Hiro Protagonist Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 The WMD's are hiding in the oil wells. That's the only place the US hasn't looked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Huh? if the war was about oil surely they had looked in the wells first thing. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Protagonist Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 I'm not saying the war was about the oil. If the US stays away from the oil wells to prove that they're not after the oil, then where's the best place to hide them? The oil wells!! Saddam put the WMD's in the oil wells to fool the Amerikans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 LOL Either way they're screwed! DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oherror Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Iraq had WMD but before the US invaded they were moved out of the country. They were most likly moved to seran or some other place. If you look at some documents from the UN showing what iraq had, its kinda scary wondering were they are and how they might be used. You do reliase that the USA is not the only target that the terrorist are after right. they are at war with every country that has messed in the middle east. So everyone a target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Really? Because before the War the reason given by the President was to remove WMDs. It was only after no WMDs were found, and they realised none would be found, that they changed the theme of the war to "Liberation". I watched the speech Bush gave before the war started. Bush said the primary reason for going into Iraq was the liberation of 25 million people. That was before a single troop was on the ground. You're confusing media editorializing with Bush's actual statements. Some quick fact checking will show that you have been misled in this regard. His JUSTIFICATION was based upon UN resolutions. The UN authorized force in Iraq in the first Gulf War. A UN resolution called for a cease-fire dependent upon Iraq following UN resolutions. Then the UN said that Iraq failed to follow those resolutions. Thusly, the cease-fire was null and void. And the UN passed another unanimous resolution shortly after 9/11 threatening Iraq, and demanding immediate complaince or else. They still failed to comply. And in case you missed it, the US did find WMD and evidence that large batches of WMD are still missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triCritical Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Really? Because before the War the reason given by the President was to remove WMDs. It was only after no WMDs were found, and they realised none would be found, that they changed the theme of the war to "Liberation". I watched the speech Bush gave before the war started. Bush said the primary reason for going into Iraq was the liberation of 25 million people. That was before a single troop was on the ground. You're confusing media editorializing with Bush's actual statements. Some quick fact checking will show that you have been misled in this regard. His JUSTIFICATION was based upon UN resolutions. The UN authorized force in Iraq in the first Gulf War. A UN resolution called for a cease-fire dependent upon Iraq following UN resolutions. Then the UN said that Iraq failed to follow those resolutions. Thusly, the cease-fire was null and void. And the UN passed another unanimous resolution shortly after 9/11 threatening Iraq, and demanding immediate complaince or else. They still failed to comply. And in case you missed it, the US did find WMD and evidence that large batches of WMD are still missing. I understand what you are saying EnderWiggin, but not even the monarch's of 500 years past could go to war on a whim. You needed a reason, and often time the reason was normally petty, such as some prince needing to insult another. A president has no ability to free anyone he has no soveirgnty over. Hence, if his reason to go to war was to free he broke international law. What international law... I don't know the law they have been talking about for the last 600 years, that says you just can't outright invade another christian country. Oops, well there you go... Seriously, the case for war was UN resolutions and WMD's and they were rather weak given that their was no threat from Iraq, and everyone that knew something knew that! As for finding WMD's that violated UN resolution whatever, they found some? I did not hear about this, do you have a link? I am sure Iraq is just keeping them in Syria, that would be a major screw up, if they forgot to ship one over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 "A president has no ability to free anyone he has no soveirgnty over." Really? Bush proved your theory wrong. In fact, multiple presidents have. Or have ay forgotten World War 2 as well? DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorth Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Dear Sir, I am a senior citizen. During the Clinton Administration I had an extremely good and well paying job. I took numerous vacations and had several vacations homes. Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire life change for the worse: I lost my job. I lost my two sons in that terrible Iraqi War. I lost my home. I lost my health insurance. As a matter of fact, I lost virtually everything and became homeless. Adding insult to injury, when the authorities found me living like an animal, instead of helping me, they arrested me. I will do anything to insure President Bush's defeat in the next election. I will do anything that Senator Kerry wants to insure that a Democrat is back in the White House come next year. Bush has to go. I just thought you and your listeners would like to know how one senior citizen views the Bush Administration. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Sincerely, Saddam Hussein “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triCritical Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 "A president has no ability to free anyone he has no soveirgnty over." Really? Bush proved your theory wrong. In fact, multiple presidents have. Or have ay forgotten World War 2 as well? You sure are stupid... I don't have the right to speed on the freeways and I do! What are you referring to in WW2? There was plenty Casus Belli all over the place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Gorth, That was priceless! TriCritical, You bring up an interesting dilemma. In a certain sense, I really want to agree with you. Life would be much simpler if the United States only worried about themselves. Life would be much simpler if every country governed themselves, and we all practiced isolationalism. Yet, just as individuals need policing, so do governments. We have the UN, whose job is to help in international dealings. It is the right of the UN to intervene in such affairs. Arguably, the UN already gave the US permission to use force, despite the fact that if a new measure had been placed before the security council, France and Russia likely would have vetoed it. (It should also be noted that France and Russia had lucrative oil contracts with Saddam, but I digress). After the fact, the UN seemed to accept the temporary US occupation, and recognized it as a true sovereignty rather than a foreign invading force. There are bad people in this world, who will continue to do bad things. Someone has to try and maintain order. I believe the UN has in many ways invalidated itself. If the UN did their job, the US would not have had to take things in their own hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triCritical Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 You bring up an interesting dilemma. In a certain sense, I really want to agree with you. Life would be much simpler if the United States only worried about themselves. Life would be much simpler if every country governed themselves, and we all practiced isolationalism. Its not a matter of Isolationism. Anmesty international has year after year called Saudi Arabia one of the most oppresive regimes in the world. This has only been exasperated by the war on terror. However, we couldn't be more friendly toward them. What about the Genocides occuring in Africa, why don't we do something about that? And Khyrgyzstan, the best of the evil central asian dictator's that let us use an airfield, and now our friends. Break away from the Soviet Union only to become a meanie on a smaller scale. I guess its a matter of selective hegemony. I think invading Iraq would be OK, if it was the in the nation's best interest to do so, but it wasn't. Its going to cost you and me plenty of money. Money that I earned, and that will going to pay, with interest a war for profiteering. Frankly, I don't know what the history books will read, what facts will be uncovered, the sinking of the Maine, is still classified! All I know is that you just don't go invading soveriegn nations when your republics national security is not at risk, and it wasn't. BTW, the palestinians could use some help from the worlds largest super power. Of course, why would we help the usurpers, when we helped create them. There are bad people in this world, who will continue to do bad things. You mean like Ken Lay? How about Quattrone? Lets not forget multi-nationals that are, our modern day versions of plantation owners, and the endless greed and corruption that goes to despots ruled by real bad people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 You raise good points again. The United States has been active in dealing with other countries. I think Liberia is a prime example. Yet, everytime we step in, we're accused of being imperialistic. Once again, if the UN did their job, the US wouldn't have to step in. I used to go to Amnesty International meetings in high school. Reading up on places like East Timor really got to me. Yet, on the rare instance that the UN wants to do anything, they send in US and Canadian troops to take action. It's not like anyone else in the world makes an active effort at being a global police force. Eddie Izzard once said that we take offense when you kill your neighbors, but you can kill your own people all day long. The sad thing is, he's got a point. I can't understand how nations of the world still can turn a blind eye to genocide to this day, or transmigration for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Product of the Cosmos Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 I think Michael Moore is a very intelligent man. I credit him for pursuing what he believes in. That doesn't make all of his claims true. Like I said before, the United States didn't really start any wars in the 20th Century. We finished a bunch though. I'm not sure what you mean by not starting any wars in the 20th century. We invaded Central America over 30 times. Started many wars, propped up many dictators who started wars. Supported and instigated many wars. So IMO we started many wars in the 20th century.... I agree with whoever said MM is an intelligent man. And I am grateful for his presence here in America and the world. As for freedom of speech. You can say anything you want. The media conglomorates will censor you if they dont want what you say to be heard. For example. Im not sure many of you heard about the UFO first contact that happened in Mexico recently. 11 ufos followed a Mexican fighter jet until the fighter pilot flipped out seeing "Spacecraft not of this world" and started to follow them.. They allowed numerous Mexican AIr Force jets to follow them until the Mexican AF deviated following non-hostile protocol, and they dissapeared off into the sky. The Mexican gov't doesn't deny this, they even confirm it. There is even pictures as well, and quotes from onlookers. The media here in the USA only showed it on the bottom ticker with something like 'Martians in Mexico'. LOL, like anyones gonna believe that.... They are beyond censorship in many ways IMO, they are decieving. That is censorship or worse IMO. And it doesn't help that the media conglomorates here are owned by bombmakers and intelligence hounds feeding off corruption, and they are in the pockets of the gov't/white house and vice versa... Just my opinion... I praise Micheal Moore for showing people some things the meanstream media will absolutly not show. I've been investigating the Bushes for quite some time. And what I have found is VERY startling. Bout time the main population of USA got a small glipse of who is running our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Michael Moore is intelligent. He is also an outright liar. And the United States didn't start a single war in the 20th century. We did have hands in assisting regime changes in countries that already have an internal war going on. That didn't mean we started a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Product of the Cosmos Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 ender... What is your view of a war? And starting a war in your view has to be first shot? Am I not starting a conflict if I 'rape someones sister'? They are starting it by defending their sister in metaphorical terms in your view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 I don't want to argue semantics. Name one instance of where you believe the United States started a war in the 20th Century. I'll gladly discuss a nice, specific topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Product of the Cosmos Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 ok.. "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one" T. Roosevelt, 1897 Philippines 1900ish 600,000+ people killed by USA forces "We are the ruling race of the world...." -Sen of Indiana in 1900, Albert Beveridge Between 1898 and 1934 US troops invaded: Cuba 4 times Nicaragua 5 times Honduras 7 times Dominican Republic 4 times Haiti twice Guatemala once Panama twice Mexico 3 times Columbia 4 times All in order to secure our invasion of corporate rape into those countries. Sure you can say the people revolted first. But wer were screwing them, what do you expect. Millions died as result of those invasions. A lot of them were patriots for their country trying to defend their democracy and freedom from invading greeds. Korea 1950-53 I guess you can say we didnt start it 'technically'.. But we did invade, and end up killing about 4.5 million Koreans. U see a fist fight on the street, you whip out a rpg and blow them up.. LOL Technically you didnt start it.. But whats more important? Dominican Republic, 1965 After a US backed military coup overthrew their elected president they got a little pissed. 22,000 US troops sent in. Ove 3,000 DOminicans wanting their democracy to count were gunned down in the streets. Vietnam 1964-1973 Sure there was conflict there way before we touched down with soldiers. But those werent **** compared to what we did. Killing millions in the biggest bombing campaign in history at the time.. We dropped 1 500 ton bomb for every living man woman and child in Vietnam... Grenada, 1983 Reagan ordered military to invade and install a government more to his liking. However little the casualties compared to other wars. We did invade and take over. "a lovely piece of real estate" -Secreteary of state George Schultz, 1983 One could also argue we started the Gulf war of 2000+ in the 90s as well by saying to Saddam he can invade Kuwait as well as giving him weapons of mass destruction to give our invasion more validity when we did so. "We have no opinion on your border dispute with Kuwait" "James Baker has directed our official spokesperson to emphasize this instruction" -April Glaspie, US ambassador to Iraq July 1990 I guess its all a matter of opinion about who or what 'started' some of them, but noone with a str8 mind and knowledge of our history could say we weren't military invaders throughout the entire 20th century IMO. Sorry, you said one. I kinda went on a tangent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 not one of those did we actually "start" the conflict... the most notable is korea in which we were ASKED to help. to say we "started" wars does not equate to "invading" a country... big difference, not just semantics. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'JN Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 It looks like Ender is in the process of dealing with the Ctrl+C Commando here, so I won't touch any of that. This Moore praise has got to stop though. Moore is a fat, narcissistic idiot who uses lies and crackpot conspiracy theories to get attention and to demonize an establishment that he clearly hates. Someone should put him on a treadmill and dangle a mirror in front of him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Yep, but I will provide a much more detailed response later. I'm debating FO3 over at Bethseda's forums at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Product of the Cosmos Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Actually I typed all that J. And it seems our definitions of war differ ender. Anytime we invade and kill, IMO its an act of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 This Moore praise has got to stop though. Moore is a fat, narcissistic idiot who uses lies and crackpot conspiracy theories to get attention and to demonize an establishment that he clearly hates. Someone should put him on a treadmill and dangle a mirror in front of him... hehe, i believe i made a comment regarding a website quote (maybe in this thread) along the lines of "and this 300lb monkey is who we should be taking lessons of restraint from?" or somesuch... hehehe. And it seems our definitions of war differ ender. Anytime we invade and kill, IMO its an act of war. there's a profound difference between engaging in an act of war and starting a war as you clearly stated in your first post. neither i nor ender disagree that we haven't engaged in war... taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderAndrew Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Actually I typed all that J. And it seems our definitions of war differ ender. Anytime we invade and kill, IMO its an act of war. But did we start the war, or was there a prexisting military conflict where we assisted? And by bringing in military forces did we prevent greater losses of life? In WWII, Japan said they would fight to their last dying man, even after losing the entire island-hopping campaign. We dropped two nukes on small villages, and then they surrendered. One could argue easily there that military action prevented further deaths. I've promised you a detailed reply, and you'll get one. I'm just busy at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Product of the Cosmos Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 Well IMO there certainly have been rightious campaigns of war in our history. But IMO not very often. Most often we invaded to protect and/or increase our wealth/world position. IMO life does not have a pricetag in that way... I differ from most people because I see Earth as my people, i am agianst nationalism, one country over another IMO is a ridiculous policy for longevity. But I agree in most of those cases there was a conflict of some sort there already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now