned on its head, and you barely notice it, content are you in marching to the beat of its drum.
It's insensitive, but true.. Maybe you are just a bit to sensitive, is your heart bleeding? Who wanted war by the way? We stopped 18 times and offered Saddam a way out. We gave him a chance to disarm. 12 years later, time's up. I'll drink my beer, watch my news, cheer my troops and celebrate when they come home safe.
...
I'm still more free in this country than any other country on earth, and I will march to the beat of it's drum to keep it that way.
Yes, both sides are suffering casualties. The more that people who wanted war should've stopped and asked if such a thing is even necessary. What will it all achieve? A glorious victory for the U.S., another feather in their (bloody) cap, for obliterating another nation all the way back to the 19th century? Yes, cheer on. Drink your beer and watch your news. Cheer your troops as they barge in and kill. People die anyway, and we don't have to care. We can't stop the war, and we don't have to because it will go on anyway. Such insensitivity.
..
America is slowly being turned on its head, and you barely notice it, content are you in marching to the beat of its drum.
It's insensitive, but true.. Maybe you are just a bit to sensitive, is your heart bleeding? Who wanted war by the way? We stopped 18 times and offered Saddam a way out. We gave him a chance to disarm. 12 years later, time's up. I'll drink my beer, watch my news, cheer my troops and celebrate when they come home safe.
...
I'm still more free in this country than any other country on earth, and I will march to the beat of it's drum to keep it that way.
Pick
03-26-2003, 12:54 PM
We are getting off topic, so I will post this. The sons-of-bitches will pay for executing our solidiers one way or another. I think our method of choice in the very near future will be a MOAB up their ass. Baghdad will fall. We will get our solidiers back and every Iraqi soldier that stands between us will be killed or taken prisoner. Unless, of course, they pose as a civilian. In that case, they will be killed and will die knowing they fought dishonorably and that the burden of having more civilians killed was contingent on their moronic ideas. Nuff said.......
jon@af
03-26-2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars
GET OVER IT, PEOPLE DIE IN WAR, NEEDLESSLY OR NOT, PEOPLE DIE.
I hate to quote myself, but this serves a purpose it was said earlier that:
Originally posted by Milliardo I have never seen anything more callous, more insensitive post than this. So, we are to forget that people are being killed, needlessly, since, hey, it's a war anyway. People die, right? So let's go to war, because people will die one way or the other. Darn, that is so insensitive that I cannot even believe such an outrageous statement would be posted here.
I dont believe it was an outrageous statement at all. You have been showing your dislike toward the casualties of civilians in this war like you didnt expect them to even occur, I said that because in war situations, you will have this, and as I said earlier. GET OVER IT. You need to accept that fact that people will die, It may be hard to swallow but everyone else has to deal with hearing about it just as much as you and I. And, as it has been said numerous times before, people die in war, needlessly or not, people die. Hey, I think that's at the top of this post! Go figure!:rolleyes:
Now, back on topic, When discussing those who killed the POW's, It will be very hard to find those who actually performed the killing, but we can however hold Iraq responsible for their deaths, which wouldnt surprise me if we did. I very much believe that the lives of those soldiers will not have been lost just to go unpunished. I believe that there will be more POW's taken by both sides, and hopefully Coalition POW's will begin to recieve better treatment, i.e. Not being killed. As for the outcome of this war, I hope it is sooner than later, as many do as well.
GET OVER IT, PEOPLE DIE IN WAR, NEEDLESSLY OR NOT, PEOPLE DIE.
I hate to quote myself, but this serves a purpose it was said earlier that:
Originally posted by Milliardo I have never seen anything more callous, more insensitive post than this. So, we are to forget that people are being killed, needlessly, since, hey, it's a war anyway. People die, right? So let's go to war, because people will die one way or the other. Darn, that is so insensitive that I cannot even believe such an outrageous statement would be posted here.
I dont believe it was an outrageous statement at all. You have been showing your dislike toward the casualties of civilians in this war like you didnt expect them to even occur, I said that because in war situations, you will have this, and as I said earlier. GET OVER IT. You need to accept that fact that people will die, It may be hard to swallow but everyone else has to deal with hearing about it just as much as you and I. And, as it has been said numerous times before, people die in war, needlessly or not, people die. Hey, I think that's at the top of this post! Go figure!:rolleyes:
Now, back on topic, When discussing those who killed the POW's, It will be very hard to find those who actually performed the killing, but we can however hold Iraq responsible for their deaths, which wouldnt surprise me if we did. I very much believe that the lives of those soldiers will not have been lost just to go unpunished. I believe that there will be more POW's taken by both sides, and hopefully Coalition POW's will begin to recieve better treatment, i.e. Not being killed. As for the outcome of this war, I hope it is sooner than later, as many do as well.
TexasF355F1
03-27-2003, 08:38 AM
ILIKE2DRIVE, i totally understand what you are saying about "people die in war, get over it". A little bit nicer way of saying this however would be to say death is a part of life. No one knows how they are going to die, or when they will die. Everyone one who is in the service signed up knowing that one day they could go to war and may die defending their country. If anyone signed up just for a free education, they should have their asses kicked. And if someone joined not thinking of the possibility of war, they are extremely naive and have no business being in the military.
Milliardo
03-27-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars
I dont believe it was an outrageous statement at all. You have been showing your dislike toward the casualties of civilians in this war like you didnt expect them to even occur
Whoever said it won't occur? Precisely my point: needless deaths will occur, deaths that could have been prevented if war is not made.
I said that because in war situations, you will have this, and as I said earlier. GET OVER IT. You need to accept that fact that people will die
This is still outrageous, callous, and unbelievably insensitive. Okay, callous and insensitive is synonymous, but I would like to stress it emphatically. I'll retort: get over your video game/movie fantasy. You seem to think of war as some kind of Hollywood production, where you just sit and watch people die, oblivious to the fact that it is affecting a nation's life elsewhere. This is the problem with most Americans who support the war: you have not experienced war on your soil for more than a century. You live in the comfort of your homes, see those images on TV, but can hardly relate to it. You seem to think it's another movie. Your reactions show it: people die. It happens. Get over it. So we have to tell war victims, on both sides: get over it, people die. I wonder how those who lost their loved ones will react to such a statement. It would be a lucky person who can get away with such a statement with nothing more than a slap. I doubt people will have much sympathy for you, if ever the time comes, when you are in such a situation. Then I'd like to see how you would react to someone who says: get over it, people die.
Now, back on topic, When discussing those who killed the POW's, It will be very hard to find those who actually performed the killing, but we can however hold Iraq responsible for their deaths, which wouldnt surprise me if we did.
The first thing to ask is, were the killings on orders from Saddam? Although command responsibility would say that he should have some responsibility for it, it also holds that if he didn't specifically ordered it, then his responsibility isn't as grave as him gving a direct order. Remember that no one loves to have his country being invaded, and I would not be surprised if Iraqis, out of sheer anger, beat or even kill American POWs. Again, it isn't right, but it is normal human nature.
I dont believe it was an outrageous statement at all. You have been showing your dislike toward the casualties of civilians in this war like you didnt expect them to even occur
Whoever said it won't occur? Precisely my point: needless deaths will occur, deaths that could have been prevented if war is not made.
I said that because in war situations, you will have this, and as I said earlier. GET OVER IT. You need to accept that fact that people will die
This is still outrageous, callous, and unbelievably insensitive. Okay, callous and insensitive is synonymous, but I would like to stress it emphatically. I'll retort: get over your video game/movie fantasy. You seem to think of war as some kind of Hollywood production, where you just sit and watch people die, oblivious to the fact that it is affecting a nation's life elsewhere. This is the problem with most Americans who support the war: you have not experienced war on your soil for more than a century. You live in the comfort of your homes, see those images on TV, but can hardly relate to it. You seem to think it's another movie. Your reactions show it: people die. It happens. Get over it. So we have to tell war victims, on both sides: get over it, people die. I wonder how those who lost their loved ones will react to such a statement. It would be a lucky person who can get away with such a statement with nothing more than a slap. I doubt people will have much sympathy for you, if ever the time comes, when you are in such a situation. Then I'd like to see how you would react to someone who says: get over it, people die.
Now, back on topic, When discussing those who killed the POW's, It will be very hard to find those who actually performed the killing, but we can however hold Iraq responsible for their deaths, which wouldnt surprise me if we did.
The first thing to ask is, were the killings on orders from Saddam? Although command responsibility would say that he should have some responsibility for it, it also holds that if he didn't specifically ordered it, then his responsibility isn't as grave as him gving a direct order. Remember that no one loves to have his country being invaded, and I would not be surprised if Iraqis, out of sheer anger, beat or even kill American POWs. Again, it isn't right, but it is normal human nature.
jon@af
03-27-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Milliardo
....get over your video game/movie fantasy. You seem to think of war as some kind of Hollywood production, where you just sit and watch people die....
I have no problem with you attacking my opinion because frankly, I do not care if you dont like what I think, But how dare you sit there and think that I view this as a simple spectacle for my enjoyment. I know people who are in this war, my friend's brother who is also a good friend of my own is a marine who is serving overseas in Iraq, My girlfriend's father is in Kuwait as we speak, her and I are both concerned for his safty. Am I worried that something might happen to them? of course. Will it sadden me if something does happen? Of course. You portray me as a cold individual, and a cold individual is something I am not. I know this is no joke and should not be taken lightly. You assume that I think "oh, Im not there, I dont care" but that's exactly it, you assume. You dont know a thing about me, so dont act as though you have me figured out from the posts I have up. My statement was "People die in war, it's a fact, get over it" I must agree with TexasF355F1 when he said that what I basically meant, in better terms was that death is a part of life, and these people signed up for the military knowing that they at some point could possibly be putting their life on the line and possibly dying for their country. I realize that this war is going to cause the needless loss of life and that does sadden me, as it should others, but I have accepted the fact that people can, and ultimately will die, not lightly, but I have. Please, next time you want to respond to a post of mine, dont attack me, attack my opinion.
....get over your video game/movie fantasy. You seem to think of war as some kind of Hollywood production, where you just sit and watch people die....
I have no problem with you attacking my opinion because frankly, I do not care if you dont like what I think, But how dare you sit there and think that I view this as a simple spectacle for my enjoyment. I know people who are in this war, my friend's brother who is also a good friend of my own is a marine who is serving overseas in Iraq, My girlfriend's father is in Kuwait as we speak, her and I are both concerned for his safty. Am I worried that something might happen to them? of course. Will it sadden me if something does happen? Of course. You portray me as a cold individual, and a cold individual is something I am not. I know this is no joke and should not be taken lightly. You assume that I think "oh, Im not there, I dont care" but that's exactly it, you assume. You dont know a thing about me, so dont act as though you have me figured out from the posts I have up. My statement was "People die in war, it's a fact, get over it" I must agree with TexasF355F1 when he said that what I basically meant, in better terms was that death is a part of life, and these people signed up for the military knowing that they at some point could possibly be putting their life on the line and possibly dying for their country. I realize that this war is going to cause the needless loss of life and that does sadden me, as it should others, but I have accepted the fact that people can, and ultimately will die, not lightly, but I have. Please, next time you want to respond to a post of mine, dont attack me, attack my opinion.
1985_BMW318i
03-27-2003, 08:22 PM
Milliardo
You and others solely blame President Bush. Well guess what it stops at the top and Saddam is at the top of this pile of crap. He's done more harm to his own countrymen then anyone else yet you and a few others seem to take his side. Why don't you go join his army and protect his way of life where he continues to kill and maim his own people
You and others solely blame President Bush. Well guess what it stops at the top and Saddam is at the top of this pile of crap. He's done more harm to his own countrymen then anyone else yet you and a few others seem to take his side. Why don't you go join his army and protect his way of life where he continues to kill and maim his own people
T4 Primera
03-27-2003, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Milliardo
You and others solely blame President Bush. Well guess what it stops at the top and Saddam is at the top of this pile of crap. He's done more harm to his own countrymen then anyone else yet you and a few others seem to take his side. Why don't you go join his army and protect his way of life where he continues to kill and maim his own people Do you seriously believe that Milliardo and others, who oppose President Bush's actions, actually ENDORSE the actions of Saddam Hussein?
In my humble opinion, this is the very polarisation and black & white thinking that President Bush's "you're either with us, or you're against us" speech was intended to produce.
On topic: Executed Soldiers.
In every group there are going to be those who carry out such ruthless acts. These acts are not always the result of an order from their commander, whether the order be direct, specific, general or implied.
How did the footage of the executions become available?
Was it filmed without the knowledge of the executioners and released to the western world?
Was it filmed by the regime with the intention of being broadcast?
Was there any dialogue to acompany this tape?
If someone has the answer to these questions, it might go some way to confirming that the order to carry out the executions came from the upper echelons of Saddam's regime.
Milliardo
You and others solely blame President Bush. Well guess what it stops at the top and Saddam is at the top of this pile of crap. He's done more harm to his own countrymen then anyone else yet you and a few others seem to take his side. Why don't you go join his army and protect his way of life where he continues to kill and maim his own people Do you seriously believe that Milliardo and others, who oppose President Bush's actions, actually ENDORSE the actions of Saddam Hussein?
In my humble opinion, this is the very polarisation and black & white thinking that President Bush's "you're either with us, or you're against us" speech was intended to produce.
On topic: Executed Soldiers.
In every group there are going to be those who carry out such ruthless acts. These acts are not always the result of an order from their commander, whether the order be direct, specific, general or implied.
How did the footage of the executions become available?
Was it filmed without the knowledge of the executioners and released to the western world?
Was it filmed by the regime with the intention of being broadcast?
Was there any dialogue to acompany this tape?
If someone has the answer to these questions, it might go some way to confirming that the order to carry out the executions came from the upper echelons of Saddam's regime.
Pick
03-28-2003, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by T4 Primera
Do you seriously believe that Milliardo and others, who oppose President Bush's actions, actually ENDORSE the actions of Saddam Hussein?
In my humble opinion, this is the very polarisation and black & white thinking that President Bush's "you're either with us, or you're against us" speech was intended to produce.
On topic: Executed Soldiers.
In every group there are going to be those who carry out such ruthless acts. These acts are not always the result of an order from their commander, whether the order be direct, specific, general or implied.
How did the footage of the executions become available?
Was it filmed without the knowledge of the executioners and released to the western world?
Was it filmed by the regime with the intention of being broadcast?
Was there any dialogue to acompany this tape?
If someone has the answer to these questions, it might go some way to confirming that the order to carry out the executions came from the upper echelons of Saddam's regime.
If you'll remember that last time Saddam had prisoners, he kept them by his side and he got his picture taken with them. I GUARANTEE that Saddam ordered them to be killed. He kept them by his side so he could use them as leverage.
Are the questions you asked rhetorical? Because it would be sad that you in any way trusted this regime.
Do you seriously believe that Milliardo and others, who oppose President Bush's actions, actually ENDORSE the actions of Saddam Hussein?
In my humble opinion, this is the very polarisation and black & white thinking that President Bush's "you're either with us, or you're against us" speech was intended to produce.
On topic: Executed Soldiers.
In every group there are going to be those who carry out such ruthless acts. These acts are not always the result of an order from their commander, whether the order be direct, specific, general or implied.
How did the footage of the executions become available?
Was it filmed without the knowledge of the executioners and released to the western world?
Was it filmed by the regime with the intention of being broadcast?
Was there any dialogue to acompany this tape?
If someone has the answer to these questions, it might go some way to confirming that the order to carry out the executions came from the upper echelons of Saddam's regime.
If you'll remember that last time Saddam had prisoners, he kept them by his side and he got his picture taken with them. I GUARANTEE that Saddam ordered them to be killed. He kept them by his side so he could use them as leverage.
Are the questions you asked rhetorical? Because it would be sad that you in any way trusted this regime.
taranaki
03-28-2003, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by Pick
If you'll remember that last time Saddam had prisoners, he kept them by his side and he got his picture taken with them. I GUARANTEE that Saddam ordered them to be killed. He kept them by his side so he could use them as leverage.
Are the questions you asked rhetorical? Because it would be sad that you in any way trusted this regime.
Can you explain this 'GUARANTEE'?
Were you there when he gave the order?
Who said anything about trusting Saddam's regime?
If you'll remember that last time Saddam had prisoners, he kept them by his side and he got his picture taken with them. I GUARANTEE that Saddam ordered them to be killed. He kept them by his side so he could use them as leverage.
Are the questions you asked rhetorical? Because it would be sad that you in any way trusted this regime.
Can you explain this 'GUARANTEE'?
Were you there when he gave the order?
Who said anything about trusting Saddam's regime?
Pick
03-28-2003, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
Can you explain this 'GUARANTEE'?
Were you there when he gave the order?
Who said anything about trusting Saddam's regime?
I explained the guarantee in my previous post. I wasn't there when he gave the order, however.:D
I was referring to all the questions posed by T4 Primera and I was merely asking if he trusted anything the Iraqi media or regime put out.
Can you explain this 'GUARANTEE'?
Were you there when he gave the order?
Who said anything about trusting Saddam's regime?
I explained the guarantee in my previous post. I wasn't there when he gave the order, however.:D
I was referring to all the questions posed by T4 Primera and I was merely asking if he trusted anything the Iraqi media or regime put out.
T4 Primera
03-28-2003, 01:11 PM
Pick, my questions were not rhetorical. The answers to them might indicate that the order came from the top of the regime - although no matter what the answer it can't discount that the order came from the same place. I have not seen the footage of this and I really want to know more about it.
Unfortunately I only have access to 24 hour news coverage (Sky TV) when I'm at work. For the last few days I've been at home and apart from a short news segment 3 times a day - I'm pretty much cut off.
Unfortunately I only have access to 24 hour news coverage (Sky TV) when I'm at work. For the last few days I've been at home and apart from a short news segment 3 times a day - I'm pretty much cut off.
taranaki
03-28-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Pick
I explained the guarantee in my previous post. I wasn't there when he gave the order, however.:D
I was referring to all the questions posed by T4 Primera and I was merely asking if he trusted anything the Iraqi media or regime put out.
Perhaps you think you explained,but I don't get it.:(
As for the Iraqi media,I trust them no more and no less than the American media.Contemporary journalism has deteriorated into mind games and soundbites.Interesting to see that the Iraqi television broadcasting network was one of the first targets in this war.Shows that those in charge of this criminal invasion see the media as a liability.
I explained the guarantee in my previous post. I wasn't there when he gave the order, however.:D
I was referring to all the questions posed by T4 Primera and I was merely asking if he trusted anything the Iraqi media or regime put out.
Perhaps you think you explained,but I don't get it.:(
As for the Iraqi media,I trust them no more and no less than the American media.Contemporary journalism has deteriorated into mind games and soundbites.Interesting to see that the Iraqi television broadcasting network was one of the first targets in this war.Shows that those in charge of this criminal invasion see the media as a liability.
1985_BMW318i
03-28-2003, 02:41 PM
Shows that those in charge of this criminal invasion see the media as a liability
Naki
I don't see how you can call this a criminal invasion. Saddam had many many chances to come clean. Then President Bush gave him time to leave Iraq. Other Arab countries offered him exile where he would not have had to face the charges he certainly will if he doesn't kill himself when this war is overwith. He's killed scores of his countrymen and has continued to have it done. So have his sons. The world not to mention the middle east will be a safer place when this is all said and done. I'm also confident that we will show beyond any shadow of a doubt that Saddam has continued to keep and control WMD's. That is if he doesn't use them when we knock on his front door.
Naki
I don't see how you can call this a criminal invasion. Saddam had many many chances to come clean. Then President Bush gave him time to leave Iraq. Other Arab countries offered him exile where he would not have had to face the charges he certainly will if he doesn't kill himself when this war is overwith. He's killed scores of his countrymen and has continued to have it done. So have his sons. The world not to mention the middle east will be a safer place when this is all said and done. I'm also confident that we will show beyond any shadow of a doubt that Saddam has continued to keep and control WMD's. That is if he doesn't use them when we knock on his front door.
taranaki
03-28-2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Naki
I don't see how you can call this a criminal invasion. Saddam had many many chances to come clean. Then President Bush gave him time to leave Iraq. Other Arab countries offered him exile where he would not have had to face the charges he certainly will if he doesn't kill himself when this war is overwith. He's killed scores of his countrymen and has continued to have it done. So have his sons. The world not to mention the middle east will be a safer place when this is all said and done. I'm also confident that we will show beyond any shadow of a doubt that Saddam has continued to keep and control WMD's. That is if he doesn't use them when we knock on his front door.
If he had chemical weapons,there is no reason why such an evil man as you claim him to be would not have used them already.This immoral invasion has already slaughtered thousands of defenders and civilians,and it would seem from the fierce fighting that there are a good number of Iraqis who have no wish to be 'liberated'.As yet,I have seen no news reports that American or British forces have found any evidence of terrorist activity,training camps,weapons dumps,etc...
so..
No chemical weapons.....
No terrorists.....
No support from the Iraqi people for liberation
Bush's excuses for invading Iraq are looking increasingly fatuous.It's an illegal and unwarrranted invasion,and a slap in the face for anyone who believes in international law.
Naki
I don't see how you can call this a criminal invasion. Saddam had many many chances to come clean. Then President Bush gave him time to leave Iraq. Other Arab countries offered him exile where he would not have had to face the charges he certainly will if he doesn't kill himself when this war is overwith. He's killed scores of his countrymen and has continued to have it done. So have his sons. The world not to mention the middle east will be a safer place when this is all said and done. I'm also confident that we will show beyond any shadow of a doubt that Saddam has continued to keep and control WMD's. That is if he doesn't use them when we knock on his front door.
If he had chemical weapons,there is no reason why such an evil man as you claim him to be would not have used them already.This immoral invasion has already slaughtered thousands of defenders and civilians,and it would seem from the fierce fighting that there are a good number of Iraqis who have no wish to be 'liberated'.As yet,I have seen no news reports that American or British forces have found any evidence of terrorist activity,training camps,weapons dumps,etc...
so..
No chemical weapons.....
No terrorists.....
No support from the Iraqi people for liberation
Bush's excuses for invading Iraq are looking increasingly fatuous.It's an illegal and unwarrranted invasion,and a slap in the face for anyone who believes in international law.
1985_BMW318i
03-28-2003, 03:06 PM
If he had chemical weapons,there is no reason why such an evil man as you claim him to be
So basically your saying he never gassed or killed any of his own countrymen? I suppose the Kurds all died of natural causes at the same time that gas happened to be in their air?
So basically your saying he never gassed or killed any of his own countrymen? I suppose the Kurds all died of natural causes at the same time that gas happened to be in their air?
taranaki
03-28-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
So basically your saying he never gassed or killed any of his own countrymen? I suppose the Kurds all died of natural causes at the same time that gas happened to be in their air?
If your best argument is an incident that happened while Saddam was a close ally of the U.S.A.,then your argument must really be in trouble.
That was bck in the 1980's and is not relevant to the current war.It would be just as easy for me to say that America has a history of using nuclear weapons,so therefore America must be evil.Clearly,this is not the case.America has not used weapons of mass destruction in any of the many,many,many,conflicts that it has been involved in since the second world war.I only hope that Bush can be prevented from getting trigger-happy in this conflict.
So basically your saying he never gassed or killed any of his own countrymen? I suppose the Kurds all died of natural causes at the same time that gas happened to be in their air?
If your best argument is an incident that happened while Saddam was a close ally of the U.S.A.,then your argument must really be in trouble.
That was bck in the 1980's and is not relevant to the current war.It would be just as easy for me to say that America has a history of using nuclear weapons,so therefore America must be evil.Clearly,this is not the case.America has not used weapons of mass destruction in any of the many,many,many,conflicts that it has been involved in since the second world war.I only hope that Bush can be prevented from getting trigger-happy in this conflict.
1985_BMW318i
03-28-2003, 03:24 PM
America has a history of using nuclear weapons
Yes we did, Can you imagine how many more lifes would have been lost both Japanese and American if we had not used those weapons?. More lifes were saved as a direct result of those two bombs
Yes we did, Can you imagine how many more lifes would have been lost both Japanese and American if we had not used those weapons?. More lifes were saved as a direct result of those two bombs
taranaki
03-28-2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Yes we did, Can you imagine how many more lifes would have been lost both Japanese and American if we had not used those weapons?. More lifes were saved as a direct result of those two bombs
I can't imagine that the civilians of Hiroshima or Nagasaki would have been worse off without those bombs,and I am sure that there were potentially other acceptable outcomes that didn't involve the U.S. taking complete control of Japan.The nuclear attacks were a quick and dirty way for the U.S. to take Japan out,but whether or not it was neccesary for the U.S. to do it is debatable.
Yes we did, Can you imagine how many more lifes would have been lost both Japanese and American if we had not used those weapons?. More lifes were saved as a direct result of those two bombs
I can't imagine that the civilians of Hiroshima or Nagasaki would have been worse off without those bombs,and I am sure that there were potentially other acceptable outcomes that didn't involve the U.S. taking complete control of Japan.The nuclear attacks were a quick and dirty way for the U.S. to take Japan out,but whether or not it was neccesary for the U.S. to do it is debatable.
Prelewd
03-28-2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
As for the Iraqi media,I trust them no more and no less than the American media.Contemporary journalism has deteriorated into mind games and soundbites.Interesting to see that the Iraqi television broadcasting network was one of the first targets in this war.Shows that those in charge of this criminal invasion see the media as a liability.
One of the first targets? Please.. If memory serves me correct, we were trying not to have to bomb the television stations, but Iraq has flooded it with outright lies. And what were the 600 things we bombed before that? Target practice?
Originally posted by taranaki
If he had chemical weapons,there is no reason why such an evil man as you claim him to be would not have used them already.This immoral invasion has already slaughtered thousands of defenders and civilians,and it would seem from the fierce fighting that there are a good number of Iraqis who have no wish to be 'liberated'.As yet,I have seen no news reports that American or British forces have found any evidence of terrorist activity,training camps,weapons dumps,etc...
so..
No chemical weapons.....
No terrorists.....
No support from the Iraqi people for liberation
Bush's excuses for invading Iraq are looking increasingly fatuous.It's an illegal and unwarrranted invasion,and a slap in the face for anyone who believes in international law.
What are scud missles, besides a direct violation of the UN regulations set forth to Iraq?
Do you not support freedom? Because that's what the Iraqi people do not have. Do you believe that someone should have their wives raped, and family mutilated because they don't believe in what you are doing is right? How about thier hands chopped off for petty theft? Do you think Saddam got 100% of the vote because the people like him? I'd say they were fearing for their lives. I guess it doesn't matter though, because all of this was learned from the US "propoganda machine" and I don't have the means to prove it.
I'm not implying that you do believe these things either, so don't pull that on me.
There are other factors besides chemical weapons and terrorists that would cause an Iraqi citizen to want liberation. I bet that if by some very slim chance that we did back out, you'd see more Iraqi citizens commit suicide than the number of those who have died in this war.
As for the Iraqi media,I trust them no more and no less than the American media.Contemporary journalism has deteriorated into mind games and soundbites.Interesting to see that the Iraqi television broadcasting network was one of the first targets in this war.Shows that those in charge of this criminal invasion see the media as a liability.
One of the first targets? Please.. If memory serves me correct, we were trying not to have to bomb the television stations, but Iraq has flooded it with outright lies. And what were the 600 things we bombed before that? Target practice?
Originally posted by taranaki
If he had chemical weapons,there is no reason why such an evil man as you claim him to be would not have used them already.This immoral invasion has already slaughtered thousands of defenders and civilians,and it would seem from the fierce fighting that there are a good number of Iraqis who have no wish to be 'liberated'.As yet,I have seen no news reports that American or British forces have found any evidence of terrorist activity,training camps,weapons dumps,etc...
so..
No chemical weapons.....
No terrorists.....
No support from the Iraqi people for liberation
Bush's excuses for invading Iraq are looking increasingly fatuous.It's an illegal and unwarrranted invasion,and a slap in the face for anyone who believes in international law.
What are scud missles, besides a direct violation of the UN regulations set forth to Iraq?
Do you not support freedom? Because that's what the Iraqi people do not have. Do you believe that someone should have their wives raped, and family mutilated because they don't believe in what you are doing is right? How about thier hands chopped off for petty theft? Do you think Saddam got 100% of the vote because the people like him? I'd say they were fearing for their lives. I guess it doesn't matter though, because all of this was learned from the US "propoganda machine" and I don't have the means to prove it.
I'm not implying that you do believe these things either, so don't pull that on me.
There are other factors besides chemical weapons and terrorists that would cause an Iraqi citizen to want liberation. I bet that if by some very slim chance that we did back out, you'd see more Iraqi citizens commit suicide than the number of those who have died in this war.
jon@af
03-28-2003, 08:09 PM
sOriginally posted by Prelewd
What are scud missles, besides a direct violation of the UN regulations set forth to Iraq?
Do you not support freedom? Because that's what the Iraqi people do not have. Do you believe that someone should have their wives raped, and family mutilated because they don't believe in what you are doing is right? How about thier hands chopped off for petty theft? Do you think Saddam got 100% of the vote because the people like him? I'd say they were fearing for their lives. I guess it doesn't matter though, because all of this was learned from the US "propoganda machine" and I don't have the means to prove it.
I'm not implying that you do believe these things either, so don't pull that on me.
There are other factors besides chemical weapons and terrorists that would cause an Iraqi citizen to want liberation. I bet that if by some very slim chance that we did back out, you'd see more Iraqi citizens commit suicide than the number of those who have died in this war.
Well, a lot of the Iraqi people dont exactly know that we are there to liberate them. A lot do, but a lot dont as well. The reason for this is because of that damned Iraqi state-run television. The Iraqi's watch that and only get the crap that is fed to them from Saddam's people, saying that the US are there to take their land and kill them all. The Iraqi's dont get to see our news which would explain the other side of this war to them. And no, chemical weapons are not the only reason we are in there, it is one of the main reasons, but not one of the only reasons. I feel that if the people of Iraq knew the whole story, there would be a lot less problems with civilians in terms of surrendering then shooting at the coalition troops.
What are scud missles, besides a direct violation of the UN regulations set forth to Iraq?
Do you not support freedom? Because that's what the Iraqi people do not have. Do you believe that someone should have their wives raped, and family mutilated because they don't believe in what you are doing is right? How about thier hands chopped off for petty theft? Do you think Saddam got 100% of the vote because the people like him? I'd say they were fearing for their lives. I guess it doesn't matter though, because all of this was learned from the US "propoganda machine" and I don't have the means to prove it.
I'm not implying that you do believe these things either, so don't pull that on me.
There are other factors besides chemical weapons and terrorists that would cause an Iraqi citizen to want liberation. I bet that if by some very slim chance that we did back out, you'd see more Iraqi citizens commit suicide than the number of those who have died in this war.
Well, a lot of the Iraqi people dont exactly know that we are there to liberate them. A lot do, but a lot dont as well. The reason for this is because of that damned Iraqi state-run television. The Iraqi's watch that and only get the crap that is fed to them from Saddam's people, saying that the US are there to take their land and kill them all. The Iraqi's dont get to see our news which would explain the other side of this war to them. And no, chemical weapons are not the only reason we are in there, it is one of the main reasons, but not one of the only reasons. I feel that if the people of Iraq knew the whole story, there would be a lot less problems with civilians in terms of surrendering then shooting at the coalition troops.
rsxer45
03-28-2003, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars
s
Well, a lot of the Iraqi people dont exactly know that we are there to liberate them. A lot do, but a lot dont as well. The reason for this is because of that damned Al Jazeera. The Iraqi's watch that and only get the crap that is fed to them from Saddam's people, saying that the US are there to take their land and kill them all. The Iraqi's dont get to see our news which would explain the other side of this war to them. And no, chemical weapons are not the only reason we are in there, it is one of the main reasons, but not one of the only reasons. I feel that if the people of Iraq knew the whole story, there would be a lot less problems with civilians in terms of surrendering then shooting at the coalition troops.
I think you are misinformed about the Al-Jazeera news network. It was the Iraqi state-run television that has been feeding the Iraqi people with Saddam's propoganda and lies. To me, Al-Jazeera is kind of like the CNN for the Arab world with the opposite perspective. Al-Jazeera, in my opinion, is no more biased (or maybe just a little more) than CNN or MSNBC. Although their portrayal of deceased US soldiers may question their bias, according to them they have portrayed similar pictures of deceased Iraqi soldiers in the same fashion. But, anyway it was the state-run Iraqi television that was spreading the crap and not Al-Jazeera.
s
Well, a lot of the Iraqi people dont exactly know that we are there to liberate them. A lot do, but a lot dont as well. The reason for this is because of that damned Al Jazeera. The Iraqi's watch that and only get the crap that is fed to them from Saddam's people, saying that the US are there to take their land and kill them all. The Iraqi's dont get to see our news which would explain the other side of this war to them. And no, chemical weapons are not the only reason we are in there, it is one of the main reasons, but not one of the only reasons. I feel that if the people of Iraq knew the whole story, there would be a lot less problems with civilians in terms of surrendering then shooting at the coalition troops.
I think you are misinformed about the Al-Jazeera news network. It was the Iraqi state-run television that has been feeding the Iraqi people with Saddam's propoganda and lies. To me, Al-Jazeera is kind of like the CNN for the Arab world with the opposite perspective. Al-Jazeera, in my opinion, is no more biased (or maybe just a little more) than CNN or MSNBC. Although their portrayal of deceased US soldiers may question their bias, according to them they have portrayed similar pictures of deceased Iraqi soldiers in the same fashion. But, anyway it was the state-run Iraqi television that was spreading the crap and not Al-Jazeera.
T4 Primera
03-28-2003, 08:34 PM
I read one commentary about Al Jazeera today that said the reason for displaying those images was because both sides initially denied that these things had occured. With the publishing of those pictures, both sides then acknowledged the occurence of these grisly scenes.
jon@af
03-28-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by rsxer45
I think you are misinformed about the Al-Jazeera news network. It was the Iraqi state-run television that has been feeding the Iraqi people with Saddam's propoganda and lies.
That was it, sorry, my bad:bloated:
[edit]There, It's all fixed now.
I think you are misinformed about the Al-Jazeera news network. It was the Iraqi state-run television that has been feeding the Iraqi people with Saddam's propoganda and lies.
That was it, sorry, my bad:bloated:
[edit]There, It's all fixed now.
taranaki
03-28-2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Prelewd
What are scud missles, besides a direct violation of the UN regulations set forth to Iraq?
Do you not support freedom? Because that's what the Iraqi people do not have. Do you believe that someone should have their wives raped, and family mutilated because they don't believe in what you are doing is right? How about thier hands chopped off for petty theft? Do you think Saddam got 100% of the vote because the people like him? I'd say they were fearing for their lives. I guess it doesn't matter though, because all of this was learned from the US "propoganda machine" and I don't have the means to prove it.
I'm not implying that you do believe these things either, so don't pull that on me.
There are other factors besides chemical weapons and terrorists that would cause an Iraqi citizen to want liberation. I bet that if by some very slim chance that we did back out, you'd see more Iraqi citizens commit suicide than the number of those who have died in this war.
Do I not support freedom?Of course I do.I don't define ignoring the U.N.,invading a country, and killing thousands of people freedom,any more than I consider Saddam's rule to be freedom.
Chopping off hands for petty theft? It's still a common practice under Islamic law,including in Kuwait [but we'll turn a blind eye to it there,because we were defending them].The chinese petty crim is more likely to be executed.But don't worry about it.
As to the other points in this post,the one on suicide is baseless hyperbole,and you've already explained why the rest should be discounted.
What are scud missles, besides a direct violation of the UN regulations set forth to Iraq?
Do you not support freedom? Because that's what the Iraqi people do not have. Do you believe that someone should have their wives raped, and family mutilated because they don't believe in what you are doing is right? How about thier hands chopped off for petty theft? Do you think Saddam got 100% of the vote because the people like him? I'd say they were fearing for their lives. I guess it doesn't matter though, because all of this was learned from the US "propoganda machine" and I don't have the means to prove it.
I'm not implying that you do believe these things either, so don't pull that on me.
There are other factors besides chemical weapons and terrorists that would cause an Iraqi citizen to want liberation. I bet that if by some very slim chance that we did back out, you'd see more Iraqi citizens commit suicide than the number of those who have died in this war.
Do I not support freedom?Of course I do.I don't define ignoring the U.N.,invading a country, and killing thousands of people freedom,any more than I consider Saddam's rule to be freedom.
Chopping off hands for petty theft? It's still a common practice under Islamic law,including in Kuwait [but we'll turn a blind eye to it there,because we were defending them].The chinese petty crim is more likely to be executed.But don't worry about it.
As to the other points in this post,the one on suicide is baseless hyperbole,and you've already explained why the rest should be discounted.
GTi-VR6_A3
03-28-2003, 10:57 PM
this wa mentioned a bit back in the thread but Taranaki this war is not criminal it is both completely legal in the congress and completely legal under UN law. just because people disagree with it doesnt change that. people want marijuana legal and it is in california but federal law superscedes that and there aint shit to do about it even with popular support.
-GTi-VR6_A3
-GTi-VR6_A3
ales
03-28-2003, 11:07 PM
Have you read the UN Charter???? Legal???? Turn you attention to UN charter 2(4).
As for Scud missiles, Hans Blix, chief UN weapons insepctor said yesterday that there is no evidence whateoever to suggest that Iraq has been using illegal weapons including (and yes, he specifically said this!) scud missiles!
As for Scud missiles, Hans Blix, chief UN weapons insepctor said yesterday that there is no evidence whateoever to suggest that Iraq has been using illegal weapons including (and yes, he specifically said this!) scud missiles!
GTi-VR6_A3
03-28-2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by ales
Have you read the UN Charter???? Legal???? Turn you attention to UN charter 2(4).
which is that. do you happen to have the link?
-GTi-VR6_A3
Have you read the UN Charter???? Legal???? Turn you attention to UN charter 2(4).
which is that. do you happen to have the link?
-GTi-VR6_A3
jon@af
03-29-2003, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by ales
As for Scud missiles, Hans Blix, chief UN weapons insepctor said yesterday that there is no evidence whateoever to suggest that Iraq has been using illegal weapons including (and yes, he specifically said this!) scud missiles!
Hans Blix is also leaving his job. I honestly am starting to not care anymore about this whole Iraq situation. I just want it to be over with so that the soldiers can go back to their families and we can stop having the nation worried about possible attacks on them.
As for Scud missiles, Hans Blix, chief UN weapons insepctor said yesterday that there is no evidence whateoever to suggest that Iraq has been using illegal weapons including (and yes, he specifically said this!) scud missiles!
Hans Blix is also leaving his job. I honestly am starting to not care anymore about this whole Iraq situation. I just want it to be over with so that the soldiers can go back to their families and we can stop having the nation worried about possible attacks on them.
Prelewd
03-29-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by ales
As for Scud missiles, Hans Blix, chief UN weapons insepctor said yesterday that there is no evidence whateoever to suggest that Iraq has been using illegal weapons including (and yes, he specifically said this!) scud missiles!
That's just Hans Blix propoganda.
Satire.
As for Scud missiles, Hans Blix, chief UN weapons insepctor said yesterday that there is no evidence whateoever to suggest that Iraq has been using illegal weapons including (and yes, he specifically said this!) scud missiles!
That's just Hans Blix propoganda.
Satire.
ales
03-29-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
which is that. do you happen to have the link?
-GTi-VR6_A3
How hard is it to find UN charter on the internet?
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
I take it you haven't read it. Take a look, lots of fun.
which is that. do you happen to have the link?
-GTi-VR6_A3
How hard is it to find UN charter on the internet?
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
I take it you haven't read it. Take a look, lots of fun.
taranaki
03-29-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Prelewd
That's just Hans Blix propoganda.
Satire.
LOL:D
Good one..
That's just Hans Blix propoganda.
Satire.
LOL:D
Good one..
GTi-VR6_A3
03-29-2003, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by ales
As for Scud missiles, Hans Blix, chief UN weapons insepctor said yesterday that there is no evidence whateoever to suggest that Iraq has been using illegal weapons including (and yes, he specifically said this!) scud missiles!
Hans Blix was also informed by previous un instectors on where he could find lots of things and he ignored that info. he also failed to report the iraqi drones.
-GTi-VR6_A3
As for Scud missiles, Hans Blix, chief UN weapons insepctor said yesterday that there is no evidence whateoever to suggest that Iraq has been using illegal weapons including (and yes, he specifically said this!) scud missiles!
Hans Blix was also informed by previous un instectors on where he could find lots of things and he ignored that info. he also failed to report the iraqi drones.
-GTi-VR6_A3
GTi-VR6_A3
03-29-2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by ales
How hard is it to find UN charter on the internet?
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
I take it you haven't read it. Take a look, lots of fun.
that still doesnt make anything done by the US illegal...
-GTi-VR6_A3
How hard is it to find UN charter on the internet?
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
I take it you haven't read it. Take a look, lots of fun.
that still doesnt make anything done by the US illegal...
-GTi-VR6_A3
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025