GhostShadow Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 And we are not attacking Iraq, b/c they did not attack us. but we are overthrowing a Dictator that openly suppoerted terrorism, supplied LARG amounts of money, weapons, and broke several treaties with the UN and US. And plz tell me why you think CIA thouht they wernt there? French intel said they were, British Intel, Israli, UN, And just about every power in the world thought they where there.... so this means one of two things to me. 1) if all these super powers thought that they where there, and all these super powers spend billions of dollars on intel, and these super powers all agreed that they where there- then at one point in time, i am sure that they where there. 2) that every one in the world hates sudamn that much to lie, and in that case we did the world a favor. but this is not like the ST thread Borg vrs Dominion. I do not have enough evidence to put up much of an intersting debate. so I just say that the war is good, what is done is done, lets move on. I think we have learned what we can about Iraq and we can incorporate it w/ future attacks. And there will be more, this is just the beggining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Agreed' date=' a MOD can lock/regulate/whatever to this topic if he/she feels that the war in iraq, does not fall into the category of the war on terror. Personally that can be debated nad we are debating it, so if a mod wants me to do something about the topic they can ask, but i dont think ill b changing it anytime soon. [/quote'] Actually like i have explained the war on terror does have a direct link to iraq (I wont call it a war as its terrorism). War on terror is just a bloody punch line used by the politicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 haha, read this. i think this is a good thing to read if you are gonna post on this thread. Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Yes. An opinion piece that rights off mainstream journalism in its arguement and sites no support or evidence whatsoever is definately going to change my view on that war. *sigh* If an occupying power was in your nation using depleted uranium rounds that did this to your children... Wouldn't you think about getting all insurgent on their arses? Think about it. You blind faith in 'imperialism' is blinding you to the fact that the US is prosecuting this war in an unforgivably poor fashion. Stop swallowing Dubya's spin justifying this was on 'terrorism'. It's on record that on the first day of his presidency he was looking for excused to invade. He just needed an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 where the hell are these shell you talk of. and wtf, imperialism is not a faith, it is an ideal. and this ideal is one which i agree with. i do not go to a church and pray to an imperialistic god.... dont confuse the two words. and lets all see this record about him wanting to invade. and i too am not fond of "dubya", but he is the leader of this nation, i have chosen to follow him and support him, b/c i agree with MOST of his ideals, not all of them. but i would rather see him leading this country then Jhon kenedy who shot him self w/a grenade to get out of viet nam. and let me see where these shells are, i dont want to ignore this, this is the first time i have heard of this. and "the greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about", so i try to make a habbit of knowing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Read this: US forces' use of depleted uranium weapons is 'illegal' - Sunday Herald, UK Depleted Uranium rounds are used in shells and projectiles to enhance their armour-piercing capacity. When a depleted uranium round strikes a solid object like a tank, it bursts into a burning spray of radioactive dust. This causes birth defects and such. Radiation is bad for you. NB: faith 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Also read this - Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq? - CBS News “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,†says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,†says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.†As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked. He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration. “It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,†says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.†And therein lies the nature and spirit of imperialism. Killing for money and in this case, oil. Its a glorified word for thuggery on a national scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 The oilfields of Iraq, the pipeline contracts in Afghanistan... what's next? ;p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 ok first off, that artical directly states WAR AGINST IRAQ.... WHERE TEH FU*K DOES IT SAY ANY WHERE ON ANY LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT THIS 2000-2005 WAR IS AGINST IRAQ. WE ARE FIGHTING IN IRAQ. THEY ARE TWO VERY DIFFRNET THINGS. you wanna talk war crimes eh? ever hear of the word “genocide� oh a littel something comitted by Sudamn... i will return tomarrow w/ more, i need to do HW and get to bed. nite you all. EDIT: oh, and yeah. all the M1A1 Abrams sabo rounds have depleted uranium in them. It is more effective, kinda slipped my mind opps. ;P But i rather we be using them, and it is not a crime unless they can persicute us, lol. ( I probly shoudnt be laughing but my trigger happy friend is at my side putting a rather interesting spin on this one ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 WHERE TEH FU*K DOES IT SAY ANY WHERE ON ANY LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT THIS 2000-2005 WAR IS AGINST IRAQ. WE ARE FIGHTING IN IRAQ. THEY ARE TWO VERY DIFFRNET THINGS. Firstly look at the ongoing casualty reports coming from Iraq - This IS a war - it isn't just "fighting in Iraq". Playing semantics with the terminology doesn't affect this truth. A war of occupation is just as equally a war, as one against a particular government. The US has used depleted Uranium rounds in Yugoslavia & both Gulf Wars. RE: Saddam & Genocide - I have NEVER justified Saddam's dictatorship. Yes - he was an evil bastard - but en evil bastard that the US once supported & sold arms to. This is a pic of Saddam & Rumsfeld back in 1983 when the Republicans were cosying up to the dictator. In any case - Saddam's attempted genocide against the Kurds DOES NOT & COULD NOT justify the US using biohazards like depleted uranium in war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Terrorism had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Even WMD didn't. This is all on record. The 'evidence' was at best dodgy, or possibly falsified. See Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense? - CNN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 oh, and yeah. all the M1A1 Abrams sabo rounds have depleted uranium in them. It is more effective, kinda slipped my mind opps. ;P But i rather we be using them, and it is not a crime unless they can persicute us, lol. ( I probly shoudnt be laughing but my trigger happy friend is at my side putting a rather interesting spin on this one ) I find it interesting that the US was pushing for immunity for its soldiers from the International Criminal Court so they wouldnt be accountable for crimes. Why would anyone need immunity from prosecution unless they are going to do the wrong thing? Bush was so certain there were going to be WMDs in Iraq because America had been selling them to Saddam for decades, and knew what Saddam would do with them. I guess securing access to the oil was enough to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others back in the 80's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverick Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 some were expressing dissatisfaction at the beginnin. i hope they make friends:D Beijing (SatireWire.com)  Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of his State of the Union address. Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil... in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil... we're the best." Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three. And a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool." THE AXIS PANDEMIC International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered. Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable. With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America, while Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the Axis of Countries That Sometimes Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick. "That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell. While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges. Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bones2097 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 WHERE TEH FU*K DOES IT SAY ANY WHERE ON ANY LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT THIS 2000-2005 WAR IS AGINST IRAQ. WE ARE FIGHTING IN IRAQ. THEY ARE TWO VERY DIFFRNET THINGS. Firstly look at the ongoing casualty reports coming from Iraq - This IS a war - it isn't just "fighting in Iraq". Playing semantics with the terminology doesn't affect this truth. A war of occupation is just as equally a war, as one against a particular government. The US has used depleted Uranium rounds in Yugoslavia & both Gulf Wars. RE: Saddam & Genocide - I have NEVER justified Saddam's dictatorship. Yes - he was an evil bastard - but en evil bastard that the US once supported & sold arms to. This is a pic of Saddam & Rumsfeld back in 1983 when the Republicans were cosying up to the dictator. In any case - Saddam's attempted genocide against the Kurds DOES NOT & COULD NOT justify the US using biohazards like depleted uranium in war. i wouldn't really call it a war i mean there wasn't really an iraqy army... (well they didn't fight...:))... in my eyes it was actually an invasion.... which begs the question... what was all the bombing about??? "sorry about bombing the shit outta ya country.. ah well we could alway get one of our gy to give you an excellnt deal to rebuild your country" "but our country is in bit & we have limited amounts of money..." :stare: "don't worry we will take take oil in stead of cash...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quosego Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 where the hell are these shell you talk of. and wtf, imperialism is not a faith, it is an ideal. and this ideal is one which i agree with. i do not go to a church and pray to an imperialistic god.... dont confuse the two words. You worry me, you should not admire imperialism, it's dangerous. Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire. This is evil and should not be supported... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDad Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 oh, and yeah. all the M1A1 Abrams sabo rounds have depleted uranium in them. It is more effective, kinda slipped my mind opps. ;P But i rather we be using them, and it is not a crime unless they can persicute us, lol. ( I probly shoudnt be laughing but my trigger happy friend is at my side putting a rather interesting spin on this one ) I find it interesting that the US was pushing for immunity for its soldiers from the International Criminal Court so they wouldnt be accountable for crimes. Why would anyone need immunity from prosecution unless they are going to do the wrong thing? Bush was so certain there were going to be WMDs in Iraq because America had been selling them to Saddam for decades, and knew what Saddam would do with them. I guess securing access to the oil was enough to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others back in the 80's Another similiar question: Why are so many here afraid of the 'Patriot Act'? If you have nothing to hide, there is no problem, right? Obviously you are hiding treason or plotting terrorist acts. Perhaps I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion and it's because you rightly fear giving the power to hold you accountable to a group you don't trust to be fair, impartial and nonpolitical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 where the hell are these shell you talk of. and wtf, imperialism is not a faith, it is an ideal. and this ideal is one which i agree with. i do not go to a church and pray to an imperialistic god.... dont confuse the two words. You worry me, you should not admire imperialism, it's dangerous. Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire. This is evil and should not be supported... "nothing is good or bad, but Thinking makes it so"-Shakespeare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 I DESPISE lawyers. If I saw one drowning I'd give it water. Politicians are nothing more than high paid lawyers / lounge lizards, and don't have half the brains they should to be running a country. Bush is a deserter for not going to nam when he was in the reserves. Now he's (poorly)deciding the fate of the military and our country? piss on him. He has no strategy, and his snooty education isn't worth rolling up and smoking. There needs to be REAL people making laws and governing. Not these freaks who are in the back pocket on business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Another similiar question: Why are so many here afraid of the 'Patriot Act'? If you have nothing to hide' date=' there is no problem, right? Obviously you are hiding treason or plotting terrorist acts. Perhaps I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion and it's because you rightly fear giving the power to hold you accountable to a group you don't trust to be fair, impartial and nonpolitical.[/color'] This is why: Justice Department has found 34 new credible civil rights and civil liberties violations under the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act - CNN The logic of "only the guilty need fear" is the first premise of fascism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 i would think that the first premise would be a supirior race... And only the guilty only need fear. If you follow the laws, and do as you are told then you will be fine, but i you try to stop the government from protecting its citizens then that will cause problems. I will and have gladly let police search me in the airport, trainstation and any place of public activity. you know why, it is b/c i do not fear the govenment, i respect them, and i have nothing to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now