I was too lazy to read the posts but here are my thoughts:
We obviosly have hidden agendas when it comes to the war in Iraq. Boosting Economy being one of them. I highly doubt that this war is about OIL like most of the world thinks. THe current estimate from some top scientists is that the current *WORLD* oil supply is only good for about 40-50 years. VERY short term in the big picture. Bush already has Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology on his agenda, and he mandated to have a production Fuel Cell Car to be availble in 10 years.
If anything this war is about his pride and finishing up what his father started. No one can argue that Saddam is a good man. No one can argue that anyhing his regime did was positive, for the people of IRAQ or the rest of the world. He eventually needs to be ousted, so why not do it now, when it can actually do some good for our economy?
Furthermore, the US has had a terrible track record with their mistakes. Vietnam being the best example, even when we knew it was pointless, we couldnt do anything to stop it, just kept pooring troops in. We helped Saddam come to power, and maybe we realized it was a major screw up and its time to clean things up.
For all the hippies that say "THink of our Sons and Daughters" Anyone who enlists knows what they are getting into. Our soilders should be ready to die for our country, it doesnt matter if its a legitimate excuse or not. As far as I know the draft doesnt exist anymore, so the only ones who are gunna die are the ones who signed on the dotted line.
I just wish we would hurry up and do it. if I hear the words "Weapons Of Mass Destruction" again im gunna puke
Regarding Nemisis Zero's comments: Ugh, why won't you let Sadam Husien's leadership, and those in his government, and the subsequent actions speak for themselves? I have to completely disagree with the comments on saying Husein has made no preperations "from day one", considering his military life before he became Iraq's dictator. Beside's that, just because he hasn't written a book for you to codemn, and shown pictures of what goes on in his jail, does not mean he does not share commonality with Adolf Hitler. ```````````````````````````````````Hitler``Husein 1)Have they treated a group or groups of their citizenery as subhuman?````Yes```Yes
2)Have they tried to amass weaponry and military forces against the will of other nations in agreements they had with them?```````````````````````````Yes```Yes
3)Have they expressed views that require support they complete eradication of another group of humans?`````````````````````````````Yes```Yes
4)Have they expressed the wish to rebuild ancient empires and rule them?`````Yes```Yes
5)Have they shown agression towards neighbouring countries?`````````````````Yes```Yes
6)Have they violently oppressed opponents within their governments and opposition groups? `````````````````Yes```Yes
7)Have they supported covert and espionage operations that targeted the citizenery of other nations for death?```````````````````````````````No```Yes
<sarcasm>Hitler just targeted other nations' political groups for the good ole divide and conquer, Husein went with supporting Al Queda and groups like it. Such a minor difference.</sarcasm>
Regarding AllUrHiveRBelong2Us's comments: Laying down your life for a friend and laying down your life to take down as many of your "enemies" with you as possible are two distinctly different things. I would have to say that any soldier from any country can be considered a professional killer, but there is no need to romanticize it with "cold hearted". Who died and made you God? What makes you, or anyone for that matter, qualified to judge the condition of hearts and souls of people of particular nation? I can't help but postulate from your written words that you care only for your fellow man so long as they can give you what you want, considering you wouldn't mind seeing a few people get messed up because they fit into your faceless generalization of "oil baron" or perhaps rich bourgousie.
Generally Regarding the Upcoming War in Iraq: Wake up and smell the biohazards, nuclear fallout and molecular breakdown. We're facing end game here if we don't stand up and stop Husein now. Maybe not today, maybe not tommorow, but all good men need to do to let evil men prosper is to stand by and do nothing. So we can discuss this till we are blue in the face but that won't stop a determined dictator, only strength of force has ever stopped them throughout history. I want to see Canadian Armed Forces give Husein his Waterloo whether or not any other countries see fit to take this immense challenge of humankinds stewardship on.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
```````````````````````````````````Hitler``Husein`the US 1)Have they treated a group or groups of their citizenery as subhuman?````Yes```Yes````Yes
2)Have they tried to amass weaponry and military forces against the will of other nations in agreements they had with them?```````````````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes
3)Have they expressed views that require support they complete eradication of another group of humans?`````````````````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes
4)Have they expressed the wish to rebuild ancient empires and rule them?`````Yes```Yes````No
5)Have they shown agression towards neighbouring countries?`````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes
6)Have they violently oppressed opponents within their governments and opposition groups? `````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes
7)Have they supported covert and espionage operations that targeted the citizenery of other nations for death?```````````````````````````````No```Yes````Yes
Looks like we're hitler to! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.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-->Regarding AllUrHiveRBelong2Us's comments: Laying down your life for a friend and laying down your life to take down as many of your "enemies" with you as possible are two distinctly different things. I would have to say that any soldier from any country can be considered a professional killer, but there is no need to romanticize it with "cold hearted". Who died and made you God? What makes you, or anyone for that matter, qualified to judge the condition of hearts and souls of people of particular nation? I can't help but postulate from your written words that you care only for your fellow man so long as they can give you what you want, considering you wouldn't mind seeing a few people get messed up because they fit into your faceless generalization of "oil baron" or perhaps rich bourgousie.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I care about my fellow men, but I there I some I just don't like. Ok, so if I'm not qualified to judge people, how are you then? The fact that I am a human gives me the ability to judge my fellows. And that's what this whole damned topic has been about, if you hadn't noticed, and simply because I say something you don't like shouldn't give you the right dismiss my opinion as selfish.
If US has the right to attack Iraq I think Saddam has then right to say:
"Dear citizens. It is 100% prooved that USA has weapons of mass destruction, and as history has shown USA is very violent and agressive country, especially against middle-eastern countries. Therefore I have decided to attack USA as defencive move. After EVIL Bush has been overthrown we will replace American government with our own peace-loving government(naturally USA's resources will be directed to Iraq, because we just want them, simple as that). After this world will be much better place, also we might attack all the other NATO countries as well for the TERROR acts they have commited in Iraq in history!"
Damn, you AllUrHives! I was about to write the exact same thing <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
First off, excellent posts...everyone. Pretty much everyone here seems of good mind to make points. Second..we have all made alot of good points about weither or not we should or should not go to war with Iraq. This is good. But lets try to actually do something with it now. Lets propose some ideas as to what would be the best actions to do if either of these outcomes.
To those of you that are against a War : What should we do instead? What do you think it would accomplish, would it make the world better at all?
To those that support war on Iraq: How should it be carried out? What do you think it would best accomplish?
Lets actually stop running in circles and actually do something about it. And the first step is to think of ideas.
EX. Lets say we choose not to invade. What would we do instead? Embargo...or perhaps just give the inspectors more time?
Another Question: What would it take for all those against war to change their minds and support it? Ok..now reverse that to all those that currently support it..what would it take to make you change you mind?
*Please relize what I am about to say* What if you are wrong? Think about the consequences if you are wrong?
EX If you dont support the war on Iraq, and he chemical bombs New York. Would you just shrug and say..ah well? What if we do go to war and create so much hatered for the US that an alliance forms to wipe us out, an Alliance that uses every means possible?
So many questions....I am eager for your answers. Lets try to resolve this our way....if only in fiction...its a start.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ben128+Feb 11 2003, 07:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ben128 @ Feb 11 2003, 07:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> EX. Lets say we choose not to invade. What would we do instead? Embargo...or perhaps just give the inspectors more time? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats imo the best solution at this point, especially because USA's evidence of Nuclear weapons are satellite pictures: "OMG!11one Theres a big hall in Iraq, there must be nukes!"
And not to talk about that thing that happened in UK. Those 12years old documents were brought up and they claimed them to be still viable evidence <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 11 2003, 01:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 11 2003, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Damn, you AllUrHives! I was about to write the exact same thing <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That'll teach you to agree with me!
```````````````````````````````````Hitler``Husein`the US``Israel 1)Have they treated a group or groups of their citizenery as subhuman?````Yes```Yes````Yes````Yes
2)Have they tried to amass weaponry and military forces against the will of other nations in agreements they had with them?```````````````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes````Yes
3)Have they expressed views that require support they complete eradication of another group of humans?`````````````````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes````Yes
4)Have they expressed the wish to rebuild ancient empires and rule them?`````Yes```Yes````No`````No
5)Have they shown agression towards neighbouring countries?`````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes`````Yes
6)Have they violently oppressed opponents within their governments and opposition groups? `````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes````Yes
7)Have they supported covert and espionage operations that targeted the citizenery of other nations for death?```````````````````````````````No```<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'> No</span>````Yes````Yes
Hussein has no real terror links where are you getting that from?
Israel is in violation of more UN resolutions than Iraq ever will be. Israel has nuclear weapons, made from materials most likely stolen from us. Ariel Sharon's Likud party is racist. Recently they didn't want lebanon building a dam on Lebanese land, so they threatened to attack them.
Israel is just as bad as Iraq, they just happen to be our friends. Maybe it's because we've given them more money than we spent on the Apollo program.
The possible war in Iraq is about oil. Simple as that. Don't delude yourself with terms like "weapons of mass destruction" or "evil dictator" or "biological and chemical weapons" because that isn't what this is about. This is about oil. So young Americans will go die so you can get better gas prices, kind of sad isn't it?
Note: I didn't read all of this thread, but this is how I view the situation in a nutshell.
<!--QuoteBegin--superninjabeast+Feb 11 2003, 04:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (superninjabeast @ Feb 11 2003, 04:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hussein has no real terror links where are you getting that from? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> From stuff like <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=23111' target='_blank'>this</a>. Oh, and there was that little assination attempt on George W Bush Sr. by Husien's spy network, and monetary funds given to groups like the PLA and Hezbalah, and interogations of Taliban officials revealing funding and intelligence links, and Husein's spy network making an effort to inflitrate various Middle Eastern anti-USA/anti-Israel networks with agents so as to influence them in a way favourable to Iraq and its leader's twisted goals.
What I gotta wonder is how you've come to the conclusion that any of USA's leaders or Israel's leaders have done anything like what the questions ask. Besides, why not add a few of your own questions to compare and contrast so as to make it support your "wait till they bomb/posion/infect us" approach.
<span style='color:white'>[edit1]</span><!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Feb 11 2003, 06:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 11 2003, 06:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I care about my fellow men, but I there I some I just don't like. Ok, so if I'm not qualified to judge people, how are you then? The fact that I am a human gives me the ability to judge my fellows. And that's what this whole damned topic has been about, if you hadn't noticed, and simply because I say something you don't like shouldn't give you the right dismiss my opinion as selfish. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can only go on what you have written in your posts, and from that it seems you would decide your agenda is more important than the survival of your country or its allies. That sounds pretty selfish to me. But it doesn't mean your posts can be dismissed, and if I gave that impression, I apologize. Its just that it gives your posts the hint of ulterior motive and so not beyond doubting their intention. You seem misinformed, since I was replying to your labeling what appeared to be soldiers as "cold hearted killers", and I hardly think you or any of us make very good judges of other folks hearts, I have no problem with you or others judging people on their actions. Check yourself, foo... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--><span style='color:white'>[/edit1]</span>
<span style='color:white'>[edit2]</span><!--QuoteBegin--Ben128+Feb 11 2003, 02:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ben128 @ Feb 11 2003, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To those that support war on Iraq: How should it be carried out? What do you think it would best accomplish?
Another Question: Ok..now reverse that to all those that currently support it..what would it take to make you change you mind?
*Please relize what I am about to say* What if you are wrong? Think about the consequences if you are wrong? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It should be carried out so swiftly, that a coalition occupying force can get to rebuilding the country to state better than what there was before so the people there can have enough food to eat, places to live and thriving livelihoods again, this way they will call the coalition occupying forces liberators, like many in Afghanistan that were surpressed and brutalized by the Taliban were. Once the Iraqi people get to vote in a government system/type of their choosing free from Sadam Husien's Dictatorship and his totalarian government, occupying forces train the new government's police and military defense to a point where the new government can run the country lawfully, without too much fear of extremist resurgence.
It would take the people currently in power leaving of their own free will, so that the Iraqi people can have a voice of their choosing again. Then, I would need for people's previously to scared to admit anything to come forward with anything they might know about C/B/N WoMD, so that the record my be cleared once and for all, so we know that no single person with their own agenda might endanger us all.
If I was wrong, that would still mean another dictator down, a few less resources for terrorist networks to draw upon, and few less determined bomb makers. While the number of bomb users may be plentiful, those with the knowledge to build the bombs are significantly fewer. Sure, the western world would be under greater threat of terrorist acts commited on its citizenry, but the terrorist networks were already building to that whether or not we care, as evidenced by 09/11/2001, so what's new? The world's was a dangerous place in the past, is a dangerous place now and will be one in the future, so all you can ask yourself is how can you survive to the point where you can thrive?<span style='color:white'>[/edit2]</span>
<span style='color:white'>Please use edit instead of doubleposting.</span>
Hm, reading your post, CanadianWolverine, brought back a question I was asking myself earlier on. It doesn't necessarily have that much to do with what you said, but you reminded me of it again: Why is everybody so occupied with how their own country thrives? I hear so many people say, "You should be doing something for your country" or "Don't ask what your country can do for you...", why is nobody ever saying "Do something for the freaking world and snap out of your "My country" mentality and we wouldn't be having all these problems in the first place. If everybody would be thinking of themselves more as human in general and not as American, Iraqi or German for that matter, we could finally get to a point were everybody tries the general problems instead of fighting over ridiculous regional or cultural matters. It is just so frustrating that such an easy way out is somehow overlooked all the time. All those people who think they are "good" because they do something for their country could go a step further and just do something for humanity in general. Anyway, guess that was a bit off topic, but I had to get that off my chest. Carry on...
You have to remember that some people don't find these issues "ridiculous". I mean what do you think a suicide bomber would say to that? Its a great thought, but it won't happen anytime soon unfortunately.
<!--QuoteBegin--CanadianWolverine+Feb 12 2003, 08:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CanadianWolverine @ Feb 12 2003, 08:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--superninjabeast+Feb 11 2003, 04:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (superninjabeast @ Feb 11 2003, 04:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hussein has no real terror links where are you getting that from? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> From stuff like <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=23111' target='_blank'>this</a>. Oh, and there was that little assination attempt on George W Bush Sr. by Husien's spy network, and monetary funds given to groups like the PLA and Hezbalah, and interogations of Taliban officials revealing funding and intelligence links, [...] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've not got too much time, so just some quick remarks on the alleged Iraq - Al-Quaida links:
- The man on the tape claiming to be Bin Laden states explicitely that he does <i>not</i> call for support of Hussein - while talking about the Iraq, he states that this Muslim country, not its governors have to be defended. So basically, we have a tape that's not even verified yet, with a possible Bin Laden talking about what everyone else talks about, too. Not that much of a prove, or would you have expected him to start siding with the Bush government on this one?
- The links between the assassination attempt on Bush sen. and Hussein have to my best knowledge not been proven yet. Plus, there's a distinct difference between a spy and a terrorist.
- Yes, Hussein funds the PLA and Hezbalah. If that's however enough to justify a war, I suggest you attack Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lybia, and pretty much every other middle eastern country <i>now</i>.
<!--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-->and Husein's spy network making an effort to inflitrate various Middle Eastern anti-USA/anti-Israel networks with agents so as to influence them in a way favourable to Iraq and its leader's twisted goals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And <i>I</i> get called a conspiracy nut for mentioning that the Pentagon invests large sums in Hollywood.
I think the fact that the best evidence the US intelligence could gather was an outdated and partitially false graduation work sums the whole thing up just nicely. Accept it, Hussein has currently less links to terrorist factions than the CIA. Well OK, that doesn't say much, but...
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-->I can only go on what you have written in your posts, and from that it seems you would decide your agenda is more important than the survival of your country or its allies<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I do believe "my agenda" happens to be more important than the survival of this nation. I make no apologies for 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-->If I was wrong, that would still mean another dictator down, a few less resources for terrorist networks to draw upon, and few less determined bomb makers. While the number of bomb users may be plentiful, those with the knowledge to build the bombs are significantly fewer. Sure, the western world would be under greater threat of terrorist acts commited on its citizenry, but the terrorist networks were already building to that whether or not we care, as evidenced by 09/11/2001, so what's new? The world's was a dangerous place in the past, is a dangerous place now and will be one in the future, so all you can ask yourself is how can you survive to the point where you can thrive?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's that attitude that will get us all killed.
<!--QuoteBegin--CanadianWolverine+Feb 12 2003, 08:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CanadianWolverine @ Feb 12 2003, 08:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can only go on what you have written in your posts, and from that it seems you would decide your agenda is more important than the survival of your country or its allies. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Same can be said about what our leaders want to do with war and whatnot.
Sorry if I would like to live a long and prosperous life with throwing up organs and growing tumors all over my body.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 12 2003, 11:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 12 2003, 11:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>A)</b> - The man on the tape claiming to be Bin Laden states explicitely that he does <i>not</i> call for support of Hussein - while talking about the Iraq, he states that this Muslim country, not its governors have to be defended. So basically, we have a tape that's not even verified yet, with a possible Bin Laden talking about what everyone else talks about, too. Not that much of a prove, or would you have expected him to start siding with the Bush government on this one?
<b>B)</b> - The links between the assassination attempt on Bush sen. and Hussein have to my best knowledge not been proven yet. Plus, there's a distinct difference between a spy and a terrorist.
<b>C)</b> - Yes, Hussein funds the PLA and Hezbalah. If that's however enough to justify a war, I suggest you attack Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lybia, and pretty much every other middle eastern country <i>now</i>.
<b>D)</b>And <i>I</i> get called a conspiracy nut for mentioning that the Pentagon invests large sums in Hollywood. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> BTW, thanks for editing my previous post, I wasn't quite sure how I was going to respond to several things in one post. How do you normally do that in a post? Just looking for some tips. Now on to the discussion...
<b>A)</b> "yet". But now it has been authenticated by more than one source, most notably by reporters who have met Osama Bin Laden before and sound studios looking to check voice signature and doctoring. Even though he doesn't call for support for Husien the man, he still calls for support for a country ruled tyranically by Husien. He also called for support for the Taliban, who liked to rule with strict (read: dead if you don't) rules of conduct. If I were Bin Laden, I'd call for support for countries that support my organization too. Anything to kill Americans aka "westerners" and convert them at knife/gun/bomb point to extremist muslim ideals and arabic interests, right?
<b>B)</b> Spy networks routinely infiltrate, attempt to influence, gather vital and valuable information, commit espionage, assinate, and demoralize their enemies. How do terrorist organizations activities differ? Only in their leaders and their goals. If a tyrannical head of state and a terrorist organizer share the same goals, whats to stop them from working with one another? If they have both sent covert operations against the same target, in this case Americans, how is there not a connection again?
<b>C)</b> I object to the "now" and that you point to a leader then point to countries in general. If any of those countries have a leader that actively supports Anti-"Western World" organizations, then they are a target too. But everyone knows you can't fight a war on more than one front and expect to advance very far. Many of those countries in the Middle East are not run by leaders/governments that actively support such organizations, but rather have private organizations that support those groups, which means you can go to those countries with a diplomatic approach and help them in endeavours to stop the private organizations from undermining the leader/government. What has been learned by such instances as
<b>D)</b> I'm not sure how to take that, as a compliment or a personal attack in a discussion. Anyways, Husien has publicly made his goals clear, and through various channels of intel, more than one source has made the connection that Husien has links to Anti-"Western World" organizations, including Al Queda.
Hmm, now how to respond to others without "double posting"... Ahh, edit, I see it now, thanks Nemesis Zero. Hopefully this will work the same way as what you did with my 3 posts.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Feb 12 2003, 04:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 12 2003, 04:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's that attitude that will get us all killed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And taking the stance that American's should engage in establishing a communist institution while a covert war is being waged against you won't? Ever hear of "Divide and Conquer"? While you are busy fighting the good fight against your capitalist masters, the rest of the world may be so terrorized that they feel compeled to submit to the goals of the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Husien. When you're done dealing with the incredible problem of capitalist Americans, I hope you are ready to deal with a New World Muslim Order or the more likely self stylized People's Liberation Army. You don't get it yet do you? Osama Bin Laden in his mind is trying to save us from ourselves, thinking that we are labouring under cruel American dictators, and that we just can't wait to all be Muslim. How is that any different than Stalin's version of communism, or Hitler's vision of a master race? The USA is just the strongest of independent countries and as such is just rightly leading a coalition against new world orders of any kind. Of course, more than likely others just see it as an American World Order, though how that is possible with Americans having shifted away from Imperialistic thoughts (American Natives, Hawaii, Phillipines, etc) to Liberator thoughts (Large Portions of Europe, Korea, Cuba, Haiti, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bosnia, etc).
<!--QuoteBegin--Dezmodium+Feb 13 2003, 05:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dezmodium @ Feb 13 2003, 05:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Same can be said about what our leaders want to do with war and whatnot.
Sorry if I would like to live a long and prosperous life with throwing up organs and growing tumors all over my body.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but I fail to see how being terrorized into inaction will keep you in prosperity when your demise has been clearly laid out by your enemies, as if 09/11/2001 being proceeded by more threats against American civilians wasn't big enough evidence of that. Of course throwing up organs and growing tumors all over your body can also be included with falling to your death, burning to death, stabbed, shot full of holes with bullets, blugeoning, suffocating, being kidnapped and tortured, blown into tiny little peices of smoking greasy flesh, having your skin bubble and melt, becoming violently ill to the point where you die, having important bodily functions stop due to poison, and finally having your matter rearranged in a nuclear fireball. The number of weapons at your enemies disposal are incredible when they are determined to see you dead, as evidenced by attacks made before and after 09/11/2001. If you had the opportunity to stop your enemies before they could purchase, steal, build, or use weapons against you, wouldn't you?
<!--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-->"yet". But now it has been authenticated by more than one source, most notably by reporters who have met Osama Bin Laden before and sound studios looking to check voice signature and doctoring. Even though he doesn't call for support for Husien the man, he still calls for support for a country ruled tyranically by Husien. He also called for support for the Taliban, who liked to rule with strict (read: dead if you don't) rules of conduct. If I were Bin Laden, I'd call for support for countries that support my organization too. Anything to kill Americans aka "westerners" and convert them at knife/gun/bomb point to extremist muslim ideals and arabic interests, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--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-->B) Spy networks routinely infiltrate, attempt to influence, gather vital and valuable information, commit espionage, assinate, and demoralize their enemies. How do terrorist organizations activities differ?Only in their leaders and their goals. If a tyrannical head of state and a terrorist organizer share the same goals, whats to stop them from working with one another? If they have both sent covert operations against the same target, in this case Americans, how is there not a connection again? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. These are illogical arguments. first one is a. Bin Laden likes the Taliban b. The Taliban supported Terrorism c. Bin Laden likes Iraq d. Therefore Hussein supports terrorism second one is a. Al Qaeda wages covert war against US b. Iraq conducts espionage against US c. Both groups hate America d. Therefore Iraq is supporting Al Qaeda In both of these you speak of it being a possibility. That don't make it the truth.
2. Jesus Man, you know how many governments the CIA has or has attempted to topple? the US does more of this stuff than any terrorist organization. Are you saying that this is ok because they work for American interests and that the Iraqis shouldn't be able to do this because they're on the wrong side? Espionage is a part of international politics.
<!--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-->C) I object to the "now" and that you point to a leader then point to countries in general. If any of those countries have a leader that actively supports Anti-"Western World" organizations, then they are a target too. But everyone knows you can't fight a war on more than one front and expect to advance very far. Many of those countries in the Middle East are not run by leaders/governments that actively support such organizations, but rather have private organizations that support those groups, which means you can go to those countries with a diplomatic approach and help them in endeavours to stop the private organizations from undermining the leader/government. What has been learned by such instances as<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's because they aren't being actively threatened. I think I'd be anti-whoever-is-trying-to-kill-me too.
<!--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-->D) I'm not sure how to take that, as a compliment or a personal attack in a discussion. Anyways, Husien has publicly made his goals clear, and through various channels of intel, more than one source has made the connection that Husien has links to Anti-"Western World" organizations, including Al Queda. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which sources? these appeals to nameless authorities don't help. Perhaps you are referring to a study conducted by the Department of Disinformation, which, btw, <a href='http://www.theleak.co.uk/department.html' target='_blank'>Doesn't exist.</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--superninjabeast+Feb 13 2003, 06:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (superninjabeast @ Feb 13 2003, 06:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Which sources? these appeals to nameless authorities don't help.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ugh, I wish I didn't have to name of all of my sources, but since its been called into question, here goes. My sources are word of mouth, local newspapers, international news, and the internet. All of these sources are in english language. My word of mouth sources consist of those in Nanaimo, Bristish Columbia, Canada that I talk to in person and over the phone. The local newspaper sources are called The Bulletin, The Harbour Star, The Times Colonist, The Vancouver Sun and The Province. The international news sources consist of CBC, BBC, CNN, and MSNBC. The internet sources consist of too many to list here. All of these sources draw on alot more sources than I have available to me to the best of my knowledge. Does me listing all this for you seem ridiculous? Good, because I'm sure you would just love to see this thread turn into "my sources are better than your sources", which by the way, what are your sources? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.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--> These are illogical arguments. ... That don't make it the truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but it doesn't make it a lie either. It is not illogical to show you how I have drawn my conclusions of why a coalition lead by the USA should invade Iraq. I dont remember mentioning once it was a fact or truth, only that I am convinced that Iraq must go down, not to mention alot of other questionable countries. I doubt anyone has an "All Seeing Eye" kicking around that could ever tell us the full truth about anything in our past, present or future. I suppose you know "the truth"? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.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--> Espionage is a part of international politics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Couldn't have said it better myself. So, if that is the case, which goals do you want carried out, which governments do you want to see toppled? The statement "If you aren't with us, you're against us" could never be truer since intel networking is a part of international politics.
<!--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--> It's because they aren't being actively threatened. I think I'd be anti-whoever-is-trying-to-kill-me too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Threatened by whom? Osama Bin Laden threatens countries who have supported the USA with terrorism, the USA threatens countries who have supported terrorism with military force. Every leader/government in every country has decisions to make everyday that decide which side they appear to be on, in a sense deciding which side you want to defend you and which side to attack you. Its very hard to ride the fence when side says we will survive no matter what and the other says you will join us or die. With the way your post went, your stance does appear to be anti-something. So which side is trying to kill you?
<!--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--> Perhaps you are referring to a study conducted by the Department of Disinformation, which, btw, Doesn't exist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe, great peice of fiction and satire, thanks for posting that. Did you read any of the other articles? I like the prose of the writer's especially, definitely adds a certain silliness that is tons of fun to read.
<!--QuoteBegin--CanadianWolverine+Feb 13 2003, 10:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CanadianWolverine @ Feb 13 2003, 10:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>A)</b> "yet". But now it has been authenticated by more than one source, most notably by reporters who have met Osama Bin Laden before and sound studios looking to check voice signature and doctoring. Even though he doesn't call for support for Husien the man, he still calls for support for a country ruled tyranically by Husien. He also called for support for the Taliban, who liked to rule with strict (read: dead if you don't) rules of conduct. If I were Bin Laden, I'd call for support for countries that support my organization too. Anything to kill Americans aka "westerners" and convert them at knife/gun/bomb point to extremist muslim ideals and arabic interests, right? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm aware that SNB already responed to this, just allow me to add a few points.
First, as it was already pointed out, your logical chain is leaking. Yes, Bin Laden has been known to support tyrannical systems, no, this doesn't mean that he's necessarily going to support Hussein. Yes, Bin Laden is of anti-americanistic sentiments, yes, so is Hussein. Does that mean that they <i>have</i> to cooperate? No. All you proved was that an alliance between Hussein and Bin Laden was <i>possible</i>. This doesn't mean that it <i>exists</i>.
Also, there are grave differences between the aims of Hussein and Bin Laden: Hussein uses anti-western rethoric to strengthen his own power. Bin Laden uses anti-western rethoric because he wants to create a fundamentalistic Islamic world, which would by the way ultimately mean the end of Husseins reign - he's head of a socialist party, after all.
<!--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--><b>B)</b> Spy networks routinely infiltrate, attempt to influence, gather vital and valuable information, commit espionage, assinate, and demoralize their enemies. How do terrorist organizations activities differ? Only in their leaders and their goals. If a tyrannical head of state and a terrorist organizer share the same goals, whats to stop them from working with one another? If they have both sent covert operations against the same target, in this case Americans, how is there not a connection again?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How's that a response to my statement? All I said was that the alledgedly iraqian assassination attempt can't be linked to any terrorist organizations.
By the way, thanks for equalling the CIA with terrorist networks. I guess I'll quote you on it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.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-->So, if that is the case, which goals do you want carried out, which governments do you want to see toppled? The statement "If you aren't with us, you're against us" could never be truer since intel networking is a part of international politics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If a system that fancies itself 'democratic' starts using terroristic means to achieve its goals, it has lost itself. If my only choice is which government is to topple which other, none of them deserves staying.
<!--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--><b>C)</b> I object to the "now" and that you point to a leader then point to countries in general. If any of those countries have a leader that actively supports Anti-"Western World" organizations, then they are a target too. But everyone knows you can't fight a war on more than one front and expect to advance very far. Many of those countries in the Middle East are not run by leaders/governments that actively support such organizations, but rather have private organizations that support those groups, which means you can go to those countries with a diplomatic approach and help them in endeavours to stop the private organizations from undermining the leader/government. What has been learned by such instances as <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, let's see: The Saudi-Arabian monarchy has not only excellent connections to the Bin Laden family, they almost openly support Al Quaida and just about every other muslim terrorist networks. Yet, they are considered one of the closest allies of the USA in the Middle East.
Ghaddafi, leader of Lybia, is well known to support Palestinian extremists and did so for the past twenty years. Yet, his country and the US are currently 'normalizing' their relations.
Need any more examples? The ugly truth is that each and every government in the Middle East that wants to be left alone by its own radicals has to support Palestinian extremism.
<!--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--><b>D)</b> I'm not sure how to take that, as a compliment or a personal attack in a discussion. Anyways, Husien has publicly made his goals clear, and through various channels of intel, more than one source has made the connection that Husien has links to Anti-"Western World" organizations, including Al Queda.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take it however you want, the fact remains that you assumed an objectively bankrupt government that's monitored more closely than any other regime on this planet and is under constant militaristic, diplomatic, and economic pressure to be able to undermine the whole medial landscape of an area the size of <i>Europe</i> to spread its own propaganda.
All in all, as I said before, there's not <i>one</i> stringent prove for a direct and recent link between Al Quaida and Hussein. Always ask yourself - if there was, would Powell have to quote students?
<!--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-->If I was wrong, that would still mean another dictator down, a few less resources for terrorist networks to draw upon, and few less determined bomb makers. While the number of bomb users may be plentiful, those with the knowledge to build the bombs are significantly fewer<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Strange, you don't seem to think that US sponsered dictatorships are a problem: Kuwait, Saudi-Arabia just to name 2....
Invading Iraq would create a heck of a lot more terrorists because surprise surprise people who lost their homes and families in the war (and no matter what Bush says theres gonna be big time civilan casualties) would want to strike back at the country that did this to them.
There's no proof of any link between Bin Laden and Hussain. For Flayra's sake the latest "Bin Laden" tape has the guy saying Hussain is an infidel! Hardly words of praise, yet Colen Powell was trying to use this as evidence of a link! Here's the simple fact in the whole debate: The US hasn't made a conclusive arguement for war on Iraq. The evidence presented by Powell to the UN was ludicrous to say the least, the "intercepted transmittions" sounded like they were taken completly out of context, and the photos showed nothing incriminating in the slightest. This was not a repeat of 1962 when US spy places were able to photograph Soviet missiles in Cuba; those photoes clearly showed missiles. These photos show nothing that suggests WMD. If Saddam really has all these weapons, where are they? Inspectors have been able to go wherever they want and have done so, yet found nothing. Some old warheads are not a "breech". Neither is a missile that can go 10 kms over the 150km limit when it has no guidence or warhead systems attached. Those things tend to weigh a missile down. Also the thing is a test missile, and isn't even in production. That's why they were testing it to see if it was under the limit. I'm not saying Saddam's a very nice guy but I think Sharon's not very nice either, and his frequent attacks on the Palistinians seem to be a far greater threat to regional security than Iraq. If Iraq is such a big threat, why are his neighbours (with the obvious exclusion of Israel) opposing his overthrow? Saddam has used WMD offensivly, but so has the US, and on a far greater scale. Does this give the US the right to dictate and police the world? Certainly not. Also, if it's such a huge fuss for Iraq to "have WMD" then why isn't anything been done about Israel, Pakistan or India? Not to mention Nth Korea. Is it the case that only America's allies can have nukes? Or once you have nukes the world won't do anything about it? Iraq is hardly a threat to either regional or world security. Bin Laden is far more likely to obtain nuclear, biological or chemical weaponry from corrupt soucres in Russia or China. Bush justified his missile sheild idea by saying "What if terrorists got an ICBM?". Has your beloved leader got the faintest idea of the technical knowledge required to maintain and launch what is in effect a space vehicle? Iraq has neither the power the stike at the world or the weapons to cause major casualties. Now swinging around the world we see North Korea freely admitting to nuclear weaponry and missiles that can hit the continental US (and down here in Australia). And what his happening? A few diplomatic negociations that are achieveing nothing. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of soldiers are preparing to invade a weak nation that has been crippled by 12 years of sanctions. Nth Korea has no oil, but of course, that has nothing to do with it. I mean, the Iraq invasion is about securing the peace of the world. Whatever. Did it occur to you that Americans kill each other in far greater numbers each year than terrorist attacks have ever managed to inflict? I'd be more worried about my children being gunned down at school than I am about mythical "links" between Iraq and Bin Laden. Maybe you Americans are so keen to run off to war because it's never affected your country as it has others. The only war that really impacted on your country was the Civil War, and that was at the dawn of industrialised warfare, before machine guns, tanks, aircraft and massive artillery really began to take effect. Look at Germany and France, 2 big opponents to the Iraq war. These 2 nations have seen enough of modern warfare to know that it is something that must be avoided at all costs. Russia opposes the war as well, they lost 25 million people in WWII. They understand the cost of modern warfare. They took more casualties (2 million) in the last few weeks of the war than the entire American armed forces did from 1941 - 1945. These people don't want war because it doesn't bring anything but death and hardship. I guess because the US hasn't really been on the recieving end since 1861 they think war is something that happens to other people (don't respond with WWII or Vietnam, in the first case you were fighting an enemy with one tenth your industral capacity and in the other you took 50,000 casualties. Thats an average month's fighting on the western front in WWI.) If anything, Sept 11 should have shown you what war brings, and that was achieved with just 3 aircraft. Think what a 7,000 pound "Daisy Cutter" fuel air explosive can do. Then perhaps you'll see war for what it is: a slaughter. Saying all this will achieve precisely nothing, Bush and his good friend John Howard (Australia's Bush) are going to go into Iraq anyway, regardless of what the world says. It's sad that almost 60 years after the UN was created to stop conflict the good ol' "Biggest Gun Wins" philosophy is alive and well <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
*This post is not directed at the Americans who oppose this dreadful war. I know you're out there <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> *
Well war ain't meant to be pretty...I'm glad people finally realize this.
How the hell do you expect our economy to turn around if we don't go fight a war? That'll take another decade. Believe it or not, war brings prosperity - that's just one more reason for it.
**** your country, **** my country, **** everyone's 'country' - we are all just bloody human. We are all the same, but different. Repeat. We are all the same, but different. Noone is inferior. Noone is better. We are all the same (but different). Nice little mantra, huh?
<!--QuoteBegin--Onuma+Feb 14 2003, 05:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Onuma @ Feb 14 2003, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well war ain't meant to be pretty...I'm glad people finally realize this.
How the hell do you expect our economy to turn around if we don't go fight a war? That'll take another decade. Believe it or not, war brings prosperity - that's just one more reason for it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Leaving the <i><b>huge</b></i> moralic issues of a war for economic reasons aside, whoever told you that a war brings prosperity?
Certainly not Alan Greenspan, who fears an all out recession in case of a war, and certainly not anyone at the stock exchanges, which are plummeting with every further soldier that gets moved. Should you not yet have noticed, during a war, the government is literally blowing money up - money that could be used for improved infrastructure, lower taxes, subventions, or whatever your favorite means of economic stimulus may be. The <i>only</i> industry profiting from a war is the arms industry, which just can't have enough economic strength to bring a whole nations economy to prosperity.
Economically speaking, I'll set aside my morality for now.
Take a look at recent wars the U.S. has been in: <ul> <li>WW1 - "The Roaring Twenties" <li>WW2 - "The Baby Boom" <li>Korea - The late 50's were immensely prosperous <li>Vietnam - We had an ugly recession/depression during 'Nam, and it began clearing up in the late 70's to bring the early 80's recovery and prosperity. <li>Gulf War - Ever notice those 8 years of rising prosperity in the US that "Clinton" is supposedly responsible for? We all know that Clinton didn't do a damn thing but sit in his chair getting head, he didn't write a single piece of legislation in 2 terms. He was just a good president to ride out the wave of prosperity. </ul>
Sure <b>during</b> war we are not prosperous. But soon after it is over the recession/depression begins to fade.
[edit] forgot to put a [ / LIST] on that - so I did now[/edit]
Comments
We obviosly have hidden agendas when it comes to the war in Iraq. Boosting Economy being one of them. I highly doubt that this war is about OIL like most of the world thinks. THe current estimate from some top scientists is that the current *WORLD* oil supply is only good for about 40-50 years. VERY short term in the big picture. Bush already has Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology on his agenda, and he mandated to have a production Fuel Cell Car to be availble in 10 years.
If anything this war is about his pride and finishing up what his father started. No one can argue that Saddam is a good man. No one can argue that anyhing his regime did was positive, for the people of IRAQ or the rest of the world. He eventually needs to be ousted, so why not do it now, when it can actually do some good for our economy?
Furthermore, the US has had a terrible track record with their mistakes. Vietnam being the best example, even when we knew it was pointless, we couldnt do anything to stop it, just kept pooring troops in. We helped Saddam come to power, and maybe we realized it was a major screw up and its time to clean things up.
For all the hippies that say "THink of our Sons and Daughters" Anyone who enlists knows what they are getting into. Our soilders should be ready to die for our country, it doesnt matter if its a legitimate excuse or not. As far as I know the draft doesnt exist anymore, so the only ones who are gunna die are the ones who signed on the dotted line.
I just wish we would hurry up and do it. if I hear the words "Weapons Of Mass Destruction" again im gunna puke
Ugh, why won't you let Sadam Husien's leadership, and those in his government, and the subsequent actions speak for themselves? I have to completely disagree with the comments on saying Husein has made no preperations "from day one", considering his military life before he became Iraq's dictator. Beside's that, just because he hasn't written a book for you to codemn, and shown pictures of what goes on in his jail, does not mean he does not share commonality with Adolf Hitler.
```````````````````````````````````Hitler``Husein
1)Have they treated a group or
groups of their citizenery as subhuman?````Yes```Yes
2)Have they tried to amass weaponry
and military forces against the will of
other nations in agreements they had
with them?```````````````````````````Yes```Yes
3)Have they expressed views that
require support they complete
eradication of another group of
humans?`````````````````````````````Yes```Yes
4)Have they expressed the wish to
rebuild ancient empires and rule them?`````Yes```Yes
5)Have they shown agression towards
neighbouring countries?`````````````````Yes```Yes
6)Have they violently oppressed
opponents within their governments
and opposition groups? `````````````````Yes```Yes
7)Have they supported covert and
espionage operations that targeted
the citizenery of other nations for
death?```````````````````````````````No```Yes
<sarcasm>Hitler just targeted other nations' political groups for the good ole divide and conquer, Husein went with supporting Al Queda and groups like it. Such a minor difference.</sarcasm>
Regarding AllUrHiveRBelong2Us's comments:
Laying down your life for a friend and laying down your life to take down as many of your "enemies" with you as possible are two distinctly different things. I would have to say that any soldier from any country can be considered a professional killer, but there is no need to romanticize it with "cold hearted". Who died and made you God? What makes you, or anyone for that matter, qualified to judge the condition of hearts and souls of people of particular nation? I can't help but postulate from your written words that you care only for your fellow man so long as they can give you what you want, considering you wouldn't mind seeing a few people get messed up because they fit into your faceless generalization of "oil baron" or perhaps rich bourgousie.
Generally Regarding the Upcoming War in Iraq:
Wake up and smell the biohazards, nuclear fallout and molecular breakdown. We're facing end game here if we don't stand up and stop Husein now. Maybe not today, maybe not tommorow, but all good men need to do to let evil men prosper is to stand by and do nothing. So we can discuss this till we are blue in the face but that won't stop a determined dictator, only strength of force has ever stopped them throughout history. I want to see Canadian Armed Forces give Husein his Waterloo whether or not any other countries see fit to take this immense challenge of humankinds stewardship on.
1)Have they treated a group or
groups of their citizenery as subhuman?````Yes```Yes````Yes
2)Have they tried to amass weaponry
and military forces against the will of
other nations in agreements they had
with them?```````````````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes
3)Have they expressed views that
require support they complete
eradication of another group of
humans?`````````````````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes
4)Have they expressed the wish to
rebuild ancient empires and rule them?`````Yes```Yes````No
5)Have they shown agression towards
neighbouring countries?`````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes
6)Have they violently oppressed
opponents within their governments
and opposition groups? `````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes
7)Have they supported covert and
espionage operations that targeted
the citizenery of other nations for
death?```````````````````````````````No```Yes````Yes
Looks like we're hitler to! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.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-->Regarding AllUrHiveRBelong2Us's comments:
Laying down your life for a friend and laying down your life to take down as many of your "enemies" with you as possible are two distinctly different things. I would have to say that any soldier from any country can be considered a professional killer, but there is no need to romanticize it with "cold hearted". Who died and made you God? What makes you, or anyone for that matter, qualified to judge the condition of hearts and souls of people of particular nation? I can't help but postulate from your written words that you care only for your fellow man so long as they can give you what you want, considering you wouldn't mind seeing a few people get messed up because they fit into your faceless generalization of "oil baron" or perhaps rich bourgousie.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I care about my fellow men, but I there I some I just don't like. Ok, so if I'm not qualified to judge people, how are you then? The fact that I am a human gives me the ability to judge my fellows. And that's what this whole damned topic has been about, if you hadn't noticed, and simply because I say something you don't like shouldn't give you the right dismiss my opinion as selfish.
"Dear citizens. It is 100% prooved that USA has weapons of mass destruction, and as history has shown USA is very violent and agressive country, especially against middle-eastern countries. Therefore I have decided to attack USA as defencive move. After EVIL Bush has been overthrown we will replace American government with our own peace-loving government(naturally USA's resources will be directed to Iraq, because we just want them, simple as that). After this world will be much better place, also we might attack all the other NATO countries as well for the TERROR acts they have commited in Iraq in history!"
I think you get my point from there.
Im from Finland.
Second..we have all made alot of good points about weither or not we should or should not go to war with Iraq. This is good. But lets try to actually do something with it now. Lets propose some ideas as to what would be the best actions to do if either of these outcomes.
To those of you that are against a War : What should we do instead? What do you think it would accomplish, would it make the world better at all?
To those that support war on Iraq: How should it be carried out? What do you think it would best accomplish?
Lets actually stop running in circles and actually do something about it. And the first step is to think of ideas.
EX. Lets say we choose not to invade. What would we do instead? Embargo...or perhaps just give the inspectors more time?
Another Question: What would it take for all those against war to change their minds and support it?
Ok..now reverse that to all those that currently support it..what would it take to make you change you mind?
*Please relize what I am about to say*
What if you are wrong? Think about the consequences if you are wrong?
EX If you dont support the war on Iraq, and he chemical bombs New York. Would you just shrug and say..ah well?
What if we do go to war and create so much hatered for the US that an alliance forms to wipe us out, an Alliance that uses every means possible?
So many questions....I am eager for your answers.
Lets try to resolve this our way....if only in fiction...its a start.
Thats imo the best solution at this point, especially because USA's evidence of Nuclear weapons are satellite pictures: "OMG!11one Theres a big hall in Iraq, there must be nukes!"
And not to talk about that thing that happened in UK. Those 12years old documents were brought up and they claimed them to be still viable evidence <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
That'll teach you to agree with me!
1)Have they treated a group or
groups of their citizenery as subhuman?````Yes```Yes````Yes````Yes
2)Have they tried to amass weaponry
and military forces against the will of
other nations in agreements they had
with them?```````````````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes````Yes
3)Have they expressed views that
require support they complete
eradication of another group of
humans?`````````````````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes````Yes
4)Have they expressed the wish to
rebuild ancient empires and rule them?`````Yes```Yes````No`````No
5)Have they shown agression towards
neighbouring countries?`````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes`````Yes
6)Have they violently oppressed
opponents within their governments
and opposition groups? `````````````````Yes```Yes````Yes````Yes
7)Have they supported covert and
espionage operations that targeted
the citizenery of other nations for
death?```````````````````````````````No```<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'> No</span>````Yes````Yes
Hussein has no real terror links where are you getting that from?
Israel is in violation of more UN resolutions than Iraq ever will be.
Israel has nuclear weapons, made from materials most likely stolen from us.
Ariel Sharon's Likud party is racist.
Recently they didn't want lebanon building a dam on Lebanese land, so they threatened to attack them.
Israel is just as bad as Iraq, they just happen to be our friends. Maybe it's because we've given them more money than we spent on the Apollo program.
Note: I didn't read all of this thread, but this is how I view the situation in a nutshell.
From stuff like <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=23111' target='_blank'>this</a>. Oh, and there was that little assination attempt on George W Bush Sr. by Husien's spy network, and monetary funds given to groups like the PLA and Hezbalah, and interogations of Taliban officials revealing funding and intelligence links, and Husein's spy network making an effort to inflitrate various Middle Eastern anti-USA/anti-Israel networks with agents so as to influence them in a way favourable to Iraq and its leader's twisted goals.
What I gotta wonder is how you've come to the conclusion that any of USA's leaders or Israel's leaders have done anything like what the questions ask. Besides, why not add a few of your own questions to compare and contrast so as to make it support your "wait till they bomb/posion/infect us" approach.
<span style='color:white'>[edit1]</span><!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Feb 11 2003, 06:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 11 2003, 06:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I care about my fellow men, but I there I some I just don't like. Ok, so if I'm not qualified to judge people, how are you then? The fact that I am a human gives me the ability to judge my fellows. And that's what this whole damned topic has been about, if you hadn't noticed, and simply because I say something you don't like shouldn't give you the right dismiss my opinion as selfish. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can only go on what you have written in your posts, and from that it seems you would decide your agenda is more important than the survival of your country or its allies. That sounds pretty selfish to me. But it doesn't mean your posts can be dismissed, and if I gave that impression, I apologize. Its just that it gives your posts the hint of ulterior motive and so not beyond doubting their intention. You seem misinformed, since I was replying to your labeling what appeared to be soldiers as "cold hearted killers", and I hardly think you or any of us make very good judges of other folks hearts, I have no problem with you or others judging people on their actions. Check yourself, foo... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--><span style='color:white'>[/edit1]</span>
<span style='color:white'>[edit2]</span><!--QuoteBegin--Ben128+Feb 11 2003, 02:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ben128 @ Feb 11 2003, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To those that support war on Iraq:
How should it be carried out? What do you think it would best accomplish?
Another Question:
Ok..now reverse that to all those that currently support it..what would it take to make you change you mind?
*Please relize what I am about to say*
What if you are wrong? Think about the consequences if you are wrong? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It should be carried out so swiftly, that a coalition occupying force can get to rebuilding the country to state better than what there was before so the people there can have enough food to eat, places to live and thriving livelihoods again, this way they will call the coalition occupying forces liberators, like many in Afghanistan that were surpressed and brutalized by the Taliban were. Once the Iraqi people get to vote in a government system/type of their choosing free from Sadam Husien's Dictatorship and his totalarian government, occupying forces train the new government's police and military defense to a point where the new government can run the country lawfully, without too much fear of extremist resurgence.
It would take the people currently in power leaving of their own free will, so that the Iraqi people can have a voice of their choosing again. Then, I would need for people's previously to scared to admit anything to come forward with anything they might know about C/B/N WoMD, so that the record my be cleared once and for all, so we know that no single person with their own agenda might endanger us all.
If I was wrong, that would still mean another dictator down, a few less resources for terrorist networks to draw upon, and few less determined bomb makers. While the number of bomb users may be plentiful, those with the knowledge to build the bombs are significantly fewer. Sure, the western world would be under greater threat of terrorist acts commited on its citizenry, but the terrorist networks were already building to that whether or not we care, as evidenced by 09/11/2001, so what's new? The world's was a dangerous place in the past, is a dangerous place now and will be one in the future, so all you can ask yourself is how can you survive to the point where you can thrive?<span style='color:white'>[/edit2]</span>
<span style='color:white'>Please use edit instead of doubleposting.</span>
Who is the only country to offencily use an attomic wepon?
Why is everybody so occupied with how their own country thrives?
I hear so many people say, "You should be doing something for your country" or "Don't ask what your country can do for you...", why is nobody ever saying "Do something for the freaking world and snap out of your "My country" mentality and we wouldn't be having all these problems in the first place.
If everybody would be thinking of themselves more as human in general and not as American, Iraqi or German for that matter, we could finally get to a point were everybody tries the general problems instead of fighting over ridiculous regional or cultural matters.
It is just so frustrating that such an easy way out is somehow overlooked all the time. All those people who think they are "good" because they do something for their country could go a step further and just do something for humanity in general.
Anyway, guess that was a bit off topic, but I had to get that off my chest. Carry on...
From stuff like <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=23111' target='_blank'>this</a>. Oh, and there was that little assination attempt on George W Bush Sr. by Husien's spy network, and monetary funds given to groups like the PLA and Hezbalah, and interogations of Taliban officials revealing funding and intelligence links, [...] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've not got too much time, so just some quick remarks on the alleged Iraq - Al-Quaida links:
- The man on the tape claiming to be Bin Laden states explicitely that he does <i>not</i> call for support of Hussein - while talking about the Iraq, he states that this Muslim country, not its governors have to be defended.
So basically, we have a tape that's not even verified yet, with a possible Bin Laden talking about what everyone else talks about, too. Not that much of a prove, or would you have expected him to start siding with the Bush government on this one?
- The links between the assassination attempt on Bush sen. and Hussein have to my best knowledge not been proven yet. Plus, there's a distinct difference between a spy and a terrorist.
- Yes, Hussein funds the PLA and Hezbalah. If that's however enough to justify a war, I suggest you attack Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lybia, and pretty much every other middle eastern country <i>now</i>.
<!--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-->and Husein's spy network making an effort to inflitrate various Middle Eastern anti-USA/anti-Israel networks with agents so as to influence them in a way favourable to Iraq and its leader's twisted goals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And <i>I</i> get called a conspiracy nut for mentioning that the Pentagon invests large sums in Hollywood.
I think the fact that the best evidence the US intelligence could gather was an outdated and partitially false graduation work sums the whole thing up just nicely. Accept it, Hussein has currently less links to terrorist factions than the CIA.
Well OK, that doesn't say much, but...
Yes, I do believe "my agenda" happens to be more important than the survival of this nation. I make no apologies for 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-->If I was wrong, that would still mean another dictator down, a few less resources for terrorist networks to draw upon, and few less determined bomb makers. While the number of bomb users may be plentiful, those with the knowledge to build the bombs are significantly fewer. Sure, the western world would be under greater threat of terrorist acts commited on its citizenry, but the terrorist networks were already building to that whether or not we care, as evidenced by 09/11/2001, so what's new? The world's was a dangerous place in the past, is a dangerous place now and will be one in the future, so all you can ask yourself is how can you survive to the point where you can thrive?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's that attitude that will get us all killed.
Same can be said about what our leaders want to do with war and whatnot.
Sorry if I would like to live a long and prosperous life with throwing up organs and growing tumors all over my body.
So basically, we have a tape that's not even verified yet, with a possible Bin Laden talking about what everyone else talks about, too. Not that much of a prove, or would you have expected him to start siding with the Bush government on this one?
<b>B)</b> - The links between the assassination attempt on Bush sen. and Hussein have to my best knowledge not been proven yet. Plus, there's a distinct difference between a spy and a terrorist.
<b>C)</b> - Yes, Hussein funds the PLA and Hezbalah. If that's however enough to justify a war, I suggest you attack Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lybia, and pretty much every other middle eastern country <i>now</i>.
<b>D)</b>And <i>I</i> get called a conspiracy nut for mentioning that the Pentagon invests large sums in Hollywood. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BTW, thanks for editing my previous post, I wasn't quite sure how I was going to respond to several things in one post. How do you normally do that in a post? Just looking for some tips. Now on to the discussion...
<b>A)</b> "yet". But now it has been authenticated by more than one source, most notably by reporters who have met Osama Bin Laden before and sound studios looking to check voice signature and doctoring. Even though he doesn't call for support for Husien the man, he still calls for support for a country ruled tyranically by Husien. He also called for support for the Taliban, who liked to rule with strict (read: dead if you don't) rules of conduct. If I were Bin Laden, I'd call for support for countries that support my organization too. Anything to kill Americans aka "westerners" and convert them at knife/gun/bomb point to extremist muslim ideals and arabic interests, right?
<b>B)</b> Spy networks routinely infiltrate, attempt to influence, gather vital and valuable information, commit espionage, assinate, and demoralize their enemies. How do terrorist organizations activities differ? Only in their leaders and their goals. If a tyrannical head of state and a terrorist organizer share the same goals, whats to stop them from working with one another? If they have both sent covert operations against the same target, in this case Americans, how is there not a connection again?
<b>C)</b> I object to the "now" and that you point to a leader then point to countries in general. If any of those countries have a leader that actively supports Anti-"Western World" organizations, then they are a target too. But everyone knows you can't fight a war on more than one front and expect to advance very far. Many of those countries in the Middle East are not run by leaders/governments that actively support such organizations, but rather have private organizations that support those groups, which means you can go to those countries with a diplomatic approach and help them in endeavours to stop the private organizations from undermining the leader/government. What has been learned by such instances as
<b>D)</b> I'm not sure how to take that, as a compliment or a personal attack in a discussion. Anyways, Husien has publicly made his goals clear, and through various channels of intel, more than one source has made the connection that Husien has links to Anti-"Western World" organizations, including Al Queda.
Hmm, now how to respond to others without "double posting"... Ahh, edit, I see it now, thanks Nemesis Zero. Hopefully this will work the same way as what you did with my 3 posts.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Feb 12 2003, 04:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 12 2003, 04:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It's that attitude that will get us all killed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And taking the stance that American's should engage in establishing a communist institution while a covert war is being waged against you won't? Ever hear of "Divide and Conquer"? While you are busy fighting the good fight against your capitalist masters, the rest of the world may be so terrorized that they feel compeled to submit to the goals of the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Husien. When you're done dealing with the incredible problem of capitalist Americans, I hope you are ready to deal with a New World Muslim Order or the more likely self stylized People's Liberation Army. You don't get it yet do you? Osama Bin Laden in his mind is trying to save us from ourselves, thinking that we are labouring under cruel American dictators, and that we just can't wait to all be Muslim. How is that any different than Stalin's version of communism, or Hitler's vision of a master race? The USA is just the strongest of independent countries and as such is just rightly leading a coalition against new world orders of any kind. Of course, more than likely others just see it as an American World Order, though how that is possible with Americans having shifted away from Imperialistic thoughts (American Natives, Hawaii, Phillipines, etc) to Liberator thoughts (Large Portions of Europe, Korea, Cuba, Haiti, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bosnia, etc).
<!--QuoteBegin--Dezmodium+Feb 13 2003, 05:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dezmodium @ Feb 13 2003, 05:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Same can be said about what our leaders want to do with war and whatnot.
Sorry if I would like to live a long and prosperous life with throwing up organs and growing tumors all over my body.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but I fail to see how being terrorized into inaction will keep you in prosperity when your demise has been clearly laid out by your enemies, as if 09/11/2001 being proceeded by more threats against American civilians wasn't big enough evidence of that. Of course throwing up organs and growing tumors all over your body can also be included with falling to your death, burning to death, stabbed, shot full of holes with bullets, blugeoning, suffocating, being kidnapped and tortured, blown into tiny little peices of smoking greasy flesh, having your skin bubble and melt, becoming violently ill to the point where you die, having important bodily functions stop due to poison, and finally having your matter rearranged in a nuclear fireball. The number of weapons at your enemies disposal are incredible when they are determined to see you dead, as evidenced by attacks made before and after 09/11/2001. If you had the opportunity to stop your enemies before they could purchase, steal, build, or use weapons against you, wouldn't you?
<!--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-->B) Spy networks routinely infiltrate, attempt to influence, gather vital and valuable information, commit espionage, assinate, and demoralize their enemies. How do terrorist organizations activities differ?Only in their leaders and their goals. If a tyrannical head of state and a terrorist organizer share the same goals, whats to stop them from working with one another? If they have both sent covert operations against the same target, in this case Americans, how is there not a connection again?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. These are illogical arguments.
first one is a. Bin Laden likes the Taliban
b. The Taliban supported Terrorism
c. Bin Laden likes Iraq
d. Therefore Hussein supports terrorism
second one is a. Al Qaeda wages covert war against US
b. Iraq conducts espionage against US
c. Both groups hate America
d. Therefore Iraq is supporting Al Qaeda
In both of these you speak of it being a possibility. That don't make it the truth.
2. Jesus Man, you know how many governments the CIA has or has attempted to topple? the US does more of this stuff than any terrorist organization. Are you saying that this is ok because they work for American interests and that the Iraqis shouldn't be able to do this because they're on the wrong side? Espionage is a part of international politics.
<!--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-->C) I object to the "now" and that you point to a leader then point to countries in general. If any of those countries have a leader that actively supports Anti-"Western World" organizations, then they are a target too. But everyone knows you can't fight a war on more than one front and expect to advance very far. Many of those countries in the Middle East are not run by leaders/governments that actively support such organizations, but rather have private organizations that support those groups, which means you can go to those countries with a diplomatic approach and help them in endeavours to stop the private organizations from undermining the leader/government. What has been learned by such instances as<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's because they aren't being actively threatened. I think I'd be anti-whoever-is-trying-to-kill-me too.
<!--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-->D) I'm not sure how to take that, as a compliment or a personal attack in a discussion. Anyways, Husien has publicly made his goals clear, and through various channels of intel, more than one source has made the connection that Husien has links to Anti-"Western World" organizations, including Al Queda.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which sources? these appeals to nameless authorities don't help. Perhaps you are referring to a study conducted by the Department of Disinformation, which, btw, <a href='http://www.theleak.co.uk/department.html' target='_blank'>Doesn't exist.</a>
Which sources? these appeals to nameless authorities don't help.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ugh, I wish I didn't have to name of all of my sources, but since its been called into question, here goes. My sources are word of mouth, local newspapers, international news, and the internet. All of these sources are in english language. My word of mouth sources consist of those in Nanaimo, Bristish Columbia, Canada that I talk to in person and over the phone. The local newspaper sources are called The Bulletin, The Harbour Star, The Times Colonist, The Vancouver Sun and The Province. The international news sources consist of CBC, BBC, CNN, and MSNBC. The internet sources consist of too many to list here. All of these sources draw on alot more sources than I have available to me to the best of my knowledge. Does me listing all this for you seem ridiculous? Good, because I'm sure you would just love to see this thread turn into "my sources are better than your sources", which by the way, what are your sources? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.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-->
These are illogical arguments.
...
That don't make it the truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but it doesn't make it a lie either. It is not illogical to show you how I have drawn my conclusions of why a coalition lead by the USA should invade Iraq. I dont remember mentioning once it was a fact or truth, only that I am convinced that Iraq must go down, not to mention alot of other questionable countries. I doubt anyone has an "All Seeing Eye" kicking around that could ever tell us the full truth about anything in our past, present or future. I suppose you know "the truth"? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.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-->
Espionage is a part of international politics.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Couldn't have said it better myself. So, if that is the case, which goals do you want carried out, which governments do you want to see toppled? The statement "If you aren't with us, you're against us" could never be truer since intel networking is a part of international politics.
<!--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-->
It's because they aren't being actively threatened. I think I'd be anti-whoever-is-trying-to-kill-me too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Threatened by whom? Osama Bin Laden threatens countries who have supported the USA with terrorism, the USA threatens countries who have supported terrorism with military force. Every leader/government in every country has decisions to make everyday that decide which side they appear to be on, in a sense deciding which side you want to defend you and which side to attack you. Its very hard to ride the fence when side says we will survive no matter what and the other says you will join us or die. With the way your post went, your stance does appear to be anti-something. So which side is trying to kill you?
<!--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-->
Perhaps you are referring to a study conducted by the Department of Disinformation, which, btw, Doesn't exist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe, great peice of fiction and satire, thanks for posting that. Did you read any of the other articles? I like the prose of the writer's especially, definitely adds a certain silliness that is tons of fun to read.
I'm aware that SNB already responed to this, just allow me to add a few points.
First, as it was already pointed out, your logical chain is leaking.
Yes, Bin Laden has been known to support tyrannical systems, no, this doesn't mean that he's necessarily going to support Hussein.
Yes, Bin Laden is of anti-americanistic sentiments, yes, so is Hussein. Does that mean that they <i>have</i> to cooperate? No.
All you proved was that an alliance between Hussein and Bin Laden was <i>possible</i>. This doesn't mean that it <i>exists</i>.
Also, there are grave differences between the aims of Hussein and Bin Laden: Hussein uses anti-western rethoric to strengthen his own power.
Bin Laden uses anti-western rethoric because he wants to create a fundamentalistic Islamic world, which would by the way ultimately mean the end of Husseins reign - he's head of a socialist party, after all.
<!--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--><b>B)</b> Spy networks routinely infiltrate, attempt to influence, gather vital and valuable information, commit espionage, assinate, and demoralize their enemies. How do terrorist organizations activities differ? Only in their leaders and their goals. If a tyrannical head of state and a terrorist organizer share the same goals, whats to stop them from working with one another? If they have both sent covert operations against the same target, in this case Americans, how is there not a connection again?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How's that a response to my statement?
All I said was that the alledgedly iraqian assassination attempt can't be linked to any terrorist organizations.
By the way, thanks for equalling the CIA with terrorist networks. I guess I'll quote you on it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.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-->So, if that is the case, which goals do you want carried out, which governments do you want to see toppled? The statement "If you aren't with us, you're against us" could never be truer since intel networking is a part of international politics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If a system that fancies itself 'democratic' starts using terroristic means to achieve its goals, it has lost itself. If my only choice is which government is to topple which other, none of them deserves staying.
<!--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--><b>C)</b> I object to the "now" and that you point to a leader then point to countries in general. If any of those countries have a leader that actively supports Anti-"Western World" organizations, then they are a target too. But everyone knows you can't fight a war on more than one front and expect to advance very far. Many of those countries in the Middle East are not run by leaders/governments that actively support such organizations, but rather have private organizations that support those groups, which means you can go to those countries with a diplomatic approach and help them in endeavours to stop the private organizations from undermining the leader/government. What has been learned by such instances as <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, let's see: The Saudi-Arabian monarchy has not only excellent connections to the Bin Laden family, they almost openly support Al Quaida and just about every other muslim terrorist networks. Yet, they are considered one of the closest allies of the USA in the Middle East.
Ghaddafi, leader of Lybia, is well known to support Palestinian extremists and did so for the past twenty years. Yet, his country and the US are currently 'normalizing' their relations.
Need any more examples?
The ugly truth is that each and every government in the Middle East that wants to be left alone by its own radicals has to support Palestinian extremism.
<!--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--><b>D)</b> I'm not sure how to take that, as a compliment or a personal attack in a discussion. Anyways, Husien has publicly made his goals clear, and through various channels of intel, more than one source has made the connection that Husien has links to Anti-"Western World" organizations, including Al Queda.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take it however you want, the fact remains that you assumed an objectively bankrupt government that's monitored more closely than any other regime on this planet and is under constant militaristic, diplomatic, and economic pressure to be able to undermine the whole medial landscape of an area the size of <i>Europe</i> to spread its own propaganda.
All in all, as I said before, there's not <i>one</i> stringent prove for a direct and recent link between Al Quaida and Hussein. Always ask yourself - if there was, would Powell have to quote students?
Strange, you don't seem to think that US sponsered dictatorships are a problem: Kuwait, Saudi-Arabia just to name 2....
Invading Iraq would create a heck of a lot more terrorists because surprise surprise people who lost their homes and families in the war (and no matter what Bush says theres gonna be big time civilan casualties) would want to strike back at the country that did this to them.
There's no proof of any link between Bin Laden and Hussain. For Flayra's sake the latest "Bin Laden" tape has the guy saying Hussain is an infidel! Hardly words of praise, yet Colen Powell was trying to use this as evidence of a link!
Here's the simple fact in the whole debate: The US hasn't made a conclusive arguement for war on Iraq. The evidence presented by Powell to the UN was ludicrous to say the least, the "intercepted transmittions" sounded like they were taken completly out of context, and the photos showed nothing incriminating in the slightest. This was not a repeat of 1962 when US spy places were able to photograph Soviet missiles in Cuba; those photoes clearly showed missiles. These photos show nothing that suggests WMD.
If Saddam really has all these weapons, where are they? Inspectors have been able to go wherever they want and have done so, yet found nothing. Some old warheads are not a "breech". Neither is a missile that can go 10 kms over the 150km limit when it has no guidence or warhead systems attached. Those things tend to weigh a missile down. Also the thing is a test missile, and isn't even in production. That's why they were testing it to see if it was under the limit.
I'm not saying Saddam's a very nice guy but I think Sharon's not very nice either, and his frequent attacks on the Palistinians seem to be a far greater threat to regional security than Iraq. If Iraq is such a big threat, why are his neighbours (with the obvious exclusion of Israel) opposing his overthrow? Saddam has used WMD offensivly, but so has the US, and on a far greater scale. Does this give the US the right to dictate and police the world? Certainly not.
Also, if it's such a huge fuss for Iraq to "have WMD" then why isn't anything been done about Israel, Pakistan or India? Not to mention Nth Korea. Is it the case that only America's allies can have nukes? Or once you have nukes the world won't do anything about it?
Iraq is hardly a threat to either regional or world security. Bin Laden is far more likely to obtain nuclear, biological or chemical weaponry from corrupt soucres in Russia or China. Bush justified his missile sheild idea by saying "What if terrorists got an ICBM?". Has your beloved leader got the faintest idea of the technical knowledge required to maintain and launch what is in effect a space vehicle?
Iraq has neither the power the stike at the world or the weapons to cause major casualties. Now swinging around the world we see North Korea freely admitting to nuclear weaponry and missiles that can hit the continental US (and down here in Australia). And what his happening? A few diplomatic negociations that are achieveing nothing. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of soldiers are preparing to invade a weak nation that has been crippled by 12 years of sanctions. Nth Korea has no oil, but of course, that has nothing to do with it. I mean, the Iraq invasion is about securing the peace of the world. Whatever.
Did it occur to you that Americans kill each other in far greater numbers each year than terrorist attacks have ever managed to inflict? I'd be more worried about my children being gunned down at school than I am about mythical "links" between Iraq and Bin Laden.
Maybe you Americans are so keen to run off to war because it's never affected your country as it has others. The only war that really impacted on your country was the Civil War, and that was at the dawn of industrialised warfare, before machine guns, tanks, aircraft and massive artillery really began to take effect. Look at Germany and France, 2 big opponents to the Iraq war. These 2 nations have seen enough of modern warfare to know that it is something that must be avoided at all costs. Russia opposes the war as well, they lost 25 million people in WWII. They understand the cost of modern warfare. They took more casualties (2 million) in the last few weeks of the war than the entire American armed forces did from 1941 - 1945. These people don't want war because it doesn't bring anything but death and hardship. I guess because the US hasn't really been on the recieving end since 1861 they think war is something that happens to other people (don't respond with WWII or Vietnam, in the first case you were fighting an enemy with one tenth your industral capacity and in the other you took 50,000 casualties. Thats an average month's fighting on the western front in WWI.) If anything, Sept 11 should have shown you what war brings, and that was achieved with just 3 aircraft. Think what a 7,000 pound "Daisy Cutter" fuel air explosive can do. Then perhaps you'll see war for what it is: a slaughter.
Saying all this will achieve precisely nothing, Bush and his good friend John Howard (Australia's Bush) are going to go into Iraq anyway, regardless of what the world says. It's sad that almost 60 years after the UN was created to stop conflict the good ol' "Biggest Gun Wins" philosophy is alive and well <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
*This post is not directed at the Americans who oppose this dreadful war. I know you're out there <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> *
How the hell do you expect our economy to turn around if we don't go fight a war? That'll take another decade. Believe it or not, war brings prosperity - that's just one more reason for it.
**** your country, **** my country, **** everyone's 'country' - we are all just bloody human. We are all the same, but different. Repeat. We are all the same, but different. Noone is inferior. Noone is better. We are all the same (but different). Nice little mantra, huh?
How the hell do you expect our economy to turn around if we don't go fight a war? That'll take another decade. Believe it or not, war brings prosperity - that's just one more reason for it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Leaving the <i><b>huge</b></i> moralic issues of a war for economic reasons aside, whoever told you that a war brings prosperity?
Certainly not Alan Greenspan, who fears an all out recession in case of a war, and certainly not anyone at the stock exchanges, which are plummeting with every further soldier that gets moved.
Should you not yet have noticed, during a war, the government is literally blowing money up - money that could be used for improved infrastructure, lower taxes, subventions, or whatever your favorite means of economic stimulus may be.
The <i>only</i> industry profiting from a war is the arms industry, which just can't have enough economic strength to bring a whole nations economy to prosperity.
Take a look at recent wars the U.S. has been in:
<ul>
<li>WW1 - "The Roaring Twenties"
<li>WW2 - "The Baby Boom"
<li>Korea - The late 50's were immensely prosperous
<li>Vietnam - We had an ugly recession/depression during 'Nam, and it began clearing up in the late 70's to bring the early 80's recovery and prosperity.
<li>Gulf War - Ever notice those 8 years of rising prosperity in the US that "Clinton" is supposedly responsible for? We all know that Clinton didn't do a damn thing but sit in his chair getting head, he didn't write a single piece of legislation in 2 terms. He was just a good president to ride out the wave of prosperity.
</ul>
Sure <b>during</b> war we are not prosperous. But soon after it is over the recession/depression begins to fade.
[edit] forgot to put a [ / LIST] on that - so I did now[/edit]