Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
I've seen you show support for Kerry. Kerry has been quoted on the record several times of saying Iraq had WMD. I guess Kerry lied and/or was just as incompetent. But you put the blame solely on Bush. My guess is that if Bush went into Iraq sooner, we would have found more weapons. Bush tried to avoid war in Iraq. Clinton bombed with no warning or attempt at diplomacy.

 

First off, human life is precious. I don't see lives as numbers. I'm saddened that you can write off human life so easily. But you want to talk about the big picture.

 

They used to say that the sun never set on the British Empire. Their reach was vast. Our little tiny colonies with no military to speak of spanked England and sank the greatest navy in the world. Their empire fell apart, as did the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Egyptian Empire, the Greek Empire, the Babylonian Empire, etc. You feel confident that no one can touch the United States and that you're safe.

 

How do you think all the other empires in history felt? On September 11th, I saw children dancing in the streets and singing in Palestine. They were singing that God loved them because Americans were dying. I think you're a little ignorant about how various people feel about Americans. This was before we went into Afghanistan or Iraq. This was before Bush really did anything. People were rejoicing at our deaths. You blame Bush for the world's opinion of us. Before Bush ever got into office, people were willing to blow themselves up to take a few of us with them.

 

There are those who would kill you if they could. There are those than want to destroy your very life without knowing a thing about you.

 

And you could care less.

The only reason I am going to vote for Kerry is to get rid of Bush. I want Georgie boy to follow his father's footsteps and be a 1 term president. There is no real alternative otherwise.

 

Last time I checked the base chemicals that comprise a human being is 97 cents.USD. Its been a while so that might have gone up due to inflation.

 

Of course the US can be touched and if you ask me the US needs a major fall. Its over due for one if you ask me and if I could help out I would. I saw the same vids and I don't blame them one bit. I would rejoice the deaths of those whom I see responsible for so much of the problems in my neck of the woods. I know that those people hate Americans long before Bushie. They hate America for backing Israel and I hate our government in backing that country as well. Israel has no right to exist and deserves destruction.

 

They have that right, and I have the right to protect myself at no matter the cost but once I was done I would leave and let the survivors fend for themselves.

Posted

The exact quote was:

 

"Hans is an idiot. Iraq refused to allow inspections for the better part of twelve years, and Hans called that cooperation. Hans says one thing, and the UN security council unanimously said another for twelve years. Who do we believe? Considering that Hans has been proved wrong, it's not a hard call."

 

Being proven wrong must have been what I remember as you claiming he lied. I apologize for the mix-up of words, but let me rephrase the question then: When was Blix proven wrong?

Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Posted

Hans said that Iraq had complied.

Hans said there weren't WMD in Iraq.

 

The UN felt there was plenty of proof that Iraq hadn't complied, and we ended up finding WMD and labs. Quite frankly, I think the 500 rounds with Sarin gas to be fairly meaningless. I only point to it because it's concrete. It's hard to argue about the WMD that are probably in Syria now or elsewhere.

 

I know people have said that if Saddam had weapons he would have used them. I think Saddam feared his own military performing a coup because of the way he treated them. Saddam didn't try to stay in Baghdad and fight. He hid much of his military in civilian areas, and ran off into the night.

 

They had jets in Iraq, but no one tried to fly them. In fact, Iraq just flat out didn't use alot of their weapons and military assets. We dropped fliers and told troops to go home. Many of them did.

 

I think the real meaningful find was the labs. If Saddam had no WMD, nor plans to develop them, then why did they had procedures for the training and use of them?

Posted

Same reason why we have stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Percieved strength inorder to keep the more aggressive neighbors out. If Iraq was percieved weaker than Iran or Turkey, they would have invaded them a long time before now. Once the US is gone I bet you that Iran will start making forays into the country.

Posted

I actually worried about Turkey moving into Northern Iraq. The Kurds up north may scream for a seperate state, but they wouldn't be able to protect themselves from a Turkish invasion.

 

I know that Iran and Turkey are licking their chops when looking at Iraq and their oil supply, but they'd have to realize the UN would step right back in. Then again, maybe that's what they want so they'd have further excuse to take pot-shots at US troops.

Posted
Hans said that Iraq had complied.

Hans said there weren't WMD in Iraq.

Again, this was just before the war, days after the report:

 

"SPENCER MICHELS: A few days later, at the Security Council, Blix noted several problems with Baghdad's compliance.

 

HANS BLIX: Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

 

Hans said Iraq had mostly complied but also that he wasn't entirely satisfied.

 

Source (again): http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east.../blix_2-13.html

 

Hans never said there weren't any WMD's in Iraq. He said that they hadn't found any but he wouldn't be surprised if the US troops found some left-over WMD's.

 

Source (again): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/30/...ain561104.shtml

 

Also, to put this in perspective: Blix had 3 months and 1400 men to find the WMD's. Compare that to the amount of men and the time it has taken the US troops to find those 500 shells. Iraq is a big country, and those empty factories they found have not been proven to be factories for WMD's (they never found any traces of WMD's in them). In fact, some say they were factories for producing powdered milk and that they were empty because of the sanctions: there were simply nothing to produce.

Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Posted

I don't think those factories produced the WMD. Those were training labs. Clinton said that Sudan was producing the chemical weapons for Iraq.

Posted

I know for a fact that Iraq had WMD because we gave it to them during their war with Iran. Much the same way we supported Bin Laden when he was fighting against the Soviet invasion.

 

The bottom line is, Iraq was a political maneuver designed to achieve political results. I have a friend that I work with who was born and raised in Beirut and goes back to visit her family in Lebonon regurlarly. She told me that if the US was serious about combating terrorism, they would've gone after Syria, Iran, Libya and yes, Saudi Arabia. Hell, Hamas has offices in downtown Damascus. I tend to agree with this opinion.

 

Ender, you really do make some sound points, and I agree that Bin Laden would've hit us REGARDLESS of who was in the White House on 9/11. These people don't care about Democrats or Republicans, whites or blacks, or even Christians or Muslims (there were manyMuslims that died in the attacks on the World Trade Center). But to say that Bush didn't do anything prior to 9/11 is untrue. He took a myriad of steps that alienated and exacerbated the international community before 9/11. Which was why we got kicked off of the Human Rites Commission.

 

It is known that Bush was going to invade Iraq long before 9/11 happened. When that tragedy befell us, it provided a golden political opportunity for him

 

I am not a Bush supporter and I will not vote for him come November, but to be fair, the notion of regime change started under the Clinton Administration.

Posted

I agree combatting terrorism would likely mean moving into Syria, Iran, etc.

 

However, look at the image the US has in the global community currently. How would the world respond if we moved into Syria next?

 

The United States was wrong to appoint leaders in Iraq, Iran, Aghanistan, Grenada and the litany of other places they did. Congress seems very wary of "nation building". Perhaps we have learned from those mistakes. I don't think we are the same insidious government we used to be.

Posted
We don't need a change of administration, but a change in form of government. This Republic Democracy is just not working.

Yes and no.

 

I think Australia's government is great. And they are a democracy with some socialistic leanings like the US. But they manage it with far less corruption.

Posted

The problem is that change occurs with Congress, not the White House. And Congress is quite corrupt.

 

And you'd be hard pressed to get Congress to pass legislature to fix the real problems in government.

Posted

That is why I would eliminate Congress, both Senate and House. I would replace them with a Council of Governors where State Lt. Governors would vote on major issues and set up laws. Also I would eliminate the Electorial College. I would give majority of the powers to the states instead of the Federal Government.

Posted
Of course the US can be touched and if you ask me the US needs a major fall.  Its over due for one if you ask me and if I could help out I would.  I saw the same vids and I don't blame them one bit.  I would rejoice the deaths of those whom I see responsible for so much of the problems in my neck of the woods.  I know that those people hate Americans long before Bushie.  They hate America for backing Israel and I hate our government in backing that country as well.  Israel has no right to exist and deserves destruction.

Hades One

 

What do you mean you'd help contribute to the fall of the US if you could?

 

You sound like your potentially a very sick individual as well as an anti-Semite.

 

Also, if you know anything about the history of the region, Israel has every right to exist. Sorry, but it's true.

Posted

The only reason that Israel exists right now is because the U.S. and the UK got involved and formed the country and pushed out the Arabs who were living there for centuries. Did the Jews live there? Long time ago and they got kicked off or moved to somewhere else. At the time of WW2 the Jews lost the rights to those lands but we took that land without and forced the Arabs in that area to lose the land they have had for many years and give it to someone else who hasn't lived there for centuries.

 

I would be somewhat resentful of that. Add to the fact of the 6 day war, Israelis took more land using U.S. military equipment. I can understand even more resentment towards the US. I am not against the Jews. Hell, one of the gamers is a Jew and pretty much shares the same views that Israelis are a bunch of murderous yutzes.

 

Israel had the right to exist 2000 years ago, but since then they kind of lost it.

 

The U.S. needs a swift kick in the arse as well and set our priorities straight. We shouldn't be invading a country over lies and manipulation. We shouldn't be given Favored Trade Status to countries that squash on human rights. We shouldn't be giving foreign aid to other countries when we have millions jobless and homeless.

Posted

I'm about ready to throw my hands in the air.

 

I'm sick of trying to defend this country. People have the right to not like it. Whatever.

 

On a side note, what the heck is your avatar Dennis?

Posted

Then think about this.

 

Prior to WWI there where close to a hundred thousand Jews in Israel, residents from ancient times.

During WWI the Brits occupy the region, which was controlled at the time by the Turkish Ottoman Empire, who were in league with Germany and Austria (the bad guys).

As a result of "getting kicked out" of Palestine, the Jews have no homeland; the Brits trying to help solve the problem allow for immigration into the territory. They had every right to do so, they were running the show, it wouldn't have happened if the Turks hadn't allied themselves with some bad people.

After WWII, the British leave Palestine and mandates the creation of three Palestinian states an Arab state, a Jewish state, and a state shared by both that would be operated internationally. Israel becomes a state in 1948, that's when the shooting match really gets going.

 

As far as the Six Day War is concerned, Israel was attacked by its neighbors who intended to rid themselves of the Zionists for good, using Soviet arms. Israel defended itself, and captured some territory in the process. Wouldn't have happened had they not been attacked. Luckily they had US arms, it saved them from tottal annihilation.

 

I'm not saying Israel is pure as the driven snow, and Arabs are bad. I think both sides have done wrong during this conflict. Like it or not though, Israel is there to stay, and violence will never solve the regions problems.

 

Hades, you can give me the "I have a Jewish friend" line if you want, but it gets you no credibility with me as I've heard from every racist I've ever talked to.

 

Also, for the War or against it, its not about the wholesale genocide of a people, which you seem to condone.

 

BTW I'm not Jewish, I'm your average WASP.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...