| Author |
This is a sad day for the international community |
fijbert
Joined: Dec 26, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Montreal / Beirut
PM, WWW
|
totally agree with cyanx
who's next on the map homeboy?
cuba????
Fidel Castro? does he hv weapons of mass destruction.. Bush thinks so 
so u got fidel, then they will try N. Korea
then they will attack China cuz they might become a major super power, then the world will realize what bush is doing and everyone will use NY as their target point and US will fall, like Rome...
u know, every civ that has ever rose to great power and tried to take over has fell at one point..
The Knowledged One Has Spoken
Nobody is perfect, I am nobody, therefore I am perfect |
|
|
Azaray
Joined: Mar 13, 2003
Posts: 18
PM |
[quote]
On 2003-03-20 13:17, ppcrockar wrote:
@ Azary
I understand that 9/11 was horrible for America. And it was indeed a horrible act.
Quote:
|
But your argumentation has one fatal flaw. The majority of the 9/11 attackers were of Saudi and Kuwaiti nationality and not Iraq (I'm not attacking any Saudi or Kuwaiti people here, all countries have their share of nutcases).
|
|
I understand this and I'm aware of this.
Quote:
|
And no ties between Iraq and Al-Quaida has ever been proven, even if president Bush makes it sound like that. Also one should keep in mind that Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein doesn't share the same views, in fact they hate each others guts.
|
|
They haven't been disproved either. No one on this discussion board can prove or disprove this completely. But the US government apparently has sufficient evidence of this that it feels it needed to wage war. Keep in mind, the UK is a part of this effort as well. They must have their own evidence. I'm not surprised that Osama and Saddam hate each other. They hate everybody. Perhaps they do have different views on certain things, but that doesn't mean that they disagree when it comes to damaging the United States.
Quote:
|
Attacking Iraq as a revenge of 9/11 doesn't hold as an argument.
|
|
It's not meant to be revenge for 9/11. It's meant to squash any further potential damage to our nation. The US does not wage war on other nations just for the hell of it. There are significant reasons for doing what we're doing.
Quote:
|
Many of the US so called proofs have been dismissed as plain lies and fakes. For example the proofs of Iraq trying to buy Uranium from Nigeria which was later shown to be fakes.
|
|
Well, I don't know what to say to that, other than the difficult thing here, is that we civilians, regardless of what nation we come from, really don't have enough perspective on everything to know what ALL is true and what isn't. Governments are made up of men that put their pants on the same way we do and are subject to mistakes now and then just like you and I are. Every nation makes their mistakes, but we do not have a history of waging war on other nations for no reason. We have been more than patient with Saddam.
Quote:
|
And also you forget one fact, which is that Saddam Hussein was put in leadership by no one else than the US.
|
|
Well, I'm not aware of that (although I will research that), but even if that were true, it doesn't make us responsible for all of his atrocious acts. Do you believe that our country (if they were aware Saddam was a ruthless dictator) would have assisted him in gaining leadership in the middle east? I don't think so. |
pritc_s
Joined: Jan 22, 2002
Posts: 50
PM, WWW
|
I have always been brought up to understand that "Two Wrongs DONOT Make A Right". Did these "so called" Nation leaders mummies not teach them this? I guess they think that 3500+ lost lives was clearly not enough. |
fijbert
Joined: Dec 26, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Montreal / Beirut
PM, WWW
|
I just read that a bunch of americans nationwide r burning french flags..
what a bunch of dumb asses
also I salute my prime minister for his great comment that Canada will not get involved unless the UN tells us to..
Nobody is perfect, I am nobody, therefore I am perfect |
psikey
Joined: Jan 31, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
Is Afganistan better or worse for the allied forces going in and removing leaders who have little value for human life? Do you ever hear the people there saying things should have been left as they were.
Do you think the people in Iraq want us to continually wait while they are murdered, raped & tortured so they can constantly remain as a poor down trodden people instead of rich themselves from their vast oil reserves like their neibours?
Yes, western countries will have there own agenda's & I actually think the US & UK could have waited longer but in the end, for this world to become trully civillised, dictators or governments that rule by terror & fear have to be tackled.
As regards agenda's, France, Germany, Russia have there own which would generally be aimed at preventing US being such a power in this world.
If the French & Germans get their way, they want to become a powerful European state to rival the US. Well Bollocks to it all, I want a united World! |
tekkies
Joined: Mar 15, 2003
Posts: 4
From: Pampanga
PM, WWW
|
no one wins in war, i was proud to see filipino broadcast journalists deliviring the news straightg from iraq
This message was posted from a WAP device |
fijbert
Joined: Dec 26, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Montreal / Beirut
PM, WWW
|
well, all I can say is the US has no right 2 just attack ne1
This message was posted from a WAP device |
ppcrockar
Joined: Mar 04, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2003-03-20 14:16, fijbert wrote:
well, all I can say is the US has no right 2 just attack ne1
|
|
Correct.. The US (and UK... but the UK is just a blind Bush follower) can not decied to attack a country without UN backing, and doing this anyway is clearly breaking the UN charter and international laws. If Iraq is to be attacked it should be a decision made by the UN securtiy council. When countries start acting with force on their own agendas it becomes very dangerous to world stability.
Just by performing the attacks wtihout UN backing puts US in the same league as the other countries breaking the UN charters. |
sleeq
Joined: Feb 19, 2003
Posts: 23
From: philippines
PM |
I've always believe that in war, true enemy is war itself. Now im all mixd up. :-l
This message was posted from a T68i |
ppcrockar
Joined: Mar 04, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden
PM |
@ Azary
Quote:
|
They haven't been disproved either. No one on this discussion board can prove or disprove this completely. But the US government apparently has sufficient evidence of this that it feels it needed to wage war. Keep in mind, the UK is a part of this effort as well. They must have their own evidence.
|
|
Not even the US can prove anything. With all their efforts (and money) put in to this matter, they still haven't been able to proof any Weapons of massdestruction or any ties to Al-Quaida. If they had any proofs they would most surely show them to the world, and get the backing of UN. But they haven't proved anything now, have they? Well... innocent until proven otherwise is one of the foundations of democracy. The US govermenents views on democracy is laughable.
Quote:
|
I'm not surprised that Osama and Saddam hate each other. They hate everybody. Perhaps they do have different views on certain things, but that doesn't mean that they disagree when it comes to damaging the United States.
|
|
They most probably want to hurt the US. But for them to work together that is highly unlikely and just pure speculation. You can't start a war on specualtions.
Quote:
|
It's not meant to be revenge for 9/11. It's meant to squash any further potential damage to our nation. The US does not wage war on other nations just for the hell of it. There are significant reasons for doing what we're doing.
|
|
And Iraqi military is very powerful right? After the last gulf war Iraq doesn't have much of an army left. And no weapons of mass destruction has been found, not even hints of Iraq having them has been shown.
Quote:
|
Well, I don't know what to say to that, other than the difficult thing here, is that we civilians, regardless of what nation we come from, really don't have enough perspective on everything to know what ALL is true and what isn't. Governments are made up of men that put their pants on the same way we do and are subject to mistakes now and then just like you and I are. Every nation makes their mistakes, but we do not have a history of waging war on other nations for no reason. We have been more than patient with Saddam.
|
|
Sure, but when the evidence used to attack another country are fakes or just plain lies then the mistakes are quite serious. I remeber how Bush senior claimed that the Iraqi army killed babies in their incubators just before the Gulf War in 1991. People were horrified by the brutality of the Iraqi army and the support for the war increased. After the war this was proven to be nothing more than plain lies, and that didn't get much media coverage.
|
psikey
Joined: Jan 31, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
And thats the problem, we don't know the truth. As far as US giving out hard evidence, if giving the info out could undermine agents or informents then they are not going to are they! Still think the US & UK should have waited a bit longer within UN but if France would VETO any military action then it seriously diminishes power of UN.
This message was posted from a P800 |
Mr.BJ
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: 113
From: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
PM |
Sadam has relationship with al-qaieda
loooooooooooooooooooool
This is a very funnnnny joke
just dont try to say that at to any arabian citizen beacause he will laught at u.
well that shows that your media is doing a great job to make u belive this.
And if your goverment keep used this foolish deplomatic with the world communtiy ....there will be another 9\11
|
ppcrockar
Joined: Mar 04, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2003-03-20 15:15, psikey wrote:
And thats the problem, we don't know the truth. As far as US giving out hard evidence, if giving the info out could undermine agents or informents then they are not going to are they! Still think the US & UK should have waited a bit longer within UN but if France would VETO any military action then it seriously diminishes power of UN.
|
|
I agree with you that eventual evidence could undermine agents if they were given to the public. But if there are any evidence why didn't they just show them to France, Russia, China etc (they wouldn't have to show them to the public). That wouldn't hurt their agents. And France, Russia and China would most probably agree with the US if they actually got some proofs. |
jbendaou
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 458
From: Washington, DC
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2003-03-20 12:12, gadgetboytom wrote:
we all know he wont respond to polite questioning and 18 resolutions later nothing has changed.
first him then south korea.
Then after this america need to look at their attitude regarding other nations.
|
|
SOUTH KOREA? U MEAN NORTH ....or maybe i just didnt get your point
_________________
The T68i God ,and P800 wanna be...Oh by the way i have a P800
[ This Message was edited by: jbendaou on 2003-03-20 14:53 ] |
psikey
Joined: Jan 31, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
@ppcrockar
Don't you think that France threatening to VETO any form of military action was a bit daft and in some respects increased the likelyhood of the US/UK/others to just go for military option instead of continuing with UN discussions?
Like threating someone who is scared of being bitten with a big guard dog which has had its teeth removed.
Comes down to US trusting France, Russia, China enough to divulge intelligence.
Like to think that UK/Blair is going along with it because they know something! As politicians go I think Blair is OK and hope he is not just blindly following US out of some duty!
[ This Message was edited by: psikey on 2003-03-20 15:22 ] |
|
|
Posted: 2003-03-20 13:44
