The U.S. Is a War Nation: Get Over It. [Archive] - Page 3

Whispering Legs

22-02-2005, 15:36

Proven, by whom?

http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)

Next.

That was the ORIGINAL version of Patriot.

We have progressed since then, you know. The original Patriot was NOT designed to hit incoming ballistic missiles.

They modified the software at the last minute to try to do so.

The new missile is called the PAC-3.

PATRIOT battalions with PAC-3 fire units were employed in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) against TBMs. In OIF, PAC-3 interceptors were ripple-fired against ballistic missile threats, a user requirement that was not demonstrated during operational testing. This eliminated the need for a follow-on test to demonstrate this capability. All PATRIOT engagements were conducted in a complex operational environment. Three instances of erroneous engagements between PATRIOT batteries and friendly aircraft also resulted in kills (including one highly evasive RAF Tornado flying very low level at supersonic speed). System performance against TBMs appears to have been highly effective.

Yes, of course the original missile wasn't very effective. But the new one is quite deadly and effective.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo-04h.html

Next.

Corneliu

22-02-2005, 15:41

CanuckHeaven

22-02-2005, 15:43

That was the ORIGINAL version of Patriot.

We have progressed since then, you know. The original Patriot was NOT designed to hit incoming ballistic missiles.

They modified the software at the last minute to try to do so.

The new missile is called the PAC-3.

PATRIOT battalions with PAC-3 fire units were employed in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) against TBMs. In OIF, PAC-3 interceptors were ripple-fired against ballistic missile threats, a user requirement that was not demonstrated during operational testing. This eliminated the need for a follow-on test to demonstrate this capability. All PATRIOT engagements were conducted in a complex operational environment. Three instances of erroneous engagements between PATRIOT batteries and friendly aircraft also resulted in kills (including one highly evasive RAF Tornado flying very low level at supersonic speed). System performance against TBMs appears to have been highly effective.

Yes, of course the original missile wasn't very effective. But the new one is quite deadly and effective.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo-04h.html

Next.
I guess it all depends where you get your news from?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/politics/15missile.html?ex=1109221200&en=6f2bf96ea9eec701&ei=5070

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 - The nation's fledgling missile defense system suffered its third straight test failure when an interceptor rocket failed to launch Sunday night from its base on an island, leaving the target rocket to splash into the Pacific Ocean, the Pentagon said Monday.

Next.

Corneliu

22-02-2005, 15:44

Fairly presumptuous on your part to believe that. :eek:

Then I guess your still in denial that North Korea violated a Bi-Lateral agreement they made with the US?

Corneliu

22-02-2005, 15:45

I guess it all depends where you get your news from?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/politics/15missile.html?ex=1109221200&en=6f2bf96ea9eec701&ei=5070

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 - The nation's fledgling missile defense system suffered its third straight test failure when an interceptor rocket failed to launch Sunday night from its base on an island, leaving the target rocket to splash into the Pacific Ocean, the Pentagon said Monday.

Next.

I can't believe I have to say this.

That is a different system all together. That is out of Fort Greely. Its a software problem.

Next!

Whispering Legs

22-02-2005, 15:46

I guess it all depends where you get your news from?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/politics/15missile.html?ex=1109221200&en=6f2bf96ea9eec701&ei=5070

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 - The nation's fledgling missile defense system suffered its third straight test failure when an interceptor rocket failed to launch Sunday night from its base on an island, leaving the target rocket to splash into the Pacific Ocean, the Pentagon said Monday.

Next.

If you took the time to read the article, you would find out that the missile that failed the test WAS NOT A PAC-3. It was the other new missile being tested for mid-course intercept.

Sheesh. Can't I count on you to know one weapon system from another?

Next!

Corneliu

22-02-2005, 15:46

If you took the time to read the article, you would find out that the missile that failed the test WAS NOT A PAC-3. It was the other new missile being tested for mid-course intercept.

Sheesh. Can't I count on you to know one weapon system from another?

Next!

What do you expect from a Canadian who probably didn't serve in the Canadian military.

CanuckHeaven

22-02-2005, 15:47

Then I guess your still in denial that North Korea violated a Bi-Lateral agreement they made with the US?
Move on from the past and look at what is staring you in the face today. The circumstances have changed. Accept the changes that have been made and deal with that.

Corneliu

22-02-2005, 15:49

Move on from the past and look at what is staring you in the face today. The circumstances have changed. Accept the changes that have been made and deal with that.

They violated a bi-lateral agreement! Why should we try again?

Zeppistan

22-02-2005, 15:52

oh yeah... the Propaganda... it was proven during the first Gulf War... or don't you remember the Scuds being destroyed by PATRIOT MISSILES? Couldn't have missed em... was shown on ALL OF THE NEWS BROADCASTS except Al Jazeria that is.

Of course I remember that propoganda. Too bad that's all it was.... (http://slate.msn.com/id/2080615)

I remember that, shortly after Operation Desert Storm, the first war against Iraq in 1991, the U.S. Army claimed that an earlier model of the Patriot had intercepted 45 out of 47 Iraqi Scuds—a 95 percent success rate. Over the following year, the Army lowered its estimate, stating that Patriots intercepted 79 percent of the Scuds launched over Saudi Arabia and 40 percent of those fired at Israel. These remain the official figures today.

However, even the revisions wildly overstate the Patriot's performance in Desert Storm. A later report by the General Accounting Office concluded that Patriot missiles destroyed only 9 percent of the Scuds they tried to engage. The Israeli Defense Force calculated they'd destroyed just 2 percent. William Cohen, Bill Clinton's secretary of defense, admitted upon leaving office in January 2001, "The Patriot didn't work."

Army officers weren't lying when making those earlier claims, but they were manipulating the fine print. A Patriot was counted as having made a successful "intercept" when it got within lethal range of the Scud and its fuse exploded. By this definition, a Patriot could "intercept" a Scud without necessarily destroying it. As early as July 1991, five months after the completion of Desert Storm, a congressionally mandated report by the Defense Department concluded that, while the Patriot "intercepted a high percentage" of Scuds, it sometimes failed to destroy the Scud's warhead and therefore "did not always prevent damage" to soldiers or civilians below.

Fact is, the Patriot was NOT an effective anti-missile shield against the Scuds, as - saddly - that barracks of soldiers discovered near the end of the war. It made for nice TV at the time, but it was all BS.

Whispering Legs

22-02-2005, 15:53

Whispering Legs

22-02-2005, 15:54

Fact is, the Patriot was NOT an effective anti-missile shield against the Scuds, as - saddly - that barracks of soldiers discovered near the end of the war. It made for nice TV at the time, but it was all BS.

It was a different story during Operation Iraqi Freedom, with the new PAC-3 missile (a completely different missile, software, radar, etc).

Corneliu

22-02-2005, 15:55

Of course I remember that propoganda. Too bad that's all it was.... (http://slate.msn.com/id/2080615)

Fact is, the Patriot was NOT an effective anti-missile shield against the Scuds, as - saddly - that barracks of soldiers discovered near the end of the war. It made for nice TV at the time, but it was all BS.

And as someone stated, the origional patriot was NOT DESIGNED to shoot down missiles.

CanuckHeaven

22-02-2005, 15:58

What do you expect from a Canadian who probably didn't serve in the Canadian military.
If all you have is hollow rhetoric to add, then count me out.

Corneliu

22-02-2005, 16:00

If all you have is hollow rhetoric to add, then count me out.

I'm not the one that is getting its weapons systems confused.

CanuckHeaven

22-02-2005, 16:02

Canuck, I'm still not sure you realize that the missile test you read about in the NYT was NOT a PAC-3. Nor was it the SM-3 Standard.

The missile you were reading about is called the National Missile Defense Ground Based Interceptor.

A totally different missile.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/gbi.htm
Still these missles are not totally accurate (http://www.iht.com/articles/90743.html), and are extremely costly. What with the ongoing costs regarding Iraq and possible future expenses with Iran, who is going to fund all of this?

Whispering Legs

22-02-2005, 16:11

Still these missles are not totally accurate (http://www.iht.com/articles/90743.html), and are extremely costly. What with the ongoing costs regarding Iraq and possible future expenses with Iran, who is going to fund all of this?

You're reading an old story, one that apparently came out right after the intercepts in OIF.

Yes, they were ripple fired. But, you now get 16 missiles for the price of 4.

The main problem for the PAC-3 is the intercept is taking place in the last seconds of flight, and to ensure a high probability of a kill, you have to fire more than one (or you don't get a second chance, given the time constraints). Let's say the Pk is 80 percent (as an example). How many would you have to ripple fire to get a true Pk of 99 percent?

Advantages go to the other systems, SM-3, and in time, the GBI.

SM-3 is also operational, and is a mid-course intercept missile. You have time to take multiple individual shots instead of ripple firing.

GBI has been proven to work as a missile - the problems lie in the battle management software (the radar sees the targets, the software tells the missile to launch and the missile doesn't take off - software problem). In tests independent of the battle managment system, the technology works - the GBI can hit targets.

The SM-3 and GBI are meant to intercept a North Korean Taepo-dong missile carrying a nuclear warhead. Let's say it takes 10 missile firings to stop one North Korean missile. Let's be generous and give the North Koreans 10 nuclear weapons. Would it be worth 100 SM-3 and 100 GBI missiles to make sure that Los Angeles doesn't get toasted? How much is it worth, not only in human costs, or property costs, but political costs?

Lancamore

23-02-2005, 05:44

Move on from the past and look at what is staring you in the face today. The circumstances have changed. Accept the changes that have been made and deal with that.

I agree. Move on, and deal with the situation presented to us.

Bring the world together and end the autocratic dictatorship of Kim Jong-Il once and for all! Why has the UN let this rogue nation endure long enough to acquire nuclear weapons? If the UN were to unify the world and act now, it would bring strength and meaning back to that organization. Perhaps an ultimatum with teeth this time? More than just "serious consequenses"?

Perhaps if the UN and the world presented a united front to North Korea, they would back down and start initiating reforms without military action.

The nuclear issue is very important, but pales in comparison to the starvation and oppression endured by the North Koreans. Let's end this dictatorship.

Islamigood

23-02-2005, 06:25

That song was written by an American experiencing a British naval attack on the U.S. in 1812, you know that right?

And by your generalizations, litterally every nation is a war nation. Except those that apparently were founded upon diplomatic means, which is pretty rare when it comes to nations that make a difference in the world.
I was about too get that point across to this fellow. Written by Francis Scott Key in Maryland. Originially a poem turned too song. The United States does not even have its own Melodies for its patriotic songs. They are all cheap rip offs of old Brittish songs. With the exception of " O beautiful". There has been tlak of making that song the national anthem of the United States because the current one is so difficult to sing.

On a side not... just because we were warmongers in the past does not mean we have to continue to be. You see ther eis somethign that is called progress. Sadly progressive thinking is a bad word in the United States these days. As is the word Liberal. Some one look up liberal in teh dictionary and tell me how thats a bad thing?

Corneliu

23-02-2005, 06:27

I was about too get that point across to this fellow. Written by Francis Scott Keys in Maryland. Originially a poem turned too song. The United States does not even have its own Melodies for its patriotic songs. They are all cheap rip offs of old Brittish songs. With the exception of " O beautiful". There has been tlak of making that song the national anthem of the United States because the current one is so difficult to sing.

It WAS NOT written in Maryland. It was written at sea, on a British Ship by Key. He was there to negotiate a prisoner exchange but was held till after the battle. As for changing the national Anthem, good luck. Can only be done by the US Congress. The Star Spangled Banner has been our National Anthem since 1933.

On a side not... just because we were warmongers in the past does not mean we have to continue to be. You see ther eis somethign that is called progress. Sadly progressive thinking is a bad word in the United States these days. As is the word Liberal. Some one look up liberal in teh dictionary and tell me how thats a bad thing?

I'm a Realist!

CanuckHeaven

23-02-2005, 07:07

It WAS NOT written in Maryland.
Why is this so important to you? You know that it WAS written in Maryland. :eek:

CanuckHeaven

23-02-2005, 07:17

I agree. Move on, and deal with the situation presented to us.

Bring the world together and end the autocratic dictatorship of Kim Jong-Il once and for all! Why has the UN let this rogue nation endure long enough to acquire nuclear weapons? If the UN were to unify the world and act now, it would bring strength and meaning back to that organization. Perhaps an ultimatum with teeth this time? More than just "serious consequenses"?

Perhaps if the UN and the world presented a united front to North Korea, they would back down and start initiating reforms without military action.

The nuclear issue is very important, but pales in comparison to the starvation and oppression endured by the North Koreans. Let's end this dictatorship.
How about we just blame Bush instead? He has the ability to negotiate a peace agreement but since he took office, he has done everything in his power to cripple NK.

http://www.july27.org/faqs_campaign.html

You prefer to end the standoff by use of force? Why?

Islamigood

23-02-2005, 07:26

It WAS NOT written in Maryland. It was written at sea, on a British Ship by Key. He was there to negotiate a prisoner exchange but was held till after the battle. As for changing the national Anthem, good luck. Can only be done by the US Congress. The Star Spangled Banner has been our National Anthem since 1933.

I'm a Realist!
http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~gilbertn/Star-Spangled-Banner.html

Baltimore Maryland was where it was written. I am glad you jumped on me though i like being right (left) :sniper:

CanuckHeaven

23-02-2005, 07:29

http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~gilbertn/Star-Spangled-Banner.html

Baltimore Maryland was where it was written. I am glad you jumped on me though i like being right (left) :sniper:
He is not doing too well on the debate circuit this week. :eek:

Corneliu

23-02-2005, 13:37

http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~gilbertn/Star-Spangled-Banner.html

Baltimore Maryland was where it was written. I am glad you jumped on me though i like being right (left) :sniper:

It wasn't written in Baltimore. It was really written at the Battle of Fort McHenry :sniper:

On a British Flagship no less

Custodes Rana

23-02-2005, 16:10

How about we just blame Bush instead? He has the ability to negotiate a peace agreement but since he took office, he has done everything in his power to cripple NK.

Compared to what Kim Jong-Il has done?

1. Starve his own people: Japan AND South Korea sent 650,000 TONS of rice to North Korea. (The construction of these new half-submerged type grain storage facilities began at the end of 1995, when foreign relief goods from international organizations and western countries were sent to North Korea right after floods damage crops. The construction of these grain storage facilities aroused suspicions that the 150,000 tons of rice provided to North Korea by the ROK Government and the 500,000 tons of rice provided by the Japanese Government were diverted for military purposes.)
CNN: June 11,1996;Citing North Korea's severe food shortage, South Korea, Japan and the United States have pledged $15 million in relief aid for the flood-stricken Communist nation.The nations were responding to last week's international appeal by the United Nations for $43.6 million to help ease the effects of devastating floods in North Korea last summer. Japan, which is donating $6 million, and South Korea, which has pledged $3 million, announced their donations Tuesday. The United States said last week it would provide $6 million.Although North Korea and South Korea never signed a formal peace treaty after the Korean War ended in 1953, Kwon O-Kie, South Korea's minister of unification, said Seoul is donating milk powder and baby formula as a humanitarian gesture.

2. Incarcerate starving people fleeing North Korea. Amnesty International: (Amnesty International is concerned at recent reports that North Koreans held in some places of detention are given little or no food and that many die as a result of starvation and disease. Food shortages have led many people to leave their locality and seek food elsewhere in the country. Since 1997 the North Korean authorities are reported to have established makeshift detention centres to hold homeless people and those who have left their locality or tried to leave the country in order to seek food. Children are also reported to have been detained in such institutions. Most of these reports of abuses have been gathered from aid workers and foreign journalists who interviewed North Koreans in China. Although the information cannot be independently verified, the reports are consistent and suggest a pattern of human rights violations.)
Freedom House:Since 1994, some 2.4 million North Koreans, or ten percent of the population, are estimated to have died from hunger. However, the government still bars international relief agencies from working in many famine-stricken counties for “security reasons.” There were also reports that food aid was diverted to the military and government officials. The food shortage is the result of a combination of floods and droughts in recent years, a legacy of agricultural mismanagement and the end of food subsidies from former Communist states.

3. Amazingly found the money to restart a nuclear weapons program, yet couldn't find the money to feed his own people!
Freedom House:Pyongyang continued its high-risk game of missile and nuclear threats to extract aid from the United States and Japan. On August 31, 1998, North Korea launched a three-stage missile, which flew over the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido and crashed into the Pacific Ocean. Pyongyang claimed that the launch was part of an effort to put a satellite into space.

Zeppistan

23-02-2005, 16:28

It wasn't written in Baltimore. It was really written at the Battle of Fort McHenry :sniper:

On a British Flagship no less

Not entirely trueaccording to the Smithsonian..... (http://americanhistory.si.edu/ssb/6_thestory/6b_osay/fs6b.html)

The original notes for the poem were written on the battleship. The actual poem was completed in his hotel room in Baltimore - as noted.

Francis Scott Key was a gifted amateur poet and hymnist. Inspired by the sight of the American flag flying over Fort McHenry the morning after the bombardment, he scribbled the initial notes for his poem on the back of a letter. Back in Baltimore, he copied the four verses onto paper, probably making more than one copy. The next morning someone printed the poem as a broadside. Shortly afterward two Baltimore newspapers published it, and by mid-October it had appeared in at least 17 other papers in cities up and down the east coast.

They have an image of one of the drafts of the poem - showing corrections/alterations as he worked on it as well.

Frankly though, it's splitting hairs to my mind. Clearly the work was done at both locations - so I'll call this argument a tie.

Haken Rider

23-02-2005, 16:31

I don't get it were the fuzz is about. The thread starter stated that tne USA is a War Nation and liberals and conservatives agreed with it.

Corneliu

23-02-2005, 16:57

Not entirely trueaccording to the Smithsonian..... (http://americanhistory.si.edu/ssb/6_thestory/6b_osay/fs6b.html)

The original notes for the poem were written on the battleship. The actual poem was completed in his hotel room in Baltimore - as noted.

They have an image of one of the drafts of the poem - showing corrections/alterations as he worked on it as well.

Frankly though, it's splitting hairs to my mind. Clearly the work was done at both locations - so I'll call this argument a tie.

I'll agree that its a draw! :)

Lancamore

27-02-2005, 16:46

How about we just blame Bush instead? He has the ability to negotiate a peace agreement but since he took office, he has done everything in his power to cripple NK.

http://www.july27.org/faqs_campaign.html

You prefer to end the standoff by use of force? Why?

I see. Blame Bush for the starvation and oppression forced upon the people of North Korea by their dictator. Sounds like good logic to me! [/sarcasm]

The Lightning Star

27-02-2005, 18:34

I don't get it were the fuzz is about. The thread starter stated that tne USA is a War Nation and liberals and conservatives agreed with it.

I don't get what the fuzz is about either. Probably some people are too ashamed that their country is a war nation, just like the grand Roman and British Empires, the mighty Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and baisically 97% of every country...

CanuckHeaven

27-02-2005, 23:23

I see. Blame Bush for the starvation and oppression forced upon the people of North Korea by their dictator. Sounds like good logic to me! [/sarcasm]
Two interesting points raised in the article that I linked:

1. The United States still has a Cold War mindset regarding the Korean peninsula, although the Cold War is over. The year 2000, however, did bring historic changes: the first joint summit meeting of south and north Korean leaders, and the first time visit of a U.S. official to the D.P.R.K., Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Unfortunately, from the moment that President Bush decided to classify the D.P.R.K. as part of an "Axis of Evil" in his 2002 State of the Union address, a new crisis developed.

2. The Bush administration charges that the D.P.R.K. violated the 1994 Agreed Framework by starting a uranium enrichment program, and as a result, the U.S. has suspended oil shipments, cut off food aid and demanded that north Korea give up this program before any dialog occurs. In response, the D.P.R.K., citing its need for energy, has restarted the plutonium reactors which had been frozen under the 1994 Agreed Framework, and has stipulated that it will relieve the U.S. of its concerns only after the U.S. signs a non-aggression pact with it.

So yeah, I have no problem passing off much of the blame on Bush's "my way or the highway" approach.

Lancamore

28-02-2005, 00:34

I don't get it were the fuzz is about. The thread starter stated that tne USA is a War Nation and liberals and conservatives agreed with it.

I suppose we are, along with every other nation ever to have a military worth considering.

Lancamore

28-02-2005, 00:57

blah blah

The DPRK was founded in 1948. Bush was elected in 2000. A little rounding and you have 50 years of oppression, dictatorship, starvation, forced abortion, religious intolerance, human rights violations, kidnappings, "dissapearances", political prison camps, mass graves, executions, complete censorship, loyalty ratings, arbitrary arrest, torture, and militarization (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27775.htm) before Bush came to office.

Somehow, I have difficulty in believing that it is all his fault.

Give me your evidence and reasoning for thinking that if Bush had spoken kindly of this tyrannical regime, that they would have reversed their militaristic and autocratic policies.

Custodes Rana

28-02-2005, 01:38

Two interesting points raised in the article that I linked:

1. The United States still has a Cold War mindset regarding the Korean peninsula, although the Cold War is over. The year 2000, however, did bring historic changes: the first joint summit meeting of south and north Korean leaders, and the first time visit of a U.S. official to the D.P.R.K., Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Unfortunately, from the moment that President Bush decided to classify the D.P.R.K. as part of an "Axis of Evil" in his 2002 State of the Union address, a new crisis developed.

This caused a famine??

2. The Bush administration charges that the D.P.R.K. violated the 1994 Agreed Framework by starting a uranium enrichment program, and as a result, the U.S. has suspended oil shipments, cut off food aid

Yet they received 650,000 tons of rice from Japan and S.Korea!!
Where did the rice go? In storage bins? :rolleyes:

and demanded that north Korea give up this program before any dialog occurs. In response, the D.P.R.K., citing its need for energy, has restarted the plutonium reactors which had been frozen under the 1994 Agreed Framework, and has stipulated that it will relieve the U.S. of its concerns only after the U.S. signs a non-aggression pact with it.

And North Korea found the money to finance a missile program AND a restart a nuclear weapons program....

So yeah, I have no problem passing off much of the blame on Bush's "my way or the highway" approach.

Probably not! Since to realize that N.Korea has recieved aid(money/food) from the US(and other countries) would show just how bigoted you really are and have to except the fact that N.Korea would rather spend it's money on a nuclear weapons program(nuclear blackmail) than spend it on food to feed it's starving people!

What logic! :rolleyes:
Famine/death(from starvation/confinement) = Bush's fault :rolleyes:
Using money to restart a nuclear weapons program and not buy food to feed starving people = Bush's fault :rolleyes:
Using money to finance a missile program and not buy food to feed starving people = Bush's fault :rolleyes:

1. Starve his own people: Japan AND South Korea sent 650,000 TONS of rice to North Korea. (The construction of these new half-submerged type grain storage facilities began at the end of 1995, when foreign relief goods from international organizations and western countries were sent to North Korea right after floods damage crops. The construction of these grain storage facilities aroused suspicions that the 150,000 tons of rice provided to North Korea by the ROK Government and the 500,000 tons of rice provided by the Japanese Government were diverted for military purposes.)
CNN: June 11,1996;Citing North Korea's severe food shortage, South Korea, Japan and the United States have pledged $15 million in relief aid for the flood-stricken Communist nation.The nations were responding to last week's international appeal by the United Nations for $43.6 million to help ease the effects of devastating floods in North Korea last summer. Japan, which is donating $6 million, and South Korea, which has pledged $3 million, announced their donations Tuesday. The United States said last week it would provide $6 million.Although North Korea and South Korea never signed a formal peace treaty after the Korean War ended in 1953, Kwon O-Kie, South Korea's minister of unification, said Seoul is donating milk powder and baby formula as a humanitarian gesture.

2. Incarcerate starving people fleeing North Korea. Amnesty International: (Amnesty International is concerned at recent reports that North Koreans held in some places of detention are given little or no food and that many die as a result of starvation and disease. Food shortages have led many people to leave their locality and seek food elsewhere in the country. Since 1997 the North Korean authorities are reported to have established makeshift detention centres to hold homeless people and those who have left their locality or tried to leave the country in order to seek food. Children are also reported to have been detained in such institutions. Most of these reports of abuses have been gathered from aid workers and foreign journalists who interviewed North Koreans in China. Although the information cannot be independently verified, the reports are consistent and suggest a pattern of human rights violations.)
Freedom House:Since 1994, some 2.4 million North Koreans, or ten percent of the population, are estimated to have died from hunger. However, the government still bars international relief agencies from working in many famine-stricken counties for “security reasons.” There were also reports that food aid was diverted to the military and government officials. The food shortage is the result of a combination of floods and droughts in recent years, a legacy of agricultural mismanagement and the end of food subsidies from former Communist states.

3. Amazingly found the money to restart a nuclear weapons program, yet couldn't find the money to feed his own people!
Freedom House:Pyongyang continued its high-risk game of missile and nuclear threats to extract aid from the United States and Japan. On August 31, 1998, North Korea launched a three-stage missile, which flew over the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido and crashed into the Pacific Ocean. Pyongyang claimed that the launch was part of an effort to put a satellite into space.

Takuma

28-02-2005, 01:42

Oh. A map of the US empire.
AND
Whats this represent?

It's a map of the British Empire at its greatest extent, refering to the fact that Britain's empire was way greater than the US's.

Takuma

28-02-2005, 01:44

OMFG! Too many pages! My post is irrelivent!

The Lightning Star

28-02-2005, 02:23

My god...

This is my most succesful thread ever!

It may be too succesful, actually. I have lost track of whats going on!

:)

Kadmark

28-02-2005, 02:32

It was more France than you

Which we fully repaid by saving France from German domination TWICE.

CanuckHeaven

28-02-2005, 03:02

:( The DPRK was founded in 1948. Bush was elected in 2000. A little rounding and you have 50 years of oppression, dictatorship, starvation, forced abortion, religious intolerance, human rights violations, kidnappings, "dissapearances", political prison camps, mass graves, executions, complete censorship, loyalty ratings, arbitrary arrest, torture, and militarization (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27775.htm) before Bush came to office.

Somehow, I have difficulty in believing that it is all his fault.

Give me your evidence and reasoning for thinking that if Bush had spoken kindly of this tyrannical regime, that they would have reversed their militaristic and autocratic policies.
Yeah blah, blah to you too.

I gave my reasoning, but you did not read it? Of course Bush is not to blame for the previous 50 years prior to him taking office in 2001, but previous to that there was discussion, a summit if you will in 2000, between North and South Korea. The doors for change, and peace were being opened and in 2002, Bush slammed them shut. Bush is not one for peace talks or due process. His style is shoot first, ask questions later. How unfortunate. :eek:

The Lightning Star

28-02-2005, 03:08

:(
Yeah blah, blah to you too.

I gave my reasoning, but you did not read it? Of course Bush is not to blame for the previous 50 years prior to him taking office in 2001, but previous to that there was discussion, a summit if you will in 2000, between North and South Korea. The doors for change, and peace were being opened and in 2002, Bush slammed them shut. Bush is not one for peace talks or due process. His style is shoot first, ask questions later. How unfortunate. :eek:

Actually, Bush is more of a "Send the CIA, ask questions, don't listen to response, shoot, actually listen to response, fix it up, then get re-ellected" kinda guy.

CanuckHeaven

28-02-2005, 03:26

This caused a famine??

Yet they received 650,000 tons of rice from Japan and S.Korea!!
Where did the rice go? In storage bins? :rolleyes:

And North Korea found the money to finance a missile program AND a restart a nuclear weapons program....

Probably not! Since to realize that N.Korea has recieved aid(money/food) from the US(and other countries) would show just how bigoted you really are and have to except the fact that N.Korea would rather spend it's money on a nuclear weapons program(nuclear blackmail) than spend it on food to feed it's starving people!

What logic! :rolleyes:
Famine/death(from starvation/confinement) = Bush's fault :rolleyes:
Using money to restart a nuclear weapons program and not buy food to feed starving people = Bush's fault :rolleyes:
Using money to finance a missile program and not buy food to feed starving people = Bush's fault :rolleyes:

1. Starve his own people: Japan AND South Korea sent 650,000 TONS of rice to North Korea. (The construction of these new half-submerged type grain storage facilities began at the end of 1995, when foreign relief goods from international organizations and western countries were sent to North Korea right after floods damage crops. The construction of these grain storage facilities aroused suspicions that the 150,000 tons of rice provided to North Korea by the ROK Government and the 500,000 tons of rice provided by the Japanese Government were diverted for military purposes.)
CNN: June 11,1996;Citing North Korea's severe food shortage, South Korea, Japan and the United States have pledged $15 million in relief aid for the flood-stricken Communist nation.The nations were responding to last week's international appeal by the United Nations for $43.6 million to help ease the effects of devastating floods in North Korea last summer. Japan, which is donating $6 million, and South Korea, which has pledged $3 million, announced their donations Tuesday. The United States said last week it would provide $6 million.Although North Korea and South Korea never signed a formal peace treaty after the Korean War ended in 1953, Kwon O-Kie, South Korea's minister of unification, said Seoul is donating milk powder and baby formula as a humanitarian gesture.

2. Incarcerate starving people fleeing North Korea. Amnesty International: (Amnesty International is concerned at recent reports that North Koreans held in some places of detention are given little or no food and that many die as a result of starvation and disease. Food shortages have led many people to leave their locality and seek food elsewhere in the country. Since 1997 the North Korean authorities are reported to have established makeshift detention centres to hold homeless people and those who have left their locality or tried to leave the country in order to seek food. Children are also reported to have been detained in such institutions. Most of these reports of abuses have been gathered from aid workers and foreign journalists who interviewed North Koreans in China. Although the information cannot be independently verified, the reports are consistent and suggest a pattern of human rights violations.)
Freedom House:Since 1994, some 2.4 million North Koreans, or ten percent of the population, are estimated to have died from hunger. However, the government still bars international relief agencies from working in many famine-stricken counties for “security reasons.” There were also reports that food aid was diverted to the military and government officials. The food shortage is the result of a combination of floods and droughts in recent years, a legacy of agricultural mismanagement and the end of food subsidies from former Communist states.

3. Amazingly found the money to restart a nuclear weapons program, yet couldn't find the money to feed his own people!
Freedom House:Pyongyang continued its high-risk game of missile and nuclear threats to extract aid from the United States and Japan. On August 31, 1998, North Korea launched a three-stage missile, which flew over the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido and crashed into the Pacific Ocean. Pyongyang claimed that the launch was part of an effort to put a satellite into space.
This is all in the past. North Korea met with South Korea in 2000 to move forward and Bush has stepped all over that process, and refuses bi-lateral negotiations that have been requested by NK. IMHO, I do not believe that Bush wants a negotiated settlement.

Do I blame NK for starting their nuclear program up in light of all the Bush threats? The answer is a simple no. Bush continues to make the world a more dangerous place due to his heavy handed approach. He has backed both Iran and NK into a corner much like he did with Iraq. The only problem is that Iran and NK stand to give the US far more headaches than did the toothless Iraqis.

The Lightning Star

28-02-2005, 03:33

*sigh*

All this trouble with N Korea and Iran could easily be solved if the American people hadn't turned soft. If we still had the old mentality(actually, a Modern Version would be better), we would just send our Uber-large and well trained Army into Iran, and then give the Japs and S. Koreans weapons and say "Look, the North Koreans are looking at ye funny! Go invade!".

Then the problem would be solved. Sure, a helluva lot of people would be dead, but at least most of them would be Iranian, S Korean, North Korean,or Japanese.

The Lightning Star

28-02-2005, 03:35

Custodes Rana

28-02-2005, 03:51

Question: Do you actually think N Korea is a good nation?

Money says his answer blames Bush for all of N.Korea's ills...

New York and Jersey

28-02-2005, 03:51

This is all in the past. North Korea met with South Korea in 2000 to move forward and Bush has stepped all over that process, and refuses bi-lateral negotiations that have been requested by NK. IMHO, I do not believe that Bush wants a negotiated settlement.

Do I blame NK for starting their nuclear program up in light of all the Bush threats? The answer is a simple no. Bush continues to make the world a more dangerous place due to his heavy handed approach. He has backed both Iran and NK into a corner much like he did with Iraq. The only problem is that Iran and NK stand to give the US far more headaches than did the toothless Iraqis.

..They met in 2000 and in 2001 there was a skirmish between North Korean and South Korean patrol boats. Frankly Kim Jong Il is just as hostile to South Korea as Kim Il Sung, the only difference is that Jong Il realizes that the only way he can get what he wants is through blackmail.

Sgeir

28-02-2005, 03:52

This is all in the past. North Korea met with South Korea in 2000 to move forward and Bush has stepped all over that process, and refuses bi-lateral negotiations that have been requested by NK. IMHO, I do not believe that Bush wants a negotiated settlement.

Do I blame NK for starting their nuclear program up in light of all the Bush threats? The answer is a simple no. Bush continues to make the world a more dangerous place due to his heavy handed approach. He has backed both Iran and NK into a corner much like he did with Iraq. The only problem is that Iran and NK stand to give the US far more headaches than did the toothless Iraqis.

Did you forget about Clinton having bi-lateral neogotiations with North Korea, pledging money, food and what not. Where has it gotten us??? To the exact same spot as we were before that, with NK trying to get nukes. NK only wants bi-lateral talks because they want stuff from us, and with unilateral talks they have less bargining power. By bribing countries to do what we want, its only going to get them to want more and more from us. It has to stop some where, and its better to stop it before it gets started then after we have been giving them stuff for 20 or 30 years.

CanuckHeaven

28-02-2005, 04:12

Money says his answer blames Bush for all of N.Korea's ills...Well then you lose. Bush is responsible for escalating the problems that were already existing.

I think you need to re-evaluate your political compass? According to your rating, we are fairly close on the scale, yet we seem so diametrically opposed?

I think mine is fairly accurate.

Lancamore

28-02-2005, 04:53

Again, canuckhaven, what makes you think that the year 2000 was about to ring in change and reform in North Korea? At that very time, they were pursuing a secret nuclear program (as we have already established and as the DPRK admitted in 2002). Someone mentioned the naval skirmish which occured not long after the meeting, the biggest in years between North and South. This hardly sounds like the overtures of peace to me.

I am proud of George W. Bush for standing up and labeling North Korea as the conniving dictatorship that it is. 50 years of tolerance, complacency and ignoring the glaring human rights violations have brought us a rogue nation with nuclear ambitions. What makes you think that a little more complacency and a little more "diplomatic tone" in a single speech would have changed the nature of North Korea?

Too long has the world as a whole tolerated North Korea and other dictatorships. It is always easy and convenient for the people of the world to ignore and forget their fellow men and women who suffer oppression.

CanuckHeaven

28-02-2005, 05:38

CanuckHeaven

28-02-2005, 05:42

..They met in 2000 and in 2001 there was a skirmish between North Korean and South Korean patrol boats. Frankly Kim Jong Il is just as hostile to South Korea as Kim Il Sung, the only difference is that Jong Il realizes that the only way he can get what he wants is through blackmail.
So how do you suggest an end to the stalemate?

New York and Jersey

28-02-2005, 05:46

So how do you suggest an end to the stalemate?

Hope Kim Jong Il dies soon. There is no rational with someone who's brainwashed his people to believe he's a living God to the point where he believes in the propoganda himself.

Corneliu

28-02-2005, 06:08

His successor though could pick up where he left off.

New York and Jersey

28-02-2005, 06:18

His successor though could pick up where he left off.

As far as I know he has no children, and hasnt appointed a successor..those people are gonna be crushed, and wont have nearly the same backing for the new dear leader.

Corneliu

28-02-2005, 06:30

As far as I know he has no children, and hasnt appointed a successor..those people are gonna be crushed, and wont have nearly the same backing for the new dear leader.

You have a point but you said it yourself that we don't know if he has children or if he has pointed a successor. He could have and we just don't know about it.

CanuckHeaven

28-02-2005, 06:41

Hope Kim Jong Il dies soon. There is no rational with someone who's brainwashed his people to believe he's a living God to the point where he believes in the propoganda himself.
This still doesn't answer the question? The successor will still inherit a hostile adversary in the US?

New York and Jersey

28-02-2005, 06:46

This still doesn't answer the question? The successor will still inherit a hostile adversary in the US?

I'm sorry the world isnt black and white. There isnt an answer to every question. North Korea is hostile, and unfortunately under this little 'dynansty' it doesnt appear as if it'll change much except for false gestures of reconciliation only to do something incredibly hostile a few months afterwards. What would you do?

CanuckHeaven

28-02-2005, 07:07

I'm sorry the world isnt black and white. There isnt an answer to every question. North Korea is hostile, and unfortunately under this little 'dynansty' it doesnt appear as if it'll change much except for false gestures of reconciliation only to do something incredibly hostile a few months afterwards. What would you do?
Since the US along with South Korea, has a ceasefire agreement with NK, the US should start meaningful bi-lateral discussions. However, having said that, I do believe that a meaningful peace will take a long time to develop and mature.

New York and Jersey

28-02-2005, 07:19

Since the US along with South Korea, has a ceasefire agreement with NK, the US should start meaningful bi-lateral discussions. However, having said that, I do believe that a meaningful peace will take a long time to develop and mature.

Maybe if the North Koreans stopped for two minutes trying to plot subversions of the South then maybe bilateral talks could take place.

Maniaca

28-02-2005, 21:31

Hey...I thought this thread went dormant at sixteen pages...then I log on today and it's at 38. I have no idea what anybody said, so I'll just pick up from here.

Alastioch

28-02-2005, 22:08

Sorry to go away from the subject, but back to the origin of the thread...

I am serious here. The United States, since its creation, has always been a war nation. Like the states we have replaced(such as Britain, Germany, France, Russia), our nation revolves around our ability to wage war. Now, what I don't get is why you people can't come to terms with that! Just because it's a new millenia doesn't mean everything has to change! Do you think then it went from 3001 B.C.E. to 3000 B.C.E. everything changed? Hell no! When it changed from 1 B.C.E. to 1 C.E.? No! So why should it now? Sure, the world is different than it was 2,000 years ago, but that's no reason for the entire world to change in a blink of an eye. The sooner you accept that the U.S. is a war nation, and always will be, the better.

I've got an idea, maybe we should destroy every city in the USA, and kill about 1/4 of her population, leaving no town or person untouched, and then see if America is a war nation.

Europe learnt the hard way, I just hope America doesn't have to learn the hard way too. It may be fun for you to sit at home and watch your army blow stuff up, but would you like those bombs to be falling on your house?

Lancamore

28-02-2005, 22:51

Sorry to go away from the subject, but back to the origin of the thread...

I've got an idea, maybe we should destroy every city in the USA, and kill about 1/4 of her population, leaving no town or person untouched, and then see if America is a war nation.

Europe learnt the hard way, I just hope America doesn't have to learn the hard way too. It may be fun for you to sit at home and watch your army blow stuff up, but would you like those bombs to be falling on your house?

Thankfully, the US does not engage in the brutal and all-encompasing warfare of the past. Technology is always working to reduce civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.

CanuckHeaven

01-03-2005, 03:30

Thankfully, the US does not engage in the brutal and all-encompasing warfare of the past. Technology is always working to reduce civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.
Tell that to the people of Fallujah?

http://www.kumawar.com/FallujahPoliceStationRaid/m6.m.satphoto.jpg

http://www.jca.apc.org/stopUSwar/Iraq/Images/fallujah-park.jpg

The Lightning Star

01-03-2005, 03:34

Tell that to the people of Fallujah?

http://www.kumawar.com/FallujahPoliceStationRaid/m6.m.satphoto.jpg

http://www.jca.apc.org/stopUSwar/Iraq/Images/fallujah-park.jpg

Casualties happen, Canuck. You know that. Besides, why would we want to slaughter the innocents of Fallujah? It would do nothing to help us, only hurt us.

But yes, certain operations could have been more...efficent...

CanuckHeaven

01-03-2005, 03:54

Casualties happen, Canuck. You know that. Besides, why would we want to slaughter the innocents of Fallujah? It would do nothing to help us, only hurt us.

But yes, certain operations could have been more...efficent...
I was replying to Lancamore's less than honest response:

Originally Posted by Lancamore

Thankfully, the US does not engage in the brutal and all-encompasing warfare of the past. Technology is always working to reduce civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.

Do people really expect others to believe the propaganda put forth when pictures are worth a 1,000 words?

Corneliu

01-03-2005, 03:57

The Lightning Star

01-03-2005, 03:59

I was replying to Lancamore's less than honest response:

Originally Posted by Lancamore

Thankfully, the US does not engage in the brutal and all-encompasing warfare of the past. Technology is always working to reduce civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.

Do people really expect others to believe the propaganda put forth when pictures are worth a 1,000 words?

While Lancamore may have gone a bit overboard, his basic message is true. We don't do the old fashioned thing(which is to pound the city into rubble, napalm the rubble, and shoot the survivors), and we try to damage as little non-combatant stuff as possible. Why? Because it isn't in our interests. If we killed all the innocent Civilians in Fallujah and damaged it's infrastructure in the long-term, it would not be good for us. Our military commanders aren't stupid. Our ellected leaders may be, but not our military commanders. They are the best, and they know what they are doing.

CanuckHeaven

01-03-2005, 04:13

How many of those are legal civilians and how many were insurgents/terrorists?
I don't know but maybe you have the answer?

Corneliu

01-03-2005, 04:15

I don't know but maybe you have the answer?

I don't either but since you seem to be the foremost expert on the Iraq War[/sarcasm] I thought you would have the numbers.

CanuckHeaven

01-03-2005, 04:27

I don't either but since you seem to be the foremost expert on the Iraq War[/sarcasm] I thought you would have the numbers.
I think the pictures speak for themselves? There is a lot of death and destruction going on in Iraq, courtesy of coalition forces and the insurgency that sprang forth from the illegal US occupation.

The numbers range from over 10,000 to 200,00. I suppose the real number is in between.

The foremost experts on Iraq are those that have survived this brutal experience?

Corneliu

01-03-2005, 04:32

I think the pictures speak for themselves? There is a lot of death and destruction going on in Iraq, courtesy of coalition forces and the insurgency that sprang forth from the illegal US occupation.

I'll ignore the illegal occupation part but I am glad that you included the insurgency into your post. Though I think the insurgents/terrorists have killed more than the US has personally.

The numbers range from over 10,000 to 200,00. I suppose the real number is in between.

Yea it is inbetween but I think it is less than 50,000. We'll never know the TRUE CIVILIAN casualties.

The foremost experts on Iraq are those that have survived this brutal experience?

Like my 2 cousins and my dad! All 3 of which have been over there. My dad was also involved in the 1st Gulf War too.

CanuckHeaven

01-03-2005, 05:03

Yea it is inbetween but I think it is less than 50,000. We'll never know the TRUE CIVILIAN casualties.
Which I think is 50,000 too many, if that is the number for today.
Like my 2 cousins and my dad! All 3 of which have been over there. My dad was also involved in the 1st Gulf War too.
I was thinking more along the lines of the people of Iraq who will have to live the legacy inflicted upon them by the US.

People who have lost their homes, their loved ones, their dignity, and their resources.

Those are the true victims. The other victims are the soldiers who have lost their limbs or their lives defending a patch of sand, that they probably wouldn't have had to defend if there wasn't oil underneath it.

Corneliu

01-03-2005, 05:23

Which I think is 50,000 too many, if that is the number for today.

I don't know what the number is but we do have to separate the insurgents/terrorists from the actual civilians.

I was thinking more along the lines of the people of Iraq who will have to live the legacy inflicted upon them by the US.

As opposed to those that have to live with losing loved ones to Saddam Hussein? Who don't know what happened to them? The people who were buried in mass graves?

People who have lost their homes, their loved ones, their dignity, and their resources.

As opposed to getting killed for raising a voice of dissent against Saddam Hussien? For having your villiges gassed because you weren't of the right persuasion? As opposed to being arrested because the guy next door didn't like you?

Those are the true victims. The other victims are the soldiers who have lost their limbs or their lives defending a patch of sand, that they probably wouldn't have had to defend if there wasn't oil underneath it.

I love how you still think this was an oil war when in fact it wasn't. What about Saddam's victims? Where do they fit into this? The soldiers at least were smart and surrendered. The Republican Guard? Those were the fighters and those were destroyed.

CanuckHeaven

01-03-2005, 06:20

I don't know what the number is but we do have to separate the insurgents/terrorists from the actual civilians.
Still there are way too many deaths and if you go back to the UN sanctions, many more died.
As opposed to those that have to live with losing loved ones to Saddam Hussein? Who don't know what happened to them? The people who were buried in mass graves?
Two points here:

1. The US supported Saddam even when he was using chemicals against Iran, so your point is lost.

2. There are still conflicting stories regarding the many deaths of Kurds. Some still insist that it was the Iranians that used the deadly gas, not Saddam.

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm

http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=1920

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/iraq/kurds.shtml

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1991/12/12p10b.htm

http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/gassing_of_kurds.htm

Blow your brains out on Google (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=iranians+gassed+kurds&meta=)

As opposed to getting killed for raising a voice of dissent against Saddam Hussien? For having your villiges gassed because you weren't of the right persuasion? As opposed to being arrested because the guy next door didn't like you?
Again I refer you to US support of Saddam.

I love how you still think this was an oil war when in fact it wasn't.
The sooner you get your head around the fact that the US is there to protect their oil future the better?

What about Saddam's victims?
What about the US victims.....Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, North Korea, Indonesia, East Timor, Nicarauga, Chile, Lebanon, Laos, Cambodia, etc? Countless millions!!

Where do they fit into this?
Yes, where do these victims fit into the US scheme of things?

Yes Saddam was a bad dude, but only a bit player on the US stage.

Corneliu

01-03-2005, 15:13

Still there are way too many deaths and if you go back to the UN sanctions, many more died.

Thanks to Saddam's stupidity. If he wasn't trying to acquire WMD or invaded Kuwait, he wouldn't have had all of those sanctions.

Two points here:

1. The US supported Saddam even when he was using chemicals against Iran, so your point is lost.

I love it how you pull this out of your ass everytime someone mentions Saddam and his atrocities.

As opposed to those that have to live with losing loved ones to Saddam Hussein? Who don't know what happened to them? The people who were buried in mass graves?

Can you please answer this without the "US supported Saddam so your point is lost" line or are you to dense to answer it?

2. There are still conflicting stories regarding the many deaths of Kurds. Some still insist that it was the Iranians that used the deadly gas, not Saddam.

I love conspiracies don't you?

Again I refer you to US support of Saddam.

Stop mentioning this and ANSWER THE DAMN POST!

As opposed to getting killed for raising a voice of dissent against Saddam Hussien? For having your villiges gassed because you weren't of the right persuasion? As opposed to being arrested because the guy next door didn't like you?

Again, can you answer these without the "US supported Saddam" line?

The sooner you get your head around the fact that the US is there to protect their oil future the better?

The sooner you realize the atrocities committed by Saddam, maybe you have a better understanding why the people were cheering when we entered Baghdad and why they torn down the statue of Saddam!

What about the US victims.....Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, North Korea, Indonesia, East Timor, Nicarauga, Chile, Lebanon, Laos, Cambodia, etc? Countless millions!!

Yea countless millions alright. Most of whom died in communist regimes. Yea you heard right! Communists or tyrannical regimes. Still what about Saddam's victims?

Yes, where do these victims fit into the US scheme of things?

Lebanon is being taken care of by themselves. Watch the news if you dont believe me. East Timor is also settled down again. Indonesia? Just had a tsunami and we are helping with the relief. China? They are starting to turn to capitalism.

Yes Saddam was a bad dude, but only a bit player on the US stage.

Your dilusional since he came out and declared that he would attack America if he possible could do it.

The Lightning Star

02-03-2005, 02:15

Y'know, people like Corneliu and CanuckHeaven make me sick. You guys won't even listen to what the other side is saying. Sure you hear what they are saying, but you don't look into it and consider "Hmmm, he may have a point." I'm a republican-supporter, but when a democrat/democrat supporter says something that makes sense(such as Embryonic Stem-cells are good, yay for human rights, and Homosexuals have a right to get married), I agree with them. Whenever I make a good point(such as sending jobs overseas is good for the poor people that are getting jobs, communism(at least in practice) sux big time, and that everyone should try to set aside their differences and work together), sensible people listen. People like you two, however, won't budge. While that is good in some situations, it is absolutely horrible if you are A. Trying to convince people with another idea of something, B. You are trying to sound like a person who isn't a mindless drone, or C. You are trying to have a civilized conversation.

Unaha-Closp

02-03-2005, 03:21

As a war nation it would be nice if America could make a decent effort to win it's wars.

Most Recent Example:

In the process of it's early 2001-2002 war on terrorism (Al Quaeda War) America attacked a country which accepted funding to set up terrorist training bases. It changed the government to one that did not allow training bases. Then America moved on to it's war in Iraq. The war in Iraq has left America in a vulnerable position in the war on terrorism. Al Quaeda has provided funding and personel to fight America in Iraq as well as continuing to be a threat as a terrorist organisation capable of killing Americans in America.

CanuckHeaven

02-03-2005, 05:26

Y'know, people like Corneliu and CanuckHeaven make me sick. You guys won't even listen to what the other side is saying. Sure you hear what they are saying, but you don't look into it and consider "Hmmm, he may have a point."
Well I can only speak for myself here, but I tend to back up most of my posts with references when requested, and many times with any post that I offer for consideration. Now it has been my experience that if someone calls for proof, you better be able to provide some detail. Now the problem I have with Cornlieu is that he will make a statement and I will ask him for proof, which he is very reluctant to provide, (mostly because I think he is unable to), and instead, he will ask me to prove what HE stated is not true. Well I am sorry but I do not believe that to be a credible debating tactic at all.

So we will go back and forth and it appears all he wants to do is challenge what I have posted without providing his "facts". In the last volley, he stated that Saddam was a bad guy, and I noted that the US backed Saddam while he was a "bad guy". Well Cornlieu didn't like that answer. So he detailed the atrocities committed by Saddam and I pointed him to the large number of dead that had occurred due to US military interventions or support for dictators around the world in countries such as Cambodia, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaraugua, Iran, etc. and that is still not acceptable for counter argument?

Everyone likes to point to Saddam as killing many people, but he is small potatoes compared to the countries that I mentioned, not to forget what happened in Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, Lebanon, etc. We are talking about millions of people.

The bottom line, is that the US backed Saddam, gave him WMD, gave him tech support to fight against the Iranians, and when Saddam was gassing the Iranians, the US didn't break off diplomatic relations, nor did the US condemn those actions. However, when it appreared that Iraq might defeat the Iranians, the Us started supplying arms to the Iranians. Both sides were US puppets in the scheme of things.

Initially I supported the US attack against Afghanistan, but after the US invaded Iraq, I lost a lot of respect for Bush and his administration and that loss of respect was worldwide. Now the Bush apologists want to make excuses for the invasion of Iraq and the excuses just don't add up. So we dance back and forth, and I will keep going because I think the invasion of Iraq reeks of US imperialism, and has made the world more dangerous, and of course Cornlieu thinks Bush can do no wrong, and that everything is going well.

Lancamore

02-03-2005, 05:33

I was replying to Lancamore's less than honest response:

Originally Posted by Lancamore

Thankfully, the US does not engage in the brutal and all-encompasing warfare of the past. Technology is always working to reduce civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.

Do people really expect others to believe the propaganda put forth when pictures are worth a 1,000 words?

I believe firmly that my response was honest. War is hell. No argument there. No matter how hard we try, there will ALWAYS be civilian casualties and infrastructural damage.

Your first picture was of a rather intact looking city. Compare it to the ruined cities of WWII. Actually, don't bother. There is no comparison.

Your second picture was of a row of graves. Yes, the people who decide to fight the US military generally end up dead. As I have said before, there are unavoidable and regrettable civilian casualties as well.

The warfare conducted by the US today is pretty damn clean and painless compared to wars of the past, thank you. (Note the "compared to wars of the past", and don't quote me as saying warfare is clean and painless, please.)

Lancamore

02-03-2005, 05:35

While Lancamore may have gone a bit overboard, his basic message is true. We don't do the old fashioned thing(which is to pound the city into rubble, napalm the rubble, and shoot the survivors), and we try to damage as little non-combatant stuff as possible. Why? Because it isn't in our interests. If we killed all the innocent Civilians in Fallujah and damaged it's infrastructure in the long-term, it would not be good for us. Our military commanders aren't stupid. Our ellected leaders may be, but not our military commanders. They are the best, and they know what they are doing.

Thank you. Too few people seem to realize this.

Lancamore

02-03-2005, 05:37

the legacy inflicted upon them by the US.

Yep. Let's inflict democracy and freedom on them.

Lancamore

02-03-2005, 05:54

2. There are still conflicting stories regarding the many deaths of Kurds. Some still insist that it was the Iranians that used the deadly gas, not Saddam.

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm

http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=1920

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/iraq/kurds.shtml

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1991/12/12p10b.htm

http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/gassing_of_kurds.htm

Your sources are nearly laughable. The one that does not openly and vigorously attack Bush (GREENLEFT.org? come on! Can I cite Bush's political websites??) mentions "Zionist-controlled media" in the first sentance or two. Try Wikipedia, something a little less biased:

"Thus, while some facts surrounding the incident remain murky, most evidence and analyses indicate that the gas attack was an Iraqi attack on Iranian forces, pro-Iranian Kurdish forces and Halabja's citizens during one of the major battles of the Iran-Iraq War" link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack)

Again I refer you to US support of Saddam.
Therefore... we have no justification to say he was wrong now? I also wish the US Government would admit mistakes once in a while, but just because we made a mistake doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything about it.

What about the US victims.....Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, North Korea, Indonesia, East Timor, Nicarauga, Chile, Lebanon, Laos, Cambodia, etc? Countless millions!!

Do we have to start this one again? Every nation in history that has occupied a position of power similar to ours has incurred a corresponding list of victims. We made mistakes. At least we try.

CanuckHeaven

02-03-2005, 06:56

Thanks to Saddam's stupidity. If he wasn't trying to acquire WMD or invaded Kuwait, he wouldn't have had all of those sanctions.
YOU gave him WMD!! You gave him the go ahead to invade Kuwait (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html), but you don't want to believe that.

Two points here:

1. The US supported Saddam even when he was using chemicals against Iran, so your point is lost.

I love it how you pull this out of your ass everytime someone mentions Saddam and his atrocities.
I pull it out because it is TRUE!!!

Originally Posted by Corneliu
As opposed to those that have to live with losing loved ones to Saddam Hussein? Who don't know what happened to them? The people who were buried in mass graves?

Can you please answer this without the "US supported Saddam so your point is lost" line or are you to dense to answer it?
I bloody well answered it and gave you a countervailing view and posted many web sites.....

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%...GaseousLies.htm

http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=1920

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/iraq/kurds.shtml

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1991/12/12p10b.htm

http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~...ng_of_kurds.htm

Blow your brains out on Google (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=iranians+gassed+kurds&meta=)

and all you can state is......

I love conspiracies don't you?
Well prove that they ARE conspiracies....go ahead and bring forth YOUR proof. Where is your honest rebuttal?

Then you go right back at it again:

Originally Posted by Corneliu
As opposed to getting killed for raising a voice of dissent against Saddam Hussien? For having your villiges gassed because you weren't of the right persuasion? As opposed to being arrested because the guy next door didn't like you?
So naturally I state:

Again I refer you to US support of Saddam.

And of course that ticks you off, so you state:
Originally Posted by Corneliu
Stop mentioning this and ANSWER THE DAMN POST!
The truth is you supported a dictator and you gave him WMD, and when he used them you didn't say squat. The US has supported many dictators (Pinochet, Suharto, and Pol Pot to name a few), and has given them armaments to kill millions of people, so why shouldn't I mention your support of Saddam?

Originally Posted by Corneliu
Again, can you answer these without the "US supported Saddam" line?
Ummmm NO!!

Originally Posted by Corneliu
The sooner you realize the atrocities committed by Saddam, maybe you have a better understanding why the people were cheering when we entered Baghdad and why they torn down the statue of Saddam!
Yeah and the people will be cheering when you leave!!

Originally Posted by Corneliu
Yea countless millions alright. Most of whom died in communist regimes. Yea you heard right! Communists or tyrannical regimes. Still what about Saddam's victims?
Communist regimes? NOT!! Dictatorships that were supported by US covert actions and arms supplies. You ask.....What about Saddam's victims? And I say ......What about Pol Pot's victims? What about General Suharto's victims? What about Augusto Pinochet's victims?

Why is it, that where there is US involvement there are so many victims?

Originally Posted by Corneliu
Lebanon is being taken care of by themselves. Watch the news if you dont believe me.
One or two days and everything is okay huh? You are an idealist?

Originally Posted by Corneliu
East Timor is also settled down again.
At what cost?
Originally Posted by Corneliu
Indonesia? Just had a tsunami and we are helping with the relief.
The whole world is helping with relief. :eek: What about the US supported death and destruction there?
Originally Posted by Corneliu
China? They are starting to turn to capitalism.
CHINA? What has China got to do with this?

So in summary, I state:

Yes Saddam was a bad dude, but only a bit player on the US stage.

Originally Posted by Corneliu
Your dilusional since he came out and declared that he would attack America if he possible could do it.
I am delusional? He might have stated that but let's be honest, he had absolutely NO ability to do so. He couldn't even fly airplanes in his own country, and he had no WMD, and the UN inspectors were proving that on a daily basis.

World Opinion?

Feb. 15, 2003: 11 Million Rally Against War (http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/102702_pictures_of_anti.htm)

America (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/protestphotos.html)

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/iraq_allies.jpg

OIL (http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html)

New York and Jersey

02-03-2005, 07:17

I'm tired of hearing this war was for oil, this war was for freedom.

Lets get something straight, nations have been fighting over resources for hundreds of years. Dont like it? You dont have to. You're not American. You dont benefit and its not to your detrement that oil prices world wide drop a few dollars. Sound harsh? It is, welcome to the global economy. Dont like it? Amish community in Pennsylvania will welcome you.

The US isnt the only nation to have supplied them with WMD, Russia did so as well. Those things also have a halflife, the stuff we gave him in the early-mid 80s wouldnt account for the stuff found and destroyed throughout the 90s by UN weapons inspectors.

Why did the US go into Iraq?
1)George Bush may have actually thought Iraq had WMDs
2)Syria and Iran border the area
3)Oil(which leads to why there was opposition to US military involement in Iraq. Russia's Lukoil had claims in Northern Iraq and France was lining up to take claims to rebuild Iraq's oil infustructure)

You dont like the war in Iraq? Tough. The US is there for the long run. No amount of bitching from Canada will pull troops out of there faster. Even the Japanese ponyed up forces to send to the region. They obviously see a good future from a stable Iraq. Unfortunately that stability is going to come through an occupation until a government, and working constitution get rolling. Sometimes that takes 1-2 decades, sometimes it takes four(Japan and Korea respectively.). Iraq has a vast oil wealth to fall on so it wont be like Haiti where the US goes in, puts back the former President in power, leaves and the nation is to poor to do anything.

Now frankly, the US put Saddam in power, but guess what, we didnt arm him. Because Lockheed Martin does not make MiGs and Mirages nor does General Dynamics Land Systems make T-62s or 72s. There are plenty of countries at fault for Saddam...but by your logic, the allies were wrong for taking on Hitler. It was their policies which allowed him to rise to power. And it was their policies which allowed him to take Austria, the Czech Republic, and continue on. The logic doesnt follow through because then that individuals arent allowed to fix their mistakes on any level.

What one administration did in the past does not mean the current administration is a hypocrite. Policies change. Presidents change. The US is a country where a President either comes every four years or every eight years at most. Our leaders dont stay for 12-15-20 years in positions of power long enough to be considered hypocritical on any aspect.

As for the long debated we told Saddam it was okay to invade. I'm sorry thats your opinion, but frankly the Ambassador was vague. Vague enough that Saddam interpeted it the way you wanted to. And if we did say it was okay for Saddam to invade, then why the sudden turn around? It would have made sense to let him keep Kuwait and just have a cosy relationship with him like we have with the Saudis. Why? Because we dont like Iran more than we dont like Iraq. But looking at the bigger picture would only make sense now wouldnt it? Why would the US say its okay to invade Kuwait, then go out of its way to kick Iraq out of Kuwait? Go through the UN, even threaten Iraq with nuclear war..

New York and Jersey

02-03-2005, 07:34

Communist regimes? NOT!! Dictatorships that were supported by US covert actions and arms supplies. You ask.....What about Saddam's victims? And I say ......What about Pol Pot's victims? What about General Suharto's victims? What about Augusto Pinochet's victims?

Stalin, Mao, Le Duc To(sp?)(Vietnam), Kim Il Sung and his son, Castro.

Which one of these recieved the most support from the US? (Stalin in WWII is excluded, he stopped killing his people long enough to allow the Germans to do it for him.) And quite frankly you can call them dictatorships all you want, THEY themselves called themselves Communist. They themselves provide the perfect example as to why that system will never work.A history of death, destruction and general ill-will toward men. And I'm not even going to go into the Eastern European despots propped up by the Soviet Union. Or civil wars Cuba got involved in, in Angola, Ethopia, Grenada..etc etc.

Pinochet? His history is mixed. A better more economically independent Chile, while having a murder rate of about 300 people a year over 10 years..nevermind the fact he was asked by the nations senate to take over because the previous government could no longer maintain control having to deal with strikes, protests and general ill-will of a middle class being targeted by socialists policies, and folks who were afraid that the government was going to go Castro-esque(Lets not blame the CIA for everything. There was actually a segment of Chilian society scared of Pinochet's predecessors reforms and were crippling the economy through strikes and shortages). Pinochet did what he thought would stablize the country. Was he right? Well he stablized the country, and let Chile stronger than it was in the past. Its no longer cash crop dependent as heavily in the past.

Pol Pot, was propped up by the Chinese and Vietnamese as well. He was communist. He got limited support from the US once the Vietnamese decided he was getting to close to China.

CanuckHeaven

03-03-2005, 05:55

I'm tired of hearing this war was for oil, this war was for freedom.
I thought the war was supposed to be about WMD? Oh that is right, they weren’t there. This war was about securing America’s oil “futures”. So many people can see that fact both from outside your country and many from within it. So get used to it because you will be hearing it a lot about it, because it is true:

Statement by Ralph Nader about Oil and the War Against Iraq

http://www.citizenworks.org/admin/press/feb4-rn.php

U.S. oil multinationals have been banned from Iraqi oil fields for more than a decade. While French, Russian and Chinese companies are lined up to profitably tap into Iraq's reserves, Bush Administration officials incredulously claim that Iraqi officials installed by the U.S. will independently choose who produces the oil after a war.

Plans are already being laid. The Wall Street Journal reported on January 16th that officials from the White House, State Department and Department of Defense have been meeting informally with executives from Halliburton, Shlumberger, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips to plan the post-war oil bonanza.
Lets get something straight, nations have been fighting over resources for hundreds of years.
So now you are admitting that it might be about “resources”? It is okay to invade another country for their resources because it has been done for hundreds of years?
Dont like it? You dont have to. You're not American. You dont benefit and its not to your detrement that oil prices world wide drop a few dollars. Sound harsh? It is, welcome to the global economy. Dont like it? Amish community in Pennsylvania will welcome you.
Ahhh the we don’t give a f*ck what you think attitude? And I guess the next time that terrorists fly planes into your buildings or poison your drinking water, or blow up your bridges or dams, we just shrug our shoulders and say oh well they asked for it?
The US isnt the only nation to have supplied them with WMD, Russia did so as well. Those things also have a halflife, the stuff we gave him in the early-mid 80s wouldnt account for the stuff found and destroyed throughout the 90s by UN weapons inspectors.
Come on now, we have beat this one to death. The UN inspectors that were in Iraq, before Bush kicked them out, were not finding any WMD, nowhere, no how.Now the question begs, why did Bush want to invade when the inspectors were doing a good job? The reluctance of Bush to allow the inspectors to carry on, caused countries such as France, Germany, Russia, and Canada to state that they would not take part in any invasion of Iraq.

Why did the US go into Iraq?
1)George Bush may have actually thought Iraq had WMDs
2)Syria and Iran border the area
3)Oil(which leads to why there was opposition to US military involement in Iraq. Russia's Lukoil had claims in Northern Iraq and France was lining up to take claims to rebuild Iraq's oil infustructure)
1. The inspectors were not finding any WMD.
2. How the hell does Iraq’s border with Syria and Iran give cause for an invasion of Iraq?
3. Yes OIL, OIL, OIL. You see, it is all about OIL.

You dont like the war in Iraq? Tough. The US is there for the long run. No amount of bitching from Canada will pull troops out of there faster. Even the Japanese ponyed up forces to send to the region. They obviously see a good future from a stable Iraq. Unfortunately that stability is going to come through an occupation until a government, and working constitution get rolling. Sometimes that takes 1-2 decades, sometimes it takes four(Japan and Korea respectively.). Iraq has a vast oil wealth to fall on so it wont be like Haiti where the US goes in, puts back the former President in power, leaves and the nation is to poor to do anything.
Yes, it is quite obvious that the US will be there for the long haul. Why? Well you stated it so clearly….”Iraq has a vast oil wealth to fall on”. Geez it always comes back to that OIL topic, and you are helping to prove that point. Of course you won’t stay long in Haiti, because there is nothing there to gain?
Now frankly, the US put Saddam in power, but guess what, we didnt arm him.
Umm yes you did arm him, with some of the deadliest chemicals known to mankind. Thanks USA. And you didn’t seem to mind him using those chemicals on your “friends” the Iranians.
There are plenty of countries at fault for Saddam...but by your logic, the allies were wrong for taking on Hitler. It was their policies which allowed him to rise to power. And it was their policies which allowed him to take Austria, the Czech Republic, and continue on. The logic doesnt follow through because then that individuals arent allowed to fix their mistakes on any level.
The circumstances between Hitler and Iraq are so totally different. The Allies did not supply Hitler with arms. Oh wait!! The US did supply armaments (through I. G. Farben) to Hitler and guess who paid the price for that? Many British, French, and Canadian soldiers paid the ultimate price trying to repel the German advance through Europe. What was the US doing while this was going on? They were waiting to be attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7, 1941.

BTW, my father and his 3 brothers all joined in Sept. 1939. My father served in England, and his 3 brothers fought on the front in France and Italy. So take your “don’t like it…tough” attitude and paste it where the sun don’t shine.

As for the long debated we told Saddam it was okay to invade. I'm sorry thats your opinion, but frankly the Ambassador was vague. Vague enough that Saddam interpeted it the way you wanted to.
It is not my opinion, it was based on the link I posted. Yeah she was vague alright. It appears that everything is based on excuses and if you ask me, they have all been poor excuses. Saddam did your dirty work for you with the war against Iran and he was no longer of any further use to you. So you let him hang himself.
And if we did say it was okay for Saddam to invade, then why the sudden turn around?
I don’t know? Why did April Glaspie give Saddam the wrong message?
It would have made sense to let him keep Kuwait and just have a cosy relationship with him like we have with the Saudis.
That relationship with Saudi wasn’t so cozy in the 1970’s when OPEC created an energy crisis in America? Hence the need to get a tighter grip on the oil spigots of the Middle East?

Why? Because we dont like Iran more than we dont like Iraq.
The truth emerges?

But looking at the bigger picture would only make sense now wouldnt it? Why would the US say its okay to invade Kuwait, then go out of its way to kick Iraq out of Kuwait? Go through the UN, even threaten Iraq with nuclear war.
Because it is all about OIL……sad but oh so true!!

New York and Jersey

03-03-2005, 06:19

I thought the war was supposed to be about WMD? Oh that is right, they weren’t there. This war was about securing America’s oil “futures”. So many people can see that fact both from outside your country and many from within it. So get used to it because you will be hearing it a lot about it, because it is true:

Statement by Ralph Nader about Oil and the War Against Iraq

http://www.citizenworks.org/admin/press/feb4-rn.php

U.S. oil multinationals have been banned from Iraqi oil fields for more than a decade. While French, Russian and Chinese companies are lined up to profitably tap into Iraq's reserves, Bush Administration officials incredulously claim that Iraqi officials installed by the U.S. will independently choose who produces the oil after a war.

Plans are already being laid. The Wall Street Journal reported on January 16th that officials from the White House, State Department and Department of Defense have been meeting informally with executives from Halliburton, Shlumberger, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips to plan the post-war oil bonanza.

So now you are admitting that it might be about “resources”? It is okay to invade another country for their resources because it has been done for hundreds of years?

Ahhh the we don’t give a f*ck what you think attitude? And I guess the next time that terrorists fly planes into your buildings or poison your drinking water, or blow up your bridges or dams, we just shrug our shoulders and say oh well they asked for it?

Come on now, we have beat this one to death. The UN inspectors that were in Iraq, before Bush kicked them out, were not finding any WMD, nowhere, no how.Now the question begs, why did Bush want to invade when the inspectors were doing a good job? The reluctance of Bush to allow the inspectors to carry on, caused countries such as France, Germany, Russia, and Canada to state that they would not take part in any invasion of Iraq.

1. The inspectors were not finding any WMD.
2. How the hell does Iraq’s border with Syria and Iran give cause for an invasion of Iraq?
3. Yes OIL, OIL, OIL. You see, it is all about OIL.

Yes, it is quite obvious that the US will be there for the long haul. Why? Well you stated it so clearly….”Iraq has a vast oil wealth to fall on”. Geez it always comes back to that OIL topic, and you are helping to prove that point. Of course you won’t stay long in Haiti, because there is nothing there to gain?

Umm yes you did arm him, with some of the deadliest chemicals known to mankind. Thanks USA. And you didn’t seem to mind him using those chemicals on your “friends” the Iranians.

The circumstances between Hitler and Iraq are so totally different. The Allies did not supply Hitler with arms. Oh wait!! The US did supply armaments (through I. G. Farben) to Hitler and guess who paid the price for that? Many British, French, and Canadian soldiers paid the ultimate price trying to repel the German advance through Europe. What was the US doing while this was going on? They were waiting to be attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7, 1941.

BTW, my father and his 3 brothers all joined in Sept. 1939. My father served in England, and his 3 brothers fought on the front in France and Italy. So take your “don’t like it…tough” attitude and paste it where the sun don’t shine.

It is not my opinion, it was based on the link I posted. Yeah she was vague alright. It appears that everything is based on excuses and if you ask me, they have all been poor excuses. Saddam did your dirty work for you with the war against Iran and he was no longer of any further use to you. So you let him hang himself.

I don’t know? Why did April Glaspie give Saddam the wrong message?

That relationship with Saudi wasn’t so cozy in the 1970’s when OPEC created an energy crisis in America? Hence the need to get a tighter grip on the oil spigots of the Middle East?

The truth emerges?

Because it is all about OIL……sad but oh so true!!

Again, you dont like, you dont need to. Stop using everything brought to you by oil.

As for WMDs, go read UNSCOMs chronology from 91-98. Before this mess occured. UN Inspectors WERE finding WMDs between those years. So what happened between 98-03? Saddam have a change of heart?

My grandfather was in the US Navy, on the Salt Lake City. My great uncle was on the Essex. With another working at the Brooklyn Naval Yard. My family did its service in WWII as well. We gonna get into a pissing match on this? Because if we are then the British gave jet engine tech to the Soviets who used that in their MiG-15s to fight the US and shoot down US pilots. And this goes on and on.

As for the difference between Hitler and Saddam, no shit they were different, but the basic premise remains, are you telling me its wrong to fix mistakes that have been created through policies of previous administrations?

This war was about fixing a mistake. If it were solely about oil, it would have been cheaper to lift sanctions than fight an all out war but you forget that dont you?

Lancamore

03-03-2005, 06:30

I bloody well answered it and gave you a countervailing view and posted many web sites.....

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%...GaseousLies.htm

http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=1920

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/iraq/kurds.shtml

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1991/12/12p10b.htm

http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~...ng_of_kurds.htm

Blow your brains out on Google (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=iranians+gassed+kurds&meta=)

and all you can state is......

Well prove that they ARE conspiracies....go ahead and bring forth YOUR proof. Where is your honest rebuttal?

I give you my rebuttal, and since you ignored it I will proceed to pick apart in more detail some of your sources.

www.greenleft.org - Obviously a political website with an agenda. Such political sites are certainly not known for accuracy. If you insist on regarding this website as credible, I will feel entitled to cite websites supporting George Bush as equally credible.

www.sweetliberty.org - Featured prominently on the site is the entire text of the book JEWISH PERSECUTION:
Tool of the International Zionists' Plan for World Dominion Other sections go on to be extremely anti-Israel and anti-Bush, making this another site with an agenda. See the above entry.

www.the7thfire.com - I browsed through this site and found articles claiming that some of the 9/11 hijackers are alive and abroad, that a couple of other hijackings were actually practice runs for 9-11, that Israel founded and sponsored Hamas, that the Illuminati are secretly running the world, that John Kerry is an illuminatus or 'another Zionist puppet candidate', and that there were no extermination camps or gas chambers run by the Nazis in WWII. I hereby declare this site to be completely unreliable.

http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/gassing_of_kurds.htm - This is a self-declared conspiracy website. The website admits that these are but theories, conspiracies, guesswork, etc. Why should we have to disprove a theory that is not supported by evidence? Other nifty consipracies listed: flouride used for mass mind control, the International Elite held a secret meeting in 1954 for the purpose of taking over the world by unlocking heavy hydrogen at the bottom of the sea, and the good old Illuminati are running the world again. Regarding this site: You have no right to ask us to disprove the unsupported theories it lists. You prove them first.

www.wanniski.com - This is by far your best website, as it is the only one which does not make sensational claims. The explanations put forth are discussed in a reasonable way, and somewhat supported. It does seem to have a anti-Bush slant, but nothing compared to that of the other sites.

Despite your one fairly credible source, I hold with the information presented on Wikipedia.
Thus, while some facts surrounding the incident remain murky, most evidence and analyses indicate that the gas attack was an Iraqi attack on Iranian forces, pro-Iranian Kurdish forces and Halabja's citizens during one of the major battles of the Iran-Iraq War.

Corneliu

03-03-2005, 06:31

Again, you dont like, you dont need to. Stop using everything brought to you by oil.

As for WMDs, go read UNSCOMs chronology from 91-98. Before this mess occured. UN Inspectors WERE finding WMDs between those years. So what happened between 98-03? Saddam have a change of heart?

My grandfather was in the US Navy, on the Salt Lake City. My great uncle was on the Essex. With another working at the Brooklyn Naval Yard. My family did its service in WWII as well. We gonna get into a pissing match on this? Because if we are then the British gave jet engine tech to the Soviets who used that in their MiG-15s to fight the US and shoot down US pilots. And this goes on and on.

As for the difference between Hitler and Saddam, no shit they were different, but the basic premise remains, are you telling me its wrong to fix mistakes that have been created through policies of previous administrations?

This war was about fixing a mistake. If it were solely about oil, it would have been cheaper to lift sanctions than fight an all out war but you forget that dont you?

NY&J, don't waste posts. CH believes this is about oil and only about oil. No sensible reasoning will ever change his mind of that fact.

I agree with everything you wrote though. Please keep up the good work. :)

CanuckHeaven

03-03-2005, 06:43

Your sources are nearly laughable. The one that does not openly and vigorously attack Bush (GREENLEFT.org? come on! Can I cite Bush's political websites??) mentions "Zionist-controlled media" in the first sentance or two. Try Wikipedia, something a little less biased:

"Thus, while some facts surrounding the incident remain murky, most evidence and analyses indicate that the gas attack was an Iraqi attack on Iranian forces, pro-Iranian Kurdish forces and Halabja's citizens during one of the major battles of the Iran-Iraq War" link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack)

Therefore... we have no justification to say he was wrong now? I also wish the US Government would admit mistakes once in a while, but just because we made a mistake doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything about it.

Do we have to start this one again? Every nation in history that has occupied a position of power similar to ours has incurred a corresponding list of victims. We made mistakes. At least we try.
If you bothered to note, two of the web sites referenced the stories from the New York Times.

Wikepedia is an encylopedia that ANYONE can add to. Yes even you or I can build Wikepedia, so I suggest that it is not reliable.

Lancamore

03-03-2005, 06:44

Inspectors:

1. IAEA inspectors failed to find Iraq's secret nuclear program, back when he actually had one. They declared the country to be free of WMD.

2. The IAEA, while a good idea, has one fundamental flaw: Inspections are voluntary, and COMPLETELY at the mercy of the state under scrutiny. If inspections were mandatory, the UN might actually punish non-compliance.

CanuckHeaven

03-03-2005, 06:56

NY&J, don't waste posts. CH believes this is about oil and only about oil. No sensible reasoning will ever change his mind of that fact.

I agree with everything you wrote though. Please keep up the good work. :)
That is fairly arrogant of you:

1. To tell NY&J not to waste posts.

2. That you believe that only you have "sensible reasoning".

3. That because I believe that it is about oil, that it is not?

You know, that you bring opinions to these debates, and rarely present facts to at least back up those opinions. When I ask you to provide proof, you can't or won't. So, I find it rather shallow of you to ask another poster not to post because you disagree with me. You would rather stifle debate or shout down the opposition rather than use the experience for growth. Pity. :(

R00fletrain

03-03-2005, 07:36

-snip-

I honestly think that much of your anger comes from anti-us feelings, which is unfortunate. No, I do not agree with the war either. But I do believe the top priority for Bush was a democratic Iraq. WMDs were just a reason to convince Americans to go to war, maybe not a good one, but one that enough people supported the war. Bush knows, or rather hopes, that a democratic and free Iraq will be an example for the rest of the middle east.

Maybe he's right, maybe he's not. I do not personally think so, but who knows. Maybe Lebanon's recent government resignations are a result of the elections, which was followed by the promise by Syrian troops to withdrawl? Maybe things are working out better than you know. It's easy for us to sit here and criticize the same points over and over, but the facts are the facts, and the rest is just opinion. My father is in Iraq, and while he does not support the war, just like me, he does tell me wonderful stories of the people there. That gives me some hope. Perhaps things will work out in the end? We'll see.

Lastly, oil may or may or not be a large reason for going to war. I don't think it was a major one, but if it was, it might have even be a smart move if it works out. Although I am appalled with the lack of progress in clean energy research and implementation, I do believe we must explore all possibilities. If it means securing more resources in the meantime, then so be it. I don't think its a good enough reason for war, but many do.

[NS]Ein Deutscher

03-03-2005, 08:42

I think, the democratization of Iraq (if it succeeds, which I doubt), is merely a side-effect. All other reasons for the war have long since been found illegal or lies. Overall, this war was unjust and unnecessary. It has damaged the image and the credibility of the US worldwide, to a great degree.

Corneliu

03-03-2005, 14:36

That is fairly arrogant of you:

1. To tell NY&J not to waste posts.

Only on you because you don't seem to listen to the other side.

2. That you believe that only you have "sensible reasoning".

I didn't say that. I said no sensible reasoning will CHANGE YOUR MIND! That is what I said. Learn to read.

3. That because I believe that it is about oil, that it is not?

It isn't about oil.

You know, that you bring opinions to these debates, and rarely present facts to at least back up those opinions. When I ask you to provide proof, you can't or won't. So, I find it rather shallow of you to ask another poster not to post because you disagree with me. You would rather stifle debate or shout down the opposition rather than use the experience for growth. Pity. :(

And I find idiotic that you quote uncredible websites. Amazing that you thought wikipedia was a good source till someone pulled something from that website to debunk what your saying.

Whispering Legs

03-03-2005, 14:37

Ein Deutscher']I think, the democratization of Iraq (if it succeeds, which I doubt), is merely a side-effect. All other reasons for the war have long since been found illegal or lies. Overall, this war was unjust and unnecessary. It has damaged the image and the credibility of the US worldwide, to a great degree.

If it's a side effect, it's a good side effect. I believe that Libya's sudden capitulation over its WMD program (where it gave up the German gas centrifuges it ADMITTED it was using to build nuclear weapons) was a good side effect - fear of the US. And the Palestinian-Israeli peace process is back on track because of the fear that if they don't come to a settlement, the US might become involved. And the Syrians aren't going to massacre the Lebanese who want them out, because if they try, the US might intervene.

Interesting shock. Kick ass in a couple of countries, and show that you can do it, and suddenly, when you make a request (such as, "Libya, please knock off what you're doing"), people listen.

CanuckHeaven

03-03-2005, 20:50

I honestly think that much of your anger comes from anti-us feelings, which is unfortunate.
Two problems with this statement of yours. Firstly, I am not angry, and secondly, I am not anti-US. The fact that I and many others like me do not like the Bush administration should not necessarily mean that I or others are anti-US. I have vacationed in the US on numerous occasions and I have always enjoyed my time there.

No, I do not agree with the war either.
You are not alone, many people in your country disagree with this war, even returning veterans (http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php) and their families.

Millions of people worldwide protested this war BEFORE it started.

Many countries that are your normal allies would not support this war.

Other countries have removed their troops, most notably Spain. And most recently, the Ukraine has decided to withdraw its' troops (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64197-2005Jan10.html).

The US is isolating itself and all some people can do here is shrug? Pity!! :(

To be continued....

Scouserlande

03-03-2005, 21:02

Wow this one was going last night, and 600 post later its becuase a simple left wing vs american right wing argument again, well i suppose its title doomed it to it.

I may be mad for doing this but hell, why not i dint get to put in the first few posts and voice my self so ill do it now.

America is a war nation, what nation is not exaclty you can look back through any desecent overall view of world history book and youll see that at one point at time most countries and areas have at one point in time dominated the others around them millitarlity, america is a nation that is its current geographical shape due to various annexations of california and chunks of mexio, and of couse it all was sioux land once.
Then look at britian before the empire was liberalised no less than 50 years ago it was in control of 1/5 of the world land mass, wales and scotland in the mainland it self where forcefully encorpared around 1100 and 1700 respectfully. Germany, Italy, Spain, China I could go on long lasting conflicts have all shaped these nations into what we reconise them as today.

Sorry again for 'butting in' but i missed the chance earlier

As for the U.S isolating its self hell the only peroid in its history when the U.S has come out of its shell was for the cold war, apart from the trailing end of two world wars and a bit of fiddleing in asia and south america, the U.S has never really been that politicaly involved, downright isolationist in fact.

E Blackadder

03-03-2005, 21:17

Whispering Legs

03-03-2005, 21:39

many people in your country disagree with this war, even returning veterans (http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php) and their families.

Sorry, Bush got re-elected against a man who disagreed with the war he voted for. If you look at a county by county map of the US, the US is mostly red - there are tiny urban islands of blue here and there. Even most of the state of California is red.

I talk to veterans every day. None of them are upset about the war. They all like it. Mind you, these are all infantrymen and the like - not truck drivers or cooks.

Millions of people worldwide protested this war BEFORE it started.

And that means that the US should amend its Constitution to say that "in the event that foreigners protest against the US involvement in a War, the Congress and the President shall take no action to become involved in a War"

Yeah, right. The protesters can go fondle their butt-cheeks for all I care - and for what most Americans care.
Many countries that are your normal allies would not support this war.
Oh, like France. Well, it's clear from the paperwork we found in Iraq that France, Germany, and Russia were all getting money under the table during Oil For Food (money which by the way caused Iraqis to starve or die from lack of medicine - deaths that were blamed on the US but should be blamed on those who took the money). And all that money Saddam spent on weapons he bought during the embargo - well it was all French and Russian weaponry. Oh, and some Chinese stuff. No wonder they were against it. They were making billions off of violating UN sanctions. What's that, you say? Only Americans violate the UN? Oh, I see. Then the bribery and smuggled weapons are all OK?

Other countries have removed their troops, most notably Spain. And most recently, the Ukraine has decided to withdraw its' troops (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64197-2005Jan10.html).

Spain did so in response to the Madrid bombings. So in that case, Bin Laden and Zarqawi get rewarded for an act of terror. Good to know that terrorism always works on a European - they'll give up everything before they stand up to any terrorist.

The US is isolating itself and all some people can do here is shrug? Pity!! :(

The war against the West was declared by Bin Laden in the mid-1990s. The US is not the only country on the list. It's good that the US is trying to do something, because the rest of the world is going to follow the Chamberlain example.

CanuckHeaven

03-03-2005, 23:44

Sorry, Bush got re-elected against a man who disagreed with the war he voted for. If you look at a county by county map of the US, the US is mostly red - there are tiny urban islands of blue here and there. Even most of the state of California is red.
Perhaps you are a bit colour blind?

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/PurpleAmericaPosterAll50_small.gif

I talk to veterans every day. None of them are upset about the war. They all like it. Mind you, these are all infantrymen and the like - not truck drivers or cooks.

So truck drivers and cooks are not important to the war? And I suppose all these people (http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php) are lowly truck drivers and cooks? You will denigrate anyone who doesn't have your beliefs?

And that means that the US should amend its Constitution to say that "in the event that foreigners protest against the US involvement in a War, the Congress and the President shall take no action to become involved in a War"

Yeah, right. The protesters can go fondle their butt-cheeks for all I care - and for what most Americans care.
Most Americans? Can you back up your claim? Most Americans now believe that it was a "mistake to send U.S. troops into Iraq (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000750298)".

Also, take into consideration, that when you take the entire population of the US, only 18% of the people actually cast a ballot for Bush.

It also appears that Bush and people like yourself are taking the worldwide goodwill that resulted after 9/11 and are throwing back in their face. Yeah, I will fondle my butt, while you or perhaps someone you love is getting theirs shot at in Iraq?

Oh, like France. Well, it's clear from the paperwork we found in Iraq that France, Germany, and Russia were all getting money under the table during Oil For Food (money which by the way caused Iraqis to starve or die from lack of medicine - deaths that were blamed on the US but should be blamed on those who took the money).
Ummm you forgot that the US also Profited From Iraq Oil Under Saddam (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1010-22.htm)? Oh and it appears that it is American companies will be the ones that profit after the takeover of Iraq:

Bremer's Illegal Orders Give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy (http://www.theiraqmonitor.org/article/view/27629.html)

Ambitions of Empire: The Bush Administration Economic Plan for Iraq (and Beyond) (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm)

What happened to Iraq’s oil money? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621523/)

So far, this is looking like a great deal for US businesses? Not so great for those that have lost their lives or various body parts?

And all that money Saddam spent on weapons he bought during the embargo - well it was all French and Russian weaponry.
Oh? And Saddam also bought American weapons, of the deadly chemical (http://www.lossless-audio.com/usa/index0.php?page=241973081.htm) variety!!

Spain did so in response to the Madrid bombings. So in that case, Bin Laden and Zarqawi get rewarded for an act of terror. Good to know that terrorism always works on a European - they'll give up everything before they stand up to any terrorist.
It is comments such as these that will make the allies come rushing back to aid you when you need it most? Oh too bad you have to leave Spain, thanks for the help, now piss off? Such wondrous diplomacy on your part.

The war against the West was declared by Bin Laden in the mid-1990s. The US is not the only country on the list. It's good that the US is trying to do something, because the rest of the world is going to follow the Chamberlain example.
The war was supposed to be about attacking terrorists. Of the 19 terrorists that flew planes into targets in the US on 9/11, 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia. The ring leader (Bin Laden) was in Afghanistan. Most of the world supported the attack against Afghanistan but could not see Iraq as any imment threat to the US, and therefore would not support a US invasion and rightly so. This wasn't about "freedom" and "democracy" for Iraqis, it was about OIL, US businesses, and establishing US bases in the Middle East.

So far it has been one huge mistake!! All your bluster doesn't make it right or acceptable. :eek:

Werteswandel

04-03-2005, 00:07

Interesting. The US is a war nation. I guess that means it's an inherent threat to world stability. See, if the US just kept its abominable behaviour to itself, there would be no problem. But it's an aggressive, paranoid freak of a nation, so it has to make life miserable for every other nation. Hmm, maybe if it kept itself to itself, then we would have no problem and religious fruitcakes wouldn't try and murder American citizens? Although the US govt and corps would still be gang-raping the environment... damn you, American imperialists. Grow up.

Corneliu

04-03-2005, 00:37

CanuckHeaven

04-03-2005, 05:39

Stalin, Mao, Le Duc To(sp?)(Vietnam), Kim Il Sung and his son, Castro.

Which one of these recieved the most support from the US? (Stalin in WWII is excluded, he stopped killing his people long enough to allow the Germans to do it for him.) And quite frankly you can call them dictatorships all you want, THEY themselves called themselves Communist. They themselves provide the perfect example as to why that system will never work.A history of death, destruction and general ill-will toward men. And I'm not even going to go into the Eastern European despots propped up by the Soviet Union. Or civil wars Cuba got involved in, in Angola, Ethopia, Grenada..etc etc.
I don't know how you drifted into this sidebar, unless it was in reference to my Communist NOT comment to Cornlieu?
Pinochet? His history is mixed. A better more economically independent Chile, while having a murder rate of about 300 people a year over 10 years..nevermind the fact he was asked by the nations senate to take over because the previous government could no longer maintain control having to deal with strikes, protests and general ill-will of a middle class being targeted by socialists policies, and folks who were afraid that the government was going to go Castro-esque(Lets not blame the CIA for everything.
You have painted a picture that in reality is the opposite to what really happened. You make it sound as if he was an alright guy who helped his country, and was well respected? While you don't want to blame the CIA, they were very involved in Chilean politics to the point that the following occurred:

Pinochet became president and inflicted a reign of terror (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=4748). The military rounded up tens of thousands of people, torturing and mutilating many of the prisoners. Detention centres sprang up across the country. The national stadium in the country's capital, Santiago, was turned into a mass prison where Allende sympathisers were locked up and many were killed. Pinochet's regime massacred up to 10,000 people. Dead bodies were left on Santiago's streets with their bones crushed and fingernails removed.

Peasants crossing the Nuble River in central Chile found dozens of corpses, their hands tied behind their backs, floating downstream. Tens of thousands of people became exiles from their own homeland. Pinochet linked with other Latin American dictatorships like the one in Argentina to continue the terror in the years after the coup. They were united in Operation Condor - which involved a series of assassinations and torture of opponents.

Pinochet, with the help of US economists, embarked on a free market experiment, pushing privatisation which created massive job losses. These were the people from the infamous Chicago School that includes Paul O'Neill, Bush's current treasury secretary. Pinochet stayed on as dictator until 1990, when protests forced him to step aside. The butcher has never been brought to justice. The US government backed him throughout his 17 years of undemocratic rule and human rights abuses.

Pol Pot, was propped up by the Chinese and Vietnamese as well. He was communist. He got limited support from the US once the Vietnamese decided he was getting to close to China.
Gee, only a few lines to cover this sad part of US history as a "War Nation"?

As head of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia between 1975 and 1978, Pol Pot was responsible for the deaths of between 1 and 2 million Cambodians (http://www.wsws.org/public_html/iwb6-30/polpot.htm), either by execution or through a combination of disease, hunger and overwork.

But for Washington to demand his trial on the charge of crimes against humanity reeks of hypocrisy. In the 1960s and 1970s, successive US administrations waged a protracted imperialist war throughout Indochina which cost the lives of millions, destroyed industry and agriculture and set back the economic development of the region by decades.

Furthermore, the US was directly responsible for the emergence of the Khmer Rouge as a popular political force in Cambodia.

Is history repeating itself in the Middle East?

Corneliu

04-03-2005, 05:44

May I see links CanaukHeaven?

Imperialist wars? Please!! Don't get me going on this topic. And how the hell were we directly responsible for the Khmer Rouge rise to power?

R00fletrain

04-03-2005, 06:12

Two problems with this statement of yours. Firstly, I am not angry, and secondly, I am not anti-US. The fact that I and many others like me do not like the Bush administration should not necessarily mean that I or others are anti-US. I have vacationed in the US on numerous occasions and I have always enjoyed my time there.

By 'anger', I meant 'frustration with U.S. foreign policy'. But I'm glad to hear you aren't just another rabid anti-american. And by the way, I feel the same way about Canada :)

CanuckHeaven

04-03-2005, 06:36

By 'anger', I meant 'frustration with U.S. foreign policy'. But I'm glad to hear you aren't just another rabid anti-american. And by the way, I feel the same way about Canada :)
Well I certainly am "frustrated" by current US policy, but not to the point of anger. Like I said, I am not anti-American and I have a few American friends who I respect dearly. I have been to quite a few States and I have always had a great time, :)

CanuckHeaven

04-03-2005, 06:49

May I see links CanaukHeaven?

Imperialist wars? Please!! Don't get me going on this topic. And how the hell were we directly responsible for the Khmer Rouge rise to power?
Would it matter to you anyways? Just recently you stated:

"And I find idiotic that you quote uncredible websites."

You tend to want everyone to back up their posts, yet when you are challenged to do so, you are unable to or unwilling to do so. So often, you will make an unsupported comment and when asked for "proof", you suggest that the onus is on the challenger to prove that your comment is false.

With that in mind, you now have your work cut out to prove what I have posted is not fact.

BTW, dropping the ad hominem remarks will greatly enhance the debating environment?

BTW2, "uncredible" is not a word.

Eutrusca

04-03-2005, 06:53

BTW2, "uncredible" is not a word.

Meaning of UNCREDIBLE
Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Definition: \Un*cred"i*ble\, a.
Incredible. --Bacon.

:D

CanuckHeaven

04-03-2005, 07:01

Meaning of UNCREDIBLE
Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Definition: \Un*cred"i*ble\, a.
Incredible. --Bacon.

:D
Umm the pages fell apart in my 1913 dictionary and I kinda had to use the more modern one. :eek:

Corneliu

04-03-2005, 13:31

Would it matter to you anyways? Just recently you stated:

"And I find idiotic that you quote uncredible websites."

You tend to want everyone to back up their posts, yet when you are challenged to do so, you are unable to or unwilling to do so. So often, you will make an unsupported comment and when asked for "proof", you suggest that the onus is on the challenger to prove that your comment is false.

With that in mind, you now have your work cut out to prove what I have posted is not fact.

BTW, dropping the ad hominem remarks will greatly enhance the debating environment?

BTW2, "uncredible" is not a word.

Just tell me the websites so I can look at them please. Stop trying to make a point. All I want is a website to look at when I get back to my home and look at it tomorrow.

Whispering Legs

04-03-2005, 14:39

The war was supposed to be about attacking terrorists. Of the 19 terrorists that flew planes into targets in the US on 9/11, 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia. The ring leader (Bin Laden) was in Afghanistan. Most of the world supported the attack against Afghanistan but could not see Iraq as any imment threat to the US, and therefore would not support a US invasion and rightly so. This wasn't about "freedom" and "democracy" for Iraqis, it was about OIL, US businesses, and establishing US bases in the Middle East.

1. If you just want to fight a war about terrorists, and not address the root causes, you would never invade Iraq - or even Afghanistan. You would also lose the war. If you don't fight a war, and demonstrate some resolve at some point, you'll be fighting one war after another - after another - after another. Want to know why the Cold War never went hot? Because the US demonstrated (as soon as they had one) that they weren't afraid to use nuclear weapons. Now that we've demonstrated a willingness to invade on a pretext - for purposes of pre-emption - there are nations such as Libya - who has admitted to trying to make nuclear weapons - who have capitulated and stopped. They have also dropped their anti-American stance.

2. No, it's not about freedom and democracy. But it is about stability. There are a lot of corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East that are preventing full economic and social development - a far more corrupting force than Islam is purported to be - in fact, the main problem in the Middle East is dictatorship and corruption. Work to get rid of it, and you're working on the problem. Leave it in place, and the "Arab street" will continue to send jihadis to America - and to Europe.

3. Oh, and here's the map:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Lancamore

05-03-2005, 03:14

Nice map. I have to say though, purple is my color. Independents and moderates yay!

There are those who paint Bush as being a rabid imperialist, trying to "take over" the world (or some chunk of it) for the purposes of profiting US oil companies and destroying the environment.

There are those who paint Bush as the high-minded idealist, tirelessly working to spread the freedom and democracy we enjoy to other countries, regardless of the world's opinion of him.

I think he is in the middle. He IS an idealistic person (as those of you who attack his religious beliefs so frequently point out), and I believe that his purpose in Iraq and Afghanistan was to rid them of their dictatorships. After all, since we brought the problems that were Saddam and the Taliban into power, didn't we have some degree of responsibility to remove them and fix the issues?

However, because of the special interests that financed his campaign and his personal connection to the oil industry, I also believe that he was also trying to secure a stable supply of oil for the US. He and his friends will profit.

CanuckHeaven

05-03-2005, 07:44

1. If you just want to fight a war about terrorists, and not address the root causes, you would never invade Iraq - or even Afghanistan.
However, the US wanted to fight a war against terrorists, didn't address the root cause, and still invaded Iraq.

You would also lose the war.
And the US is losing the war by creating more enemies amongst the Islamic nations, and by alienating traditional allies.

Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html)

If you don't fight a war, and demonstrate some resolve at some point, you'll be fighting one war after another - after another - after another.
The US has been fighting one war after another since the end of WW2, mostly to combat communism. Now that the spread of communism has been curtailed for now, with the exception of China taking over Hong Kong and eyeing Taiwan, the US has turned her focus on the nation of Islam. This leads the US into another series of battles.

While these battles are going on, the communist countries get a chance to regroup. Russia is slowly getting back on her feet and the Chinese economy is booming. Toss in increased terrorist activities and the US will have her hands full for a long time to come. These ongoing wars and conflicts are exacting a price amonst the citizens of the US and will only get worse. Currently, only 56% of Americans do not believe that the Iraq War was worth it.

56 Percent in Survey Say Iraq War Was a Mistake (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html)

Want to know why the Cold War never went hot? Because the US demonstrated (as soon as they had one) that they weren't afraid to use nuclear weapons.
They weren't afraid to use nukes how long ago was that. I believe that the US is more afraid to use nukes today then they were back then because nobody else had them. So your point is kinda moot.

Now that we've demonstrated a willingness to invade on a pretext - for purposes of pre-emption - there are nations such as Libya - who has admitted to trying to make nuclear weapons - who have capitulated and stopped. They have also dropped their anti-American stance.
The Libya turn around had more to do with the British negotiations over the Lockerbie incident than the invasion of Iraq? The UK is Libya's 3rd ranking economic trading partner.

As far as the pretext of pre-emption is concerned, all that has done is speed up the desire for countries such as Iran and North Korea to fast track their nuclear programs. And you will notice that the Russians have offered Iran help with their nuclear products. The Russians are not stupid and can see the movement of US troops closer to the motherland.

2. No, it's not about freedom and democracy.
Well we can agree on this one then?

But it is about stability.
Somehow I don't see any semblance of stability in the region. Bin Laden is still at large, there is a terrorist breeding ground in Iraq, the insurgency is causing havoc, and a newly elected government in Iraq will get much of its' input from the resident spiritual adviser, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Stability you say? I can't see it.

There are a lot of corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East that are preventing full economic and social development - a far more corrupting force than Islam is purported to be - in fact, the main problem in the Middle East is dictatorship and corruption. Work to get rid of it, and you're working on the problem. Leave it in place, and the "Arab street" will continue to send jihadis to America - and to Europe.
This is why I say that invading Iraq was a mistake. I believe that the US has bitten off far more than she can chew, and has inserted herself into a hotbed that threatens to become a region wide war zone. Consider also the following:

1. Many US allies did not want to invade Iraq and want no part of relieving the US of her obligations to right size Iraq.
2. Spain, Singapore, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Thailand, Philippines, Norway and Honduras have already quit the coalition, and the Ukraine is also staging a pullout.
3. The citizens of Italy and the UK don't want their troops there, and with an election coming up in the UK soon, there could be a change in governance.
4. The citizens of the US do not want a draft, yet Bush is rattling sabres with the next customers of his hit list (Iran and North Korea).

How does this affect the US? The US is obviously in a far weaker position now than it was after 9/11. You may disagree but the jury is still out.

In closing, I leave you with this insightful message I found while doing my usual Google searches:

Destroying Terrorists Weakens Our Security (http://peace.mennolink.org/articles/sept11_rk2.html)

The interesting to note about this article is that it was written on 9 November 2001. I tend to agree with most of what is written.

On the whole, I do not share your optimism that US foreign policy, in regards to the Middle East, has been beneficial to the US or the building of relationships.

NationStates Jolt Archive

The U.S. Is a War Nation: Get Over It. - Page 3