AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited February 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Feb 7 2003, 02:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 7 2003, 02:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You really do have to laugh at how people bash the US now let me make this clear THE US HAS BEEN THE NICEIST KINDIST MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY THE WORLD HAS YET SEEN look at every other empire if you well and what do they do after a war they take the country they beat and make it there own if the US was like that we would now OWN Germany France Japan Spain Iraq North and South Korea Vietnam and many other smaller islands and countries so plz shut up about how "mean and evil" the US is because we are one of if not the niceist world powers ever. If we want to blow up Iraq then we can its that simple if France Germany or China or any of the UN have a problem with it then they should put up or shut up because I don't see any of them trying to make the world a safer place just remeber you can't enjoy a cake with out breaking a few eggs and if Iraq is an egg so be it. The rest of the world well share the US "cake" when were done even if they shunned us in the past because we are that nice <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> wow. just wow. That's so wrong. Nice? THE US?!?!?! NICE!?!?!?! <span style='color:white'>No personal attacks, please.</span> How does 200 years of social and economic oppresion of the western hemisphere make us "nice"?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No Im not mad at you or anyone this is a debate of sorts and I don't expect all to agree with what I had to say.......I still stand by what I said.....as for solveing problems by just useing force look at north korea we have restrained from bombing them even tho they continue to harras us with threats and open up new necular power plants....we have kept our cool because we know a war with north korea wold result in the deaths of untold millions of north and south koreans....the war with Iraq can be done much "cleaner" if you well kind of like our war with the terrorists in afganastan as long as the Iraqies have the balls if you well to stand up and help us over throw saddam then the war in Iraq can go quickly and with as little civilians killed as possible. Then perhaps the people of Iraq can feel the joy of being able to speak there minds freely with out the fear of being shot by saddam <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We havn't bombed NK because they don't have any oil. Simple as that. And since when was our "war" with the "terrorists" in Afghanastan clean? It only seemed that way because we never put any of our guys anywhere near anything dangerous. All we did was drop daisy-cutters on unsuspecting civilians. The local rebels did all of the dirty work for us. And if the people of Iraq want to express themselves, why don't they revolt? O wait, they already tried that, and when they asked us for help, we flat out told them we liked Saddam better.
Oh well, than again, reading through that second post you made, again everything you are saying is along the lines of "we have to solve this with a war because it will be a quick solution". How about: We solve this without a war even if it takes 200 years? And now, the first person to ask me how that may be done, will get shot... no, seriously, if I had a solution I would probably die mourning the fact that nobody of importance would listen to it anyway. But then again, IF I was in charge I guess I'd spent all the time I'm now sacrificing to post here to find a solution rather then just say, "Guess we can still nuke em..." For once, and this is really the first time I agree with the German government on pretty much anything, I completely hope that Schroeder will continue to do absolutely nothing to support this war, no matter what nation Germany may be compared to. I was really surprised when he spoke out so open against this war, it was like a minor dream come true. And I do not believe that Germany is trying to block the US out of pure idiocy. I find it very disturbing that only one and a half years ago when 9/11 happened Germany was called a great supporter and close friend and ally and now, that they/we are speaking up against something that may turn out to be a mistake are discarded as "a problem". Anyway, I hope the government stays true to its course only this one time, even if it leads to complete global isolation.
Bah what economic and social opression of the western hemisphere? Theres the US we take care of oursleves Theres Canada who takes care of themselves but we would protect them if anything happend due to there lack of an army. Mexico and the rest of south america can hardly take care of themselves yet alone make a say in the world and we send all of them millions of dollars in aid each year, do we have to give them this money NO! we could sure as hell use it here but we give it to them because as I said we are nice. Saddam is a problem and the world well be better when he draws no air. As for oil it is out dated scummy and well slowly become more and more useless as time goes on don't you think our govenment knows this the war on Iraq has nothing to do with oil your a fool to think it dose its more personal then oil.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited February 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Feb 7 2003, 04:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 7 2003, 04:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bah what economic and social opression of the western hemisphere? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When was the last time you saw an indian(we killed most of them)? Ever hear of teh Panam canal(we caused a useless civil war in order to get it cheaper)? What of Haiti(we did such a wonderful humanitarian job there)? The drug war in Columbia(we give money to the drug lords so they can wipe out the rebels, who happen to be the only source of good change in columbia)? Do you know why Spain and France both want to question Kissenger because of war crimes(go contra killers!)? Do you know why the phillipines isn't ours anymore(civil war to get our controlling, imperialist behinds out of their country)? And don't even get me started on Cuba(Castro kicked out the gangsters, and they have money, so they used said money to gain enough sway to get us to launch an offensive, which was, of course, the most decisive military campaign of all time, the bay of pigs). And why do you think we have Hawaii(the US immigrants went up the queen, and said "hey, the US owns you now" with a gun to her head)?
and name a country that has risen to power with out hurting a few other people we have done our fair share but comparied to most ours is petty and I hold no american today or our country resposible for the mistakes of the past do you?
i'm getting to feckin paranoid now!! AARRGGHH!!! MORE NS MORE NS to calm me down <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Feb 7 2003, 04:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 7 2003, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and name a country that has risen to power with out hurting a few other people <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Does that make it right? NO!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hold no american today or our country resposible for the mistakes of the past do you? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I call them the bourgeoisie.
O and by the way, a few periods and a comma would be nice on future posts of yours. Just a suggestion.
Right, well to spite what we may have done that does not change the fact that this is one of the best places to live and our govenment does a damn nice job keeping us safe we should rally behind our leaders not qurall among ourselves which is a sure sign of weakness no one is forceing you to stay here if you don't like what america does then im sure canada would be more then happy to have you.
As for my grammer if you can read it then leave it.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Feb 7 2003, 05:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 7 2003, 05:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Right, well to spite what we may have done that does not change the fact that this is one of the best places to live and our govenment does a damn nice job keeping us safe we should rally behind our leaders not qurall among ourselves which is a sure sign of weakness no one is forceing you to stay here if you don't like what america does then im sure canada would be more then happy to have you.
As for my grammer if you can read it then leave it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That attitude is exactly the thing which angers people from other countries. The opinion that just because our almighty "president"(AKA guy who is office becuase his daddy bought him in) said something is true, it must be true, and to hell with those who think otherwise. If that's what makes a country weak, then I hope we become as weak as we possibly can, because it's also what makes a country free, and it's (most importantly) what makes a country change for the better.
The grammer part was just a suggestion. It's just that it's alot easier to decipher your posts(and a lot harder to think of you as a hotheaded idiot) when you actually use sentence structure. If you don't want to, fine. But don't expect everyone to just ignore it.
Hey if you don't like bush thats you problem but every night before I go to bed I thank God that Bush won over Gore. Now what Im about to say is going to sound mean but think of it from a Darwin point of view... We are animals no matter how smart we become or what power we belive we have. As animals we have a certan population limit like all other animals and right now we are over crowding the earth now that problem leaves only 2 solutions: 1. move out and colonize other planets (not gonna happen in our lifetime) 2. kill each other. Now which of these do you think is going to happen we can say all we want but it all boils down to the fact that we are animals survial of the fitist, and right now america is the fitist.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Feb 7 2003, 03:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 7 2003, 03:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We havn't bombed NK because they don't have any oil. Simple as that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sigh, any action against Iraq is not about oil. If the U.S. wanted Iraqi oil they could simply buy it instead of waisting an extimated 73 billions dollars for a war which wouldn't secure any oil. If you think the U.S. is going to war for economic gain, look at countries that are fully against war. France and Russia have large multi-billion dollar contracts with the present Iraqi government FOR OIL. I'm not an expert, but after dicussing the North Korea factor with a friend who is an 'expert' this is why I believe the U.S. isn't pressing military action as much with NK as with Iraq. NK 100 percent guaranteed has at least 1-2 nuclear weapons. It can definitly hit major targets in South Korea, and could also reach Japan. The NK dictator is, psychotic, while Saddam is just evil to secure his power. NK might use its nuclear weapons, which would cause far more devestation than Saddam's WMD, although he does have 600 tons (or tonnes, I don't recall) of botulinum precursor material, which can make 200 tons/tonnes of the actual toxin, which theoreticaly can kill the entire Earth's population. Also, military action in NK would most likely be far more devastating than in Iraq. A total ground war might be necessary in NK, which has 950,000 man army, which might or might not fight to death. Altough, 950,000 starving conscripts vs 650,000 SK professional soldiers and a large number of Allied soldiers would easily defeat them. And they could unleash their nuclear weapons.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited February 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hey if you don't like bush thats you problem but every night before I go to bed I thank God that Bush won over Gore. Now what Im about to say is going to sound mean but think of it from a Darwin point of view... We are animals no matter how smart we become or what power we belive we have. As animals we have a certan population limit like all other animals and right now we are over crowding the earth now that problem leaves only 2 solutions: 1. move out and colonize other planets (not gonna happen in our lifetime) 2. kill each other. Now which of these do you think is going to happen we can say all we want but it all boils down to the fact that we are animals survial of the fitist, and right now america is the fitist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What are you basing these overpopulation theories on?
Is it the fact that there is not enough food? Peh. My freind, there is more than enough food to go around, it's just that a lot of it goes to create inneficient food sources like beef, and the rest rotts on store shelves because the people who need it can't afford it. The world isn't overpopulated, except by greedy rich a-holes.
And why are you sooo thankful that GW "won"(even though he didn't, you wanna know why, try me.)
I don't want to start a whole "florda can't vote" argument. Bush is president and thats that he may be for another 4 years if this war starts because no one is going to remove a war time president at least I would hope not
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Feb 7 2003, 07:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 7 2003, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't want to start a whole "florda can't vote" argument. Bush is president and thats that he may be for another 4 years if this war starts because no one is going to remove a war time president at least I would hope not <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Bush will be reelected, unless he completely screws something up, which most likely won't happen.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
I'm hoping that either: A)The revolution succeeds in late 2004, so whoever is elected it doesn't matter, or B)Nader pulls it out of the bag.(I guy can dream)
Hmm.... only away for a few hours and strange things start happening. So, we're back onto "Survival of the Fittest" again. As I said in another post, of course Survival of the fittest and fighting one another is deeply rooted within the very nature of all beings on earth, including of course man, guess noone's gonna doubt that. But, I believe you think of yourself very lowly, reasa, if you do not believe that mankind can find a way around having to fight to survive. Survival of the Fittest just seems to outdated for modern society. Science is aiming to solve the problems of having to leave the week behind and keeping those alive, who would not have lived under normal circumstances. I sure as hell do not think, that you wanted to say that all the cripled and weak should die because they are not "fit" enough, which would be the actual meening of "Survival...". The way you use this theory is in another way, which doesn't sound much more friendly either. You claim that the US is the "fittest" nation at this point, but that only meens that the US is better and will survive and has the right to survive. This such a primitive idea, that I won't even try to prove you wrong on this. How can you be more fit than anybody else just because you were born in the US? Ridiculous. Why does it always have to be nation against nation? This is not just a problem with your argumentation, but I think people are way to proud of were they are born, which I find rather pointless. There is nothing to be proud off, you just got lucky and because of this very fact, that you were luckier than other people who were not born in the "richest and nicest nation of all", it is your duty to help others not try to control them. As AllUrHive pointed out there COULD be more than enough food for everybody on this planet, it just isn't distributed the right way. For every problem there is a solution, that is NOT war or fighting. And if there isn't... well than nothing matters... just blow up the planet.
Now why didn't you say you were a nader fan from the begining and saved me some time. I well vote for nader over bush anyday that we can agree on <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I've been out for one lousy evening and now this... Guess I shouldn't get a life.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We are animals no matter how smart we become or what power we belive we have. As animals we have a certan population limit like all other animals and right now we are over crowding the earth now that problem leaves only 2 solutions: 1. move out and colonize other planets (not gonna happen in our lifetime) 2. kill each other. Now which of these do you think is going to happen we can say all we want but it all boils down to the fact that we are animals survial of the fitist, and right now america is the fitist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, Social Darwinism in all its narcistic glory. Little known fact: The whole of the National Socialists philosphy was based on just this reasoning. Make of it what you want, I just wanted to mention it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Right, well to spite what we may have done that does not change the fact that this is one of the best places to live and our govenment does a damn nice job keeping us safe we should rally behind our leaders not qurall among ourselves which is a sure sign of weakness no one is forceing you to stay here if you don't like what america does then im sure canada would be more then happy to have you.
As for my grammer if you can read it then leave it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By telling everyone of another opinion to shut up or leave, you destroy what the United States are based upon. Republic or Democracy, both live of their populations opinions and will to voice them. What if everybody had "rallied" behind Hoover, telling those who proposed ways out of the Great Depression to leave the country? Without dissent, it's not America.
<!--QuoteBegin--Soviet~Dictator+Feb 7 2003, 07:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soviet~Dictator @ Feb 7 2003, 07:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Feb 7 2003, 03:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 7 2003, 03:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We havn't bombed NK because they don't have any oil. Simple as that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sigh, any action against Iraq is not about oil. If the U.S. wanted Iraqi oil they could simply buy it instead of waisting an extimated 73 billions dollars for a war which wouldn't secure any oil. If you think the U.S. is going to war for economic gain, look at countries that are fully against war. France and Russia have large multi-billion dollar contracts with the present Iraqi government FOR OIL. I'm not an expert, but after dicussing the North Korea factor with a friend who is an 'expert' this is why I believe the U.S. isn't pressing military action as much with NK as with Iraq. NK 100 percent guaranteed has at least 1-2 nuclear weapons. It can definitly hit major targets in South Korea, and could also reach Japan. The NK dictator is, psychotic, while Saddam is just evil to secure his power. NK might use its nuclear weapons, which would cause far more devestation than Saddam's WMD, although he does have 600 tons (or tonnes, I don't recall) of botulinum precursor material, which can make 200 tons/tonnes of the actual toxin, which theoreticaly can kill the entire Earth's population. Also, military action in NK would most likely be far more devastating than in Iraq. A total ground war might be necessary in NK, which has 950,000 man army, which might or might not fight to death. Altough, 950,000 starving conscripts vs 650,000 SK professional soldiers and a large number of Allied soldiers would easily defeat them. And they could unleash their nuclear weapons. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
"France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq towards decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies will work with them. If they throw their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraq government to work with them."
Former CIA director James Woolsey, quoted in The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.
In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue: U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18841-2002Sep14?language=printer' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Feb 7 2003, 08:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 7 2003, 08:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...and who do you propose we elect I have seen the democrats that are running a bunch of no names with little or no experence. Bush has it in the bag <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Have you read Bush Jr's political resume?
Jammer, your statistics are so unbelievably off it's ridiculous.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq produces 1-2 Billion barrells of oil a day.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraq is estimated to produce between 2.5-2.8 million barrels per day. Before Operation Desert Storm Iraq was producing 3.5 million barrels a day.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The world output is about 50-60 Billion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The world production of oil for 2001 is estimated to be around 33 million barrels a day.
I stopped reading your thread after you used these two ridiculously off statistics. This isn't a flame but if you are going to involve yourself in a discussion of world events you should do a little fact/statistic checking.
Oh wow, there is so much stuff in this thread, I just spent a good 3 hours reading it from start to end. Let's see here, we have political rheoteric, religion, spirituality, philosiphy, statistical nightmares, military stratagems and a myriad of other things that encompass war. It seems that there were a number of issues were touched upon specifically: - What lead up to this "showdown"? - Who is involved in the current "showdown" and why? - How will this conflict affect the future of the Iraqi people? - Military Service: Good or Bad? - What part does religious beliefs play in war? - What part does monetary interests play in war? - What part does political ideals play in war? - View Point: Pacifist or Aggressor? OR Reactive or Proactive? - Compare and Contrast: What similarities do current dictators have with past dictators? - USA = AOK?
Here's my 2 cents on the "Upcomming War In Iraq". I'm a West Coast Canadian. I'm only 22 years old, but I have tried to follow history, less I'm doomed to repeat it, and keep uptodate as possible without information overload on current events throught my life time. From everything I know, I would have to say that a war in Iraq could be morally justified just on past events of both Iraqi leadership and US involvement. But since it is international, the US did go to the UN, and it really appears that for the past 12 or so years, Iraqi leadership has been terrible in addressing the UN, and so its people have suffered greatly.
I find it interesting that it seems too harsh to compare Sadam Husein to Adolf Hitler, but everyone seems to so far have only considered the end result of Adolf Hitler while Sadam Husein's reign of Arab greatness and everyone elses terror is still in development. Why not compare and constrast, give or take a year or two, Husien's current length of time in leadership to Hitler's time in leadership. Also, I would not be surprised if it wasn't for a good number of Arab leaders all wanting to lead one great nation at the same time, we'd all be viewing either the Atollaha or Sadam in a whole different light, a much more scary, real world power kinda light. If muslims/arabs ever thought those who aren't are a bit scared of them, they would be right. It seems like anytime something bad happens to any muslims/arabs, all muslims/arabs get **** off regardless of nation or creed, and it makes folks really nervous about **** them off. That's almost as bad as **** off China. I don't know any country that wants 1 Billion people **** off at them. Why does it seem like its places that are so steeped in muslim/arab tradition tend to produce such hatefilled young men and women, that they are willing to sacrafice their lives to take the lives of another nations citizens?
Speaking of terrorism, whoever in the media came up with "War on Terrorism" should be publicly humilated for such a lousy oxymoron. I believe I read once that "War is hell", and if there isn't anything more terrifying then hell, you got me. Isn't that like saying My Terrorism vs Your Terrorism?
So, just given the past actions of Iraqi leadership, the current "hide and go seek" UN inspections, the 12 years of talk but no action from the UN, the Iraqi leadership's declared hurtful intent regarding "The West", the ties to groups surrounding and allegedly responsible for 09/11/2001 , and the unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction, I would feel compelled to approach the leaders of my country and encourage them send Canadian troops to war with Iraq, wether or not any other country sees fit to help our troops out in combat. I know that Canadians would die, but I also know that our soldier's willingly put their life on the line for each other, for family, for community, and for all the diverse people that make up Canada. I'm sure they would want to fight a fight that must be fought so that we all survive on this crazy planet a little longer. Any material, goods and resource our troops capture would definitely benifit that goal, so I would not be bothered by jealous people who claim that is why they went there in the first place.
I relate this current affair to what I know and love, games. In this case with Iraq, it really feels alot like a game of Natural Selection. Iraq is like a important point on the map that holds resources that either me or my opponents can use, and I would much rather I use it then my opponents, so those resources don't get used against me later and can be used later should I need them to achieve my goals. But right now my opponent does hold it, and they are using it towards my downfall. I would definitely be interested in waging war on them so that I don't regret later on that I didn't do something when I saw it coming. And by no means would I intend to lose, so I would go in with as many forces as possible. It does not make sense to try to talk them down, despite the fact that looks like I may have them surrounded, since it could just as easily sway the battle into my HQ again later on. No, you must go in sooner, rather than later, or risk losing all, despite anyone saying anything to the contrary.
The the first sneak attack <!--emo&::skulk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/skulk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='skulk.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> can quickly turn into this <!--emo&::sentry::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/turret.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='turret.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif'><!--endemo--> if you don't do this soon enough <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::gorge::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not compare and constrast, give or take a year or two, Husien's current length of time in leadership to Hitler's time in leadership.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hitler reigned for a total of twelve years, which makes a comparison on that basis a little difficult. If you however take the scenario you are hinting at, i.e. Hitler in his pre-war days compared to Hussein in the days before the great wars he's supposed to start, there are still not enough similarities:
First, Hitler began his preparations literally on the spot. The night he became Reichskanzler (chancelor), he passed the first laws increasing the military strength. Every, and I mean <i>every</i> action he took was directed at preparing the war. Hussein also started wars, but those weren't his aim, they were, as mean as it may sound, just a means to obtain further power.
Second, when coming into power, Hitler had already written the infamous 'Mein Kampf', in which he created a philosophy loosely based on Social Darwinism that tried to explain the world by the fight between different 'races' of man, of which the northerns, the arier, were supposed to be the most advanced of the so called 'warriorraces', whereas the Jews were supposed to be the worst of the 'parasites'. So, in short, Hitler created a whole philosophy based on hate and the necessitiy of war. Hussein did nothing like that.
Third, the maybe most drastic thing: The Shoah. While this horrible genocide really got put through during the World War, there were already concentration camps in Germany. Believe me as someone who's very involved in this matter, nothing currently on this planet is even remotely comparable to a KZ, not even to one of the early ones. Yes, Iraqs prisons are horrible, but the inmates don't have to sleep on barbed wire. There are no pregnant women who're being kicked in the belly until the fetus gets loose. There are no prisoners who run into supercharged fences because it's the easiest alternative.
Hussein uses some 'the great Arab nation' rethoric, but that's just about all to compare them.
I fear I'll have to adress your other points later.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why does it seem like its places that are so steeped in muslim/arab tradition tend to produce such hatefilled young men and women, that they are willing to sacrafice their lives to take the lives of another nations citizens? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Have you looked around lately? It doesn't take an islamic state to create cold hearted killers. The US is a christian state, and it seems to do just fine. The only difference between their killers and ours is the tech. behind them. A terrorist with a bomb strapped to his chest has no hope of getting near a "military" target, so he picks teh next best thing. An economic/diplomatic target, which is already considered, in his mind, to be part of "the western evil". And I've yet to hear of any terrorist going for infrastructure targets like we did in the Texaco War(AKA the gulf war) part 1.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But right now my opponent does hold it, and they are using it towards my downfall,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Frankly, I wouldn't care if I saw a few oil barons go down in flames(because they are the only people being hurt on this side of the atlantic by Iraq)
Comments
wow. just wow. That's so wrong.
Nice? THE US?!?!?! NICE!?!?!?!
<span style='color:white'>No personal attacks, please.</span> How does 200 years of social and economic oppresion of the western hemisphere make us "nice"?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No Im not mad at you or anyone this is a debate of sorts and I don't expect all to agree with what I had to say.......I still stand by what I said.....as for solveing problems by just useing force look at north korea we have restrained from bombing them even tho they continue to harras us with threats and open up new necular power plants....we have kept our cool because we know a war with north korea wold result in the deaths of untold millions of north and south koreans....the war with Iraq can be done much "cleaner" if you well kind of like our war with the terrorists in afganastan as long as the Iraqies have the balls if you well to stand up and help us over throw saddam then the war in Iraq can go quickly and with as little civilians killed as possible. Then perhaps the people of Iraq can feel the joy of being able to speak there minds freely with out the fear of being shot by saddam <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We havn't bombed NK because they don't have any oil. Simple as that.
And since when was our "war" with the "terrorists" in Afghanastan clean? It only seemed that way because we never put any of our guys anywhere near anything dangerous. All we did was drop daisy-cutters on unsuspecting civilians. The local rebels did all of the dirty work for us. And if the people of Iraq want to express themselves, why don't they revolt? O wait, they already tried that, and when they asked us for help, we flat out told them we liked Saddam better.
How about: We solve this without a war even if it takes 200 years?
And now, the first person to ask me how that may be done, will get shot... no, seriously, if I had a solution I would probably die mourning the fact that nobody of importance would listen to it anyway. But then again, IF I was in charge I guess I'd spent all the time I'm now sacrificing to post here to find a solution rather then just say, "Guess we can still nuke em..."
For once, and this is really the first time I agree with the German government on pretty much anything, I completely hope that Schroeder will continue to do absolutely nothing to support this war, no matter what nation Germany may be compared to. I was really surprised when he spoke out so open against this war, it was like a minor dream come true. And I do not believe that Germany is trying to block the US out of pure idiocy. I find it very disturbing that only one and a half years ago when 9/11 happened Germany was called a great supporter and close friend and ally and now, that they/we are speaking up against something that may turn out to be a mistake are discarded as "a problem".
Anyway, I hope the government stays true to its course only this one time, even if it leads to complete global isolation.
Saddam is a problem and the world well be better when he draws no air. As for oil it is out dated scummy and well slowly become more and more useless as time goes on don't you think our govenment knows this the war on Iraq has nothing to do with oil your a fool to think it dose its more personal then oil.
When was the last time you saw an indian(we killed most of them)? Ever hear of teh Panam canal(we caused a useless civil war in order to get it cheaper)? What of Haiti(we did such a wonderful humanitarian job there)? The drug war in Columbia(we give money to the drug lords so they can wipe out the rebels, who happen to be the only source of good change in columbia)? Do you know why Spain and France both want to question Kissenger because of war crimes(go contra killers!)? Do you know why the phillipines isn't ours anymore(civil war to get our controlling, imperialist behinds out of their country)? And don't even get me started on Cuba(Castro kicked out the gangsters, and they have money, so they used said money to gain enough sway to get us to launch an offensive, which was, of course, the most decisive military campaign of all time, the bay of pigs). And why do you think we have Hawaii(the US immigrants went up the queen, and said "hey, the US owns you now" with a gun to her head)?
Hows that for oppresion?
*edit*spalling=bad
Does that make it right? NO!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hold no american today or our country resposible for the mistakes of the past do you? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I call them the bourgeoisie.
O and by the way, a few periods and a comma would be nice on future posts of yours. Just a suggestion.
As for my grammer if you can read it then leave it.
As for my grammer if you can read it then leave it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That attitude is exactly the thing which angers people from other countries. The opinion that just because our almighty "president"(AKA guy who is office becuase his daddy bought him in) said something is true, it must be true, and to hell with those who think otherwise. If that's what makes a country weak, then I hope we become as weak as we possibly can, because it's also what makes a country free, and it's (most importantly) what makes a country change for the better.
The grammer part was just a suggestion. It's just that it's alot easier to decipher your posts(and a lot harder to think of you as a hotheaded idiot) when you actually use sentence structure. If you don't want to, fine. But don't expect everyone to just ignore it.
We are animals no matter how smart we become or what power we belive we have. As animals we have a certan population limit like all other animals and right now we are over crowding the earth now that problem leaves only 2 solutions: 1. move out and colonize other planets (not gonna happen in our lifetime) 2. kill each other. Now which of these do you think is going to happen we can say all we want but it all boils down to the fact that we are animals survial of the fitist, and right now america is the fitist.
We havn't bombed NK because they don't have any oil. Simple as that.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sigh, any action against Iraq is not about oil. If the U.S. wanted Iraqi oil they could simply buy it instead of waisting an extimated 73 billions dollars for a war which wouldn't secure any oil. If you think the U.S. is going to war for economic gain, look at countries that are fully against war. France and Russia have large multi-billion dollar contracts with the present Iraqi government FOR OIL. I'm not an expert, but after dicussing the North Korea factor with a friend who is an 'expert' this is why I believe the U.S. isn't pressing military action as much with NK as with Iraq. NK 100 percent guaranteed has at least 1-2 nuclear weapons. It can definitly hit major targets in South Korea, and could also reach Japan. The NK dictator is, psychotic, while Saddam is just evil to secure his power. NK might use its nuclear weapons, which would cause far more devestation than Saddam's WMD, although he does have 600 tons (or tonnes, I don't recall) of botulinum precursor material, which can make 200 tons/tonnes of the actual toxin, which theoreticaly can kill the entire Earth's population. Also, military action in NK would most likely be far more devastating than in Iraq. A total ground war might be necessary in NK, which has 950,000 man army, which might or might not fight to death. Altough, 950,000 starving conscripts vs 650,000 SK professional soldiers and a large number of Allied soldiers would easily defeat them. And they could unleash their nuclear weapons.
We are animals no matter how smart we become or what power we belive we have. As animals we have a certan population limit like all other animals and right now we are over crowding the earth now that problem leaves only 2 solutions: 1. move out and colonize other planets (not gonna happen in our lifetime) 2. kill each other. Now which of these do you think is going to happen we can say all we want but it all boils down to the fact that we are animals survial of the fitist, and right now america is the fitist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What are you basing these overpopulation theories on?
Is it the fact that there is not enough food? Peh. My freind, there is more than enough food to go around, it's just that a lot of it goes to create inneficient food sources like beef, and the rest rotts on store shelves because the people who need it can't afford it. The world isn't overpopulated, except by greedy rich a-holes.
And why are you sooo thankful that GW "won"(even though he didn't, you wanna know why, try me.)
Bush will be reelected, unless he completely screws something up, which most likely won't happen.
A)The revolution succeeds in late 2004, so whoever is elected it doesn't matter, or
B)Nader pulls it out of the bag.(I guy can dream)
So, we're back onto "Survival of the Fittest" again. As I said in another post, of course Survival of the fittest and fighting one another is deeply rooted within the very nature of all beings on earth, including of course man, guess noone's gonna doubt that. But, I believe you think of yourself very lowly, reasa, if you do not believe that mankind can find a way around having to fight to survive.
Survival of the Fittest just seems to outdated for modern society. Science is aiming to solve the problems of having to leave the week behind and keeping those alive, who would not have lived under normal circumstances. I sure as hell do not think, that you wanted to say that all the cripled and weak should die because they are not "fit" enough, which would be the actual meening of "Survival...". The way you use this theory is in another way, which doesn't sound much more friendly either.
You claim that the US is the "fittest" nation at this point, but that only meens that the US is better and will survive and has the right to survive. This such a primitive idea, that I won't even try to prove you wrong on this. How can you be more fit than anybody else just because you were born in the US? Ridiculous.
Why does it always have to be nation against nation? This is not just a problem with your argumentation, but I think people are way to proud of were they are born, which I find rather pointless. There is nothing to be proud off, you just got lucky and because of this very fact, that you were luckier than other people who were not born in the "richest and nicest nation of all", it is your duty to help others not try to control them.
As AllUrHive pointed out there COULD be more than enough food for everybody on this planet, it just isn't distributed the right way. For every problem there is a solution, that is NOT war or fighting. And if there isn't... well than nothing matters... just blow up the planet.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We are animals no matter how smart we become or what power we belive we have. As animals we have a certan population limit like all other animals and right now we are over crowding the earth now that problem leaves only 2 solutions: 1. move out and colonize other planets (not gonna happen in our lifetime) 2. kill each other. Now which of these do you think is going to happen we can say all we want but it all boils down to the fact that we are animals survial of the fitist, and right now america is the fitist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, Social Darwinism in all its narcistic glory. Little known fact: The whole of the National Socialists philosphy was based on just this reasoning.
Make of it what you want, I just wanted to mention it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Right, well to spite what we may have done that does not change the fact that this is one of the best places to live and our govenment does a damn nice job keeping us safe we should rally behind our leaders not qurall among ourselves which is a sure sign of weakness no one is forceing you to stay here if you don't like what america does then im sure canada would be more then happy to have you.
As for my grammer if you can read it then leave it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By telling everyone of another opinion to shut up or leave, you destroy what the United States are based upon.
Republic or Democracy, both live of their populations opinions and will to voice them. What if everybody had "rallied" behind Hoover, telling those who proposed ways out of the Great Depression to leave the country? Without dissent, it's not America.
We havn't bombed NK because they don't have any oil. Simple as that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sigh, any action against Iraq is not about oil. If the U.S. wanted Iraqi oil they could simply buy it instead of waisting an extimated 73 billions dollars for a war which wouldn't secure any oil. If you think the U.S. is going to war for economic gain, look at countries that are fully against war. France and Russia have large multi-billion dollar contracts with the present Iraqi government FOR OIL. I'm not an expert, but after dicussing the North Korea factor with a friend who is an 'expert' this is why I believe the U.S. isn't pressing military action as much with NK as with Iraq. NK 100 percent guaranteed has at least 1-2 nuclear weapons. It can definitly hit major targets in South Korea, and could also reach Japan. The NK dictator is, psychotic, while Saddam is just evil to secure his power. NK might use its nuclear weapons, which would cause far more devestation than Saddam's WMD, although he does have 600 tons (or tonnes, I don't recall) of botulinum precursor material, which can make 200 tons/tonnes of the actual toxin, which theoreticaly can kill the entire Earth's population. Also, military action in NK would most likely be far more devastating than in Iraq. A total ground war might be necessary in NK, which has 950,000 man army, which might or might not fight to death. Altough, 950,000 starving conscripts vs 650,000 SK professional soldiers and a large number of Allied soldiers would easily defeat them. And they could unleash their nuclear weapons. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
"France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be
told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq towards decent
government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and
American companies will work with them. If they throw their lot with Saddam,
it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraq
government to work with them."
Former CIA director James Woolsey, quoted in The Washington Post, September
15, 2002.
In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue: U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18841-2002Sep14?language=printer' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer</a>
Have you read Bush Jr's political resume?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iraq produces 1-2 Billion barrells of oil a day.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraq is estimated to produce between 2.5-2.8 million barrels per day. Before Operation Desert Storm Iraq was producing 3.5 million barrels a day.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The world output is about 50-60 Billion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The world production of oil for 2001 is estimated to be around 33 million barrels a day.
I stopped reading your thread after you used these two ridiculously off statistics. This isn't a flame but if you are going to involve yourself in a discussion of world events you should do a little fact/statistic checking.
- What lead up to this "showdown"?
- Who is involved in the current "showdown" and why?
- How will this conflict affect the future of the Iraqi people?
- Military Service: Good or Bad?
- What part does religious beliefs play in war?
- What part does monetary interests play in war?
- What part does political ideals play in war?
- View Point: Pacifist or Aggressor? OR Reactive or Proactive?
- Compare and Contrast: What similarities do current dictators have with past dictators?
- USA = AOK?
Here's my 2 cents on the "Upcomming War In Iraq". I'm a West Coast Canadian. I'm only 22 years old, but I have tried to follow history, less I'm doomed to repeat it, and keep uptodate as possible without information overload on current events throught my life time. From everything I know, I would have to say that a war in Iraq could be morally justified just on past events of both Iraqi leadership and US involvement. But since it is international, the US did go to the UN, and it really appears that for the past 12 or so years, Iraqi leadership has been terrible in addressing the UN, and so its people have suffered greatly.
I find it interesting that it seems too harsh to compare Sadam Husein to Adolf Hitler, but everyone seems to so far have only considered the end result of Adolf Hitler while Sadam Husein's reign of Arab greatness and everyone elses terror is still in development. Why not compare and constrast, give or take a year or two, Husien's current length of time in leadership to Hitler's time in leadership. Also, I would not be surprised if it wasn't for a good number of Arab leaders all wanting to lead one great nation at the same time, we'd all be viewing either the Atollaha or Sadam in a whole different light, a much more scary, real world power kinda light. If muslims/arabs ever thought those who aren't are a bit scared of them, they would be right. It seems like anytime something bad happens to any muslims/arabs, all muslims/arabs get **** off regardless of nation or creed, and it makes folks really nervous about **** them off. That's almost as bad as **** off China. I don't know any country that wants 1 Billion people **** off at them. Why does it seem like its places that are so steeped in muslim/arab tradition tend to produce such hatefilled young men and women, that they are willing to sacrafice their lives to take the lives of another nations citizens?
Speaking of terrorism, whoever in the media came up with "War on Terrorism" should be publicly humilated for such a lousy oxymoron. I believe I read once that "War is hell", and if there isn't anything more terrifying then hell, you got me. Isn't that like saying My Terrorism vs Your Terrorism?
So, just given the past actions of Iraqi leadership, the current "hide and go seek" UN inspections, the 12 years of talk but no action from the UN, the Iraqi leadership's declared hurtful intent regarding "The West", the ties to groups surrounding and allegedly responsible for 09/11/2001 , and the unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction, I would feel compelled to approach the leaders of my country and encourage them send Canadian troops to war with Iraq, wether or not any other country sees fit to help our troops out in combat. I know that Canadians would die, but I also know that our soldier's willingly put their life on the line for each other, for family, for community, and for all the diverse people that make up Canada. I'm sure they would want to fight a fight that must be fought so that we all survive on this crazy planet a little longer. Any material, goods and resource our troops capture would definitely benifit that goal, so I would not be bothered by jealous people who claim that is why they went there in the first place.
I relate this current affair to what I know and love, games. In this case with Iraq, it really feels alot like a game of Natural Selection. Iraq is like a important point on the map that holds resources that either me or my opponents can use, and I would much rather I use it then my opponents, so those resources don't get used against me later and can be used later should I need them to achieve my goals. But right now my opponent does hold it, and they are using it towards my downfall. I would definitely be interested in waging war on them so that I don't regret later on that I didn't do something when I saw it coming. And by no means would I intend to lose, so I would go in with as many forces as possible. It does not make sense to try to talk them down, despite the fact that looks like I may have them surrounded, since it could just as easily sway the battle into my HQ again later on. No, you must go in sooner, rather than later, or risk losing all, despite anyone saying anything to the contrary.
The the first sneak attack <!--emo&::skulk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/skulk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='skulk.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo-->
can quickly turn into this <!--emo&::sentry::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/turret.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='turret.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif'><!--endemo-->
if you don't do this soon enough <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::gorge::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not compare and constrast, give or take a year or two, Husien's current length of time in leadership to Hitler's time in leadership.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hitler reigned for a total of twelve years, which makes a comparison on that basis a little difficult.
If you however take the scenario you are hinting at, i.e. Hitler in his pre-war days compared to Hussein in the days before the great wars he's supposed to start, there are still not enough similarities:
First, Hitler began his preparations literally on the spot. The night he became Reichskanzler (chancelor), he passed the first laws increasing the military strength. Every, and I mean <i>every</i> action he took was directed at preparing the war.
Hussein also started wars, but those weren't his aim, they were, as mean as it may sound, just a means to obtain further power.
Second, when coming into power, Hitler had already written the infamous 'Mein Kampf', in which he created a philosophy loosely based on Social Darwinism that tried to explain the world by the fight between different 'races' of man, of which the northerns, the arier, were supposed to be the most advanced of the so called 'warriorraces', whereas the Jews were supposed to be the worst of the 'parasites'.
So, in short, Hitler created a whole philosophy based on hate and the necessitiy of war. Hussein did nothing like that.
Third, the maybe most drastic thing: The Shoah. While this horrible genocide really got put through during the World War, there were already concentration camps in Germany. Believe me as someone who's very involved in this matter, nothing currently on this planet is even remotely comparable to a KZ, not even to one of the early ones.
Yes, Iraqs prisons are horrible, but the inmates don't have to sleep on barbed wire. There are no pregnant women who're being kicked in the belly until the fetus gets loose. There are no prisoners who run into supercharged fences because it's the easiest alternative.
Hussein uses some 'the great Arab nation' rethoric, but that's just about all to compare them.
I fear I'll have to adress your other points later.
Have you looked around lately? It doesn't take an islamic state to create cold hearted killers. The US is a christian state, and it seems to do just fine. The only difference between their killers and ours is the tech. behind them. A terrorist with a bomb strapped to his chest has no hope of getting near a "military" target, so he picks teh next best thing. An economic/diplomatic target, which is already considered, in his mind, to be part of "the western evil". And I've yet to hear of any terrorist going for infrastructure targets like we did in the Texaco War(AKA the gulf war) part 1.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But right now my opponent does hold it, and they are using it towards my downfall,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Frankly, I wouldn't care if I saw a few oil barons go down in flames(because they are the only people being hurt on this side of the atlantic by Iraq)