| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Red Vein Kratom  Olympus Myco Polypropylene Grow Bags |
| |||||||
 Edame gone  Registered: 01/14/03 Posts: 1,270 Loc: outta here |
| ||||||
Quote: Rubbish. That's the same logic that hostage-takers use. "Meet our demands or you will be responsible for the deaths we cause" -------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".  In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience. And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him. "Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.
| |||||||
 Murex Reality Hacker  Registered: 07/28/02 Posts: 3,599 Loc: Traped in a shel Last seen: 17 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
"Rubbish. That's the same logic that hostage-takers use. "Meet our demands or you will be responsible for the deaths we cause" "
What? No it isn't. If Hussain leaves now alot can be avoided. -------------------- What if everything around you Isn't quite as it seems? What if all the world you think you know, Is an elaborate dream? And if you look at your reflection, Is it all you want it to be? 
| |||||||
|
infidelGOD illusion  Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
If we don't attack a lot could be avoided
| |||||||
|
Edame gone Registered: 01/14/03 Posts: 1,270 Loc: outta here |
| ||||||
|
Why should he leave his own country? What authority does the US or the UK have to throw him out? The rest of the world is starting to wonder the same thing.
If Muslim extremists told Bush to leave the US or they would launch a Jihad against the States, do you seriously think he would go? Do you seriously think that any world leader would give up their country because they are threatened? This isn't a soap opera or a school playground. Where's the logic in telling Saddam to leave or they will bomb his country (and inevitably kill innocent people)? Why drop thousands of bombs all over the country to get rid of one man? It's insane. Don't get me wrong, I don't support Saddam, but this is not about 'liberating' anyone. China has terrible human rights abuses, but you don't see us trying to free Tibet do you? Why turn a blind eye for so many years, only to decide to use violence at the last minute? The hypocracy stinks. -------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience. And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him. "Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Edame writes:
Why should he leave his own country? Perhaps because he has demonstrated consistently for two dozen years that he is the biggest threat to Iraqis they have seen so far. How many Iraqis died in his two wars of aggression? How many has he killed personally? How many have suffered due to the UN sanctions that he could have had removed at any time merely by fulfilling conditions he agreed to? And that isn't even mentioning the fact that he was not elected by the will of the people. What right does he have to remain in Iraq, let alone in control of Iraq? What authority does the US or the UK have to throw him out? Any country who was part of the coalition that expelled him from Kuwait in 1991 and agreed to spare him if he met the conditions of the surrender has the authority. That's the way the losing aggressor in a war of conquest has been treated throughout recorded history. This is nothing new -- there is no precedent in the settling of wars more firmly established than the concept of conditional surrender. Do you seriously think that any world leader would give up their country because they are threatened? Yes. See Richard M. Nixon as just one recent example. Where's the logic in telling Saddam to leave or they will bomb his country... If he leaves, not a single life is lost -- not even his. He's had a pretty good run so far, don't you think? Two wars of aggression with no punishment, a billion dollars stashed away out of country, an offer of free passage to exile. What is the logic of staying out of stubborn pride? Who benefits? Not the Iraqi people. Not him. Not his family members. As a matter of fact, if he were to resign, they'd probably give him the Nobel Peace Prize and Time Magazine would choose him as "Man of the Year". Don't get me wrong, I don't support Saddam... No, you just support his "right" to stay in power. If I were to gather together a group of revolutionaries, seize control of the government of the Dominican Republic, murder all the opposition, then invade Haiti and lose, then invade Puerto Rico and lose, would you support my claim that I have the right to remain in power? China has terrible human rights abuses, but you don't see us trying to free Tibet do you? Dozens of countries have terrible human rights abuses. One of those countries is now head of the UN Human Rights Commission. Can we say "irony"? The current leaders of the Chinese Politburo have no legitimate right to rule China. However, they are not in violation of a conditional surrender agreement. The point is not that Hussein is a brutal murderer (though he is), the point is that he tried to save his skin by surrendering, then thumbed his nose at the surrender conditions for twelve years. Why turn a blind eye for so many years, only to decide to use violence at the last minute? A blind eye? You do remember 12 years of economic sanctions and dozens of worthless UN resolutions in the same time period, don't you? It is hardly "the last minute". But just for shits and giggles, let's suppose Bush withdraws all the troops, and gives Hussein another year to fulfill even one of the terms of the conditional surrender. Hussein refuses to do so (as he has for the last twelve years). Bush gives him another year. Same result. Finally, Bush's successor says "enough is enough", and gives Hussein the same ultimatum he faces today. Would you still call it a "last minute" threat? If not, why not? The hypocracy stinks. The only hypocrisy is that of the UN. What is the point of telling someone he must abide by a UN resolution if there is no penalty enforced for non-compliance? pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Innvertigo Vote Libertarian!!  Registered: 02/08/01 Posts: 16,296 Loc: Crackerville, Mi |
| ||||||
Quote: But you forgot about that little issue of 1441. Read it and get back to me. --------------------  America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
Edame gone Registered: 01/14/03 Posts: 1,270 Loc: outta here |
| ||||||
Quote: I agree that he has been a tryrant since he first came to power. Why is it then that the US and UK once had strong diplomatic ties with him? Why did the US provide training and support to some of his troops during the Iran-Iraq war? What is the defining moment, or act that turns this man from an ally to an enemy? Where was our support for the Kurds we encouraged to rebel against Saddam, when he turned on them? Many people would also claim that Bush isn't really the people's choice either, it still doesn't give the US the right to decide who gets to stay in power in another country. That goes against the whole idea of democracy, which the US is supposed to be championing. Quote: I would like to see the condition or clause that states this. If this is indeed the case, why doesn't the rest of the world agree? Why are many lawyers the world over now debating the legality of this war? If it's so cut and dry why don't the US and UK try and put it to the UN instead of charging headfirst? I would argue that the terms of this surrender are maybe not quite as clear cut as Bush and Blair would like, otherwise they would have more support than they do. Quote: Was Nixon under threat of war by another country? Totally different situation. Quote: Allegedly civilian lives have already been lost in pre-emptive airstrikes on Iraqi positions in the no-fly zone. Again, it's not our place to force that kind of ultimatum on another country. It is flawed to state that it is somehow Saddam's fault if we kill civilians because he wouldn't leave his own country when we told him to. Who benefits if we drop thousands of tonnes of explosives on the Iraqi people? Quote: No. I disagree with the US/UK's 'right' to remove him through extreme violence. Quote: Exactly, so why is it so 'morally' urgent that we 'liberate' the Iraqi people? What is it about Iraq that demands we do this above all of the other awful dictatorships out there (apart from it being one of the largest remaining oilfields in the world)? Quote: And that makes it ok for them to continue to violate human rights? Quote: A lot of people are claiming this and yet it doesn't wash with the international community. Bush and Blair don't know what to market this war as. One minute we're 'saving' the Iraqi people, next we're finishing an un-finished war, then we're stopping Saddam from using WMDs that he can't prove he doesn't have...and if they could they would also like to pin Saddam as the mastermind of the WTC attacks. Where's the solid proof for any of this? Quote: I'd call allowing crushing sanctions to go on for 12 years turning a blind eye alright (how many thousands of children have died again?). They achieved nothing but to help Saddam stay in power (how can his people rebel against him when they can barely feed themselves?). There were also UN resolutions that relaxed the sanctions because the US wouldn't allow (among other things) basic medical supplies into the country. Is it not exceedingly cruel to enforce 12 years worth of absolute misery with absolutely nothing to show for it? Quote: As France, Germany, China and Russia keep saying, inspections were working. They need more time to act as they have done these last few months. The US and UK have been repeatedly claiming all kinds shit about WMDs and all of their info so far has been deliberately misleading. The supposed 'dossier' that the UK government came up with was nothing more than information plaguarised from, among other things, a 10 year old student thesis. It is actually possible that they don't have any WMDs, as hard as that might be for some people to grasp, and it's impossible for them to prove that they don't. have these weapons. Quote: You mean like the UN telling Israel 30 years ago (resolution 242) to withdraw from the occupied territories? (Something the US continuously vetoes) I'm sure we could go on all night about this, but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, after all, what can anyone do about it now? -------------------- The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame". In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience. And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him. "Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.
| |||||||
|
Murex Reality Hacker Registered: 07/28/02 Posts: 3,599 Loc: Traped in a shel Last seen: 17 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
If we don't attack a lot could be avoided
Like the many lives Saddam will kill in the future with bio-weapons and possably nukes? I see now how short-sighted you are. -------------------- What if everything around you Isn't quite as it seems? What if all the world you think you know, Is an elaborate dream? And if you look at your reflection, Is it all you want it to be?
| |||||||
|
chodamunky Cheers!  Registered: 02/28/02 Posts: 2,030 Loc: sailing the seas |
| ||||||
|
Murex, what's with you these last few days man? How do you know Saddam will use bio weapons and possibly nukes? and then "I see now how short-sighted you are." I don't ever recall you making these types of negative comments before
| |||||||
|
Murex Reality Hacker Registered: 07/28/02 Posts: 3,599 Loc: Traped in a shel Last seen: 17 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
How do you know Saddam will use bio weapons and possibly nukes?
Saddam is a war-monger, he is manufacturing bio-weapons.........now why would he do that? In the future, Iraq could possess nukes, and could use them against countries that do not- and he could pose a threat to America and countries that allready have nukes as well. "I see now how short-sighted you are." I don't ever recall you making these types of negative comments before Well, if someone can't see the possable future logically if we do nothing about Iraq, then you are short-sighted imo. Deal with it. -------------------- What if everything around you Isn't quite as it seems? What if all the world you think you know, Is an elaborate dream? And if you look at your reflection, Is it all you want it to be?
| |||||||
|
silversoul7 Chill the FuckOu   Registered: 10/10/02 Posts: 27,301 Loc: mndfreeze's pupp |
| ||||||
Quote: Hmm...reminds me of a certain current U.S. president... Quote: And I COULD someday own a Ferrari, but that doesn't make it very fucking likely, now does it? Quote: And if someone can't see the possible ramifications of going into Iraq now without U.N. support, then you are short-sighted imo. So you deal with it. --------------------   "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire 
Edited by silversoul7 (03/18/03 03:32 PM)
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Edame writes:
Why is it then that the US and UK once had strong diplomatic ties with him? Why did the US provide training and support to some of his troops during the Iran-Iraq war? What is this obsession the English have with "once upon a time" scenarios? Just because a country once had strong diplomatic ties with a country does not mean they must maintain those ties for all time no matter what that country may do. See France's current stance for a prime example. What is the defining moment, or act that turns this man from an ally to an enemy? When he attacks an ally, refuses to retreat, gets beaten like a gong, ignites the largest ecological disaster in recent times, then pretends for twelve years he will fulfill conditions he has no intention of fulfilling. Many people would also claim that Bush isn't really the people's choice either... Oh, please! It's not even close to being the same thing. it still doesn't give the US the right to decide who gets to stay in power in another country. That goes against the whole idea of democracy, which the US is supposed to be championing. This has nothing to do with the US per se. As I already pointed out, any member of the 1990-91 Gulf War coalition has the right to enforce the conditional surrender. I would like to see the condition or clause that states this. It's all there on the UN website. Look up resolutions 678 and 687, read them, and get back to me. If this is indeed the case, why doesn't the rest of the world agree? There isn't a country in the world that claims Hussein has fulfilled the conditions. Certainly the UN Security council doesn't. The thing is, many countries don't care. It's not their problem, they say. Why are many lawyers the world over now debating the legality of this war? Lawyers will debate anything. If it's so cut and dry why don't the US and UK try and put it to the UN instead of charging headfirst?[ They did. That is why the UN passed yet another resolution (1441). I suggest you read it. How many more useless resolutions do you want? I would argue that the terms of this surrender are maybe not quite as clear cut as Bush and Blair would like, otherwise they would have more support than they do. Then you would argue incorrectly. See above. Was Nixon under threat of war by another country? Totally different situation. Sigh. Hussein has a chance to spare his country grief by doing the honorable thing. He refuses. Nixon had the chance to spare his country grief by doing the honorable thing. He did so. Much as I hated the man, I have to give him credit for putting his country ahead of his political career. Would that Hussein had the decency to do the same. Again, it's not our place to force that kind of ultimatum on another country. Who's place is it, then? And note that the ultimatum was not "forced" on another country, it was given to Saddam Hussein. It is flawed to state that it is somehow Saddam's fault if we kill civilians because he wouldn't leave his own country when we told him to. The whole friggin' situation is Hussein's fault, DUH! Would we be in this position today if he hadn't invaded Kuwait in 1990? Who benefits if we drop thousands of tonnes of explosives on the Iraqi people? No one, least of all Hussein. So why doesn't he resign? More to the point, why don't the Lefties stage some rallies in favor of his resignation? No. I disagree with the US/UK's 'right' to remove him through extreme violence. Then who has the right to remove him? As for "extreme violence", it is crystal clear that that is the only way he will leave power. What is it about Iraq that demands we do this above all of the other awful dictatorships out there Are you saying that Iraq must wait in line till all other awful dictatorships are removed first? Who decides which is the first to go? That can't be it, because you believe no country has the right to remove another country's leader, no matter how he seized power and no matter what atrocities he has committed since attaining it. And that makes it ok for them to continue to violate human rights? Nope. Where did I say that? A lot of people are claiming this and yet it doesn't wash with the international community. The reasons for some members of the international community disapproving of the US's actions has nothing to do with the fact that Hussein has yet to fulfill even one condition of the conditional surrender. Their reasons are many and varied, but not one of them claims Hussein is in compliance. Bush and Blair don't know what to market this war as. One minute we're 'saving' the Iraqi people, next we're finishing an un-finished war, then we're stopping Saddam from using WMDs that he can't prove he doesn't have...and if they could they would also like to pin Saddam as the mastermind of the WTC attacks. When it comes to compelling reasons for deposing Saddam Hussein, there is an embarassment of riches from which to choose. From a legal point of view, the fact is that since the ceasefire was obtained through fraudulent means, it is null and void, and the war may continue. I repeat, this is most emphatically not a new concept. It has been accepted practice in warfare since time immemorial. Where's the solid proof for any of this? You've got it backwards. The onus is not on the UN to prove that he violated the conditions (although he has), it is on Hussein to prove that he has complied. In the case of his biochem weaponry, for example, documentation proving that on such-and-such a date at such-and-such a location, so many tons of VX were destroyed, etc. They achieved nothing but to help Saddam stay in power (how can his people rebel against him when they can barely feed themselves?). There were also UN resolutions that relaxed the sanctions because the US wouldn't allow (among other things) basic medical supplies into the country. Is it not exceedingly cruel to enforce 12 years worth of absolute misery with absolutely nothing to show for it? Of course. The sanctions were the typical "diplomatic pressure" solution proposed by those too gutless to admit it was a mistake not to have marched into Baghdad in 1991. Despite decades of evidence to the contrary, somehow people seem to believe sanctions work. They don't. There would have been less deaths if Baghdad had been captured in 1991. There would have been no need for sanctions had Hussein been captured. And, there will be less deaths in this war than in a further twelve years of sanctions. I remind you once again there would have been no sanctions had Hussein not invaded Kuwait. Or if he had fulfilled the conditions of the surrender. Any misery caused by the sanctions can be laid squarely at the feet of Hussein. And even at this late date the sanctions can be lifted instantly if he leaves. He still has time. As France, Germany, China and Russia keep saying, inspections were working. Bullshit. Working how? There is not one ounce more of bio chem materiel accounted for today than there was when the UN inspection team withdrew in 1998. Give me a specific example, please, besides the crushing of a few missiles. They need more time to act as they have done these last few months. Horseshit. All Hussein has to do is to pull the records showing where and when he disposed of his biochem stocks and hand them to the inspection team. This can be done in a matter of hours, not months. It is actually possible that they don't have any WMDs... No, it isn't. There is no possible way that Hussein would have destroyed all that stuff with not a trace of paperwork. However, even leaving aside that aspect, the other conditions remain unfulfilled after twelve friggin' years. You mean like the UN telling Israel 30 years ago (resolution 242) to withdraw from the occupied territories? If you wish to discuss the many, MANY other countries who have defied the toothless resolutions of the useless appendage known as the United Nations in the last half century, feel free to open another thread, and you and I can debate to our hearts' content. This thread is about Iraq. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
rhizo herb eater Registered: 10/31/02 Posts: 599 Loc: Superposition of Last seen: 6 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Quote: Is this whole thing really Saddam's fault? "So why did Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait? Before the invasion, the US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, said the US would not interfere. It was a reasonable expectation. Saddam was a US ally against Iran, so much so that between 1985 and 1989, dozens of biological agents were shipped to Iraq from the US under licence from the Commerce Department, despite the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds and Shiites since the early 1980s. And Iraq had real grievance against Kuwait. According to Saddam, Kuwait had been exceeding its OPEC oil production quota and this was depressing the price of oil and Iraq's revenue, which was needed to pay for its war with Iran. Saddam believed Saudi Arabia and Kuwait owed part of Iraq's debt for its war against Iran because Iraq was protecting both these countries against Iran. And to add insult to injury, Kuwait was drilling into Iraq's share of the Rumaila oil field which straddles both countries." full article and this... "When Iraq invaded it?s Kuwaiti neighbor, it was only after it received a tacit OK from the Americans. The reason for the invasion was Iraqi anger at Kuwaiti?s practices of what?s called ?slant drilling? into oil resources on Iraqi soil (under it, actually)." full article Concerning the completely "innocent" United States "They have yet to account for their judgment that it was Iran, not Iraq, that posed the primary threat to the Gulf; for building up Iraq so that it thought it could invade Kuwait and get away with it; for encouraging Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs by giving the regime a de facto green light on chemical weapons use; and for turning a blind eye to Iraq's worst atrocities, and then lying about it." sorry, lost link to article I don't think the situation is so simple that one can say, "DUH! It's obviously Saddam's fault" -------------------- An optimist is never pleasantly surprised.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
This business of claiming that because Glaspie indicated that the US had no predetermined sides in disputes between Arab nations it is somehow not Hussein's fault, is really stretching things. That's like a burglar being assured by a homicide cop that the cop has no personal interest in arresting burglars. The burglar then decides this means it is okay to rob a house.
As for justifying the invasion by saying that Kuwait was undercutting prices set by OPEC, or even poaching Iraq's oil through slant-drilling, give me a break! Did Hussein bring up these issues at an OPEC meeting? Nope. His first reaction was to invade Kuwait. Clearly this "slant-drilling" crap was nothing more than a flimsy excuse to invade Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Don't tell me Saudi Arabia was slant-drilling too. Using "slant-drilling" and "price-slashing" as a pretext for the full-scale conquest of Kuwait would be like Canada invading the US if some US fishing boats strayed into Canada's offshore waters (which has happened numerous times) or because the US was manipulating the softwood lumber market. I don't think the situation is so simple that one can say, "DUH! It's obviously Saddam's fault" Then you haven't thought it through. Conquering another country and then igniting the biggest ecological catastrophe of the century as the first option to resolve a minor trade dispute is clearly the fault of the dictator who ordered it. No amount of lame hair-splitting and feeble attempts at "justification" will ever change that. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
My, some of these old post are really classic stuff
 This has nothing to do with the US per se. As I already pointed out, any member of the 1990-91 Gulf War coalition has the right to enforce the conditional surrender. Complete and utter nonsense. The security council alone has the authority to embark on furthur military action. It's all there on the UN website. Look up resolutions 678 and 687, read them, and get back to me. Complete and utter nonsense. Read article 42 of the UN charter and get back to Edame.
| |||||||
|
infidelGOD illusion Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
hehe. that was an interesting read. thanks for bumping it
you know what's funny? they say hindsight is 20/20 but 20/20 is by definition, average
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Red Vein Kratom Olympus Myco Polypropylene Grow Bags |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Wouldn't we all like to see THIS Bush speech? |  Phred |
1,098 | 9 | 09/15/04 03:28 AM by Zahid |
|
 |
Bush Speech |  afoaf |
672 | 5 | 05/25/04 02:37 PM by afoaf |
|
|
Best Bush Speech Analysis I've Seen |  Ancalagon |
590 | 1 | 09/04/04 01:18 PM by JesusChrist |
|
|
Bush Speech - Hilarious re-edit,check link |  CaptBeefheart |
400 | 1 | 02/13/03 04:38 AM by Prisoner#1 |
|
|
Summation of Bush Speech |  Swami |
970 | 8 | 04/14/04 12:11 AM by Swami |
|
|
Bush team helped write Allawi speech to US Congress |  ekomstop |
630 | 4 | 10/01/04 08:54 AM by ekomstop |
|
 |
Bush Increasing Religious Allusions (  1 2 all ) |
 Crapula |
2,139 | 35 | 02/21/03 11:06 AM by luvdemshrooms |
|
|
9/11 families say Bush is exploiting their suffering |  Ellis Dee |
917 | 14 | 04/08/03 02:00 PM by pattern |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 3,427 topic views. 6 members, 0 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||