UN FINDS WMD...OK saddam lovers, what now?

by dolphman 280 Replies latest social current

• 

  DannyBear

  2da,

  Hope you don't mind me shortening your nick, economy in finger movements ya know.

  I think you missed my point almost completely. My comment relating to loss of live's centered around the price many have paid for a cause/endeavor. Not just in cases of conflict.

  The quest for freedom from oppression has taken many forms. We all know and have our favorite historical figures representing these ideals.Governments come and go often predicated on the sacrifice of lives. In fact Iam hard pressed to identify any government now in exsistence that did not have as it's basis, someone who risked life and limb, for its inception or survival.

  You ignored my simple comparison of one's life spent working for an employer (self or otherwise) vs. your argument of sacrifices just one life for what YOU consider an unjust war.

  It really all comes down to perspective. If your world view is that corporations, stock holder's, the wealthy, are to blame for the majority of the worlds woes, it is easy to agree with your reasoning. But that assumption is a very dangerous 'cop out' for not taking desisive action. Oil being only one of the issues.

  Who has more compassion, the guy who try's to stop a mugger from killing the victim, or the guy who simply call's the police?

  All of the comments on this thread pro and con, seem to indicate that everyone view Sadam as a threat. But all you seem to want to do is call up the UN. A fairly hapless body of nation's overall who have niether the will or the resources to answer the 911 call. Not to mention they have as group never done much of anything to resolve a problem.

  For Simon and other USA critics, there is a reason why we get involved while other's remain silent. We tried to stay out of the fray in WWII, arn't you happy we changed our minds?

  Danny
• 

  seawolf

  Interesting words from Inder K. Gujral, the former prime minister of India:

  `Oil lobby determined to have its war' in Iraq

  "It would be a great tragedy for the world if there was to be a war on Iraq," he said in an interview. "It would be particularly calamitous for our region. But the oil lobby in America is determined to have the war.

  "The main American aim seems to be to gain control of the world's second-largest oil reserves and to dictate the flow of oil to the world market. This has, in fact, long been the objective of American diplomacy in oil-rich West Asia."

  Gujral recalled a 1990 meeting he had as India's foreign minister with then-U.S. secretary of state James Baker. "He minced no words when he told me: ` Mr. Minister, oil is our civilization and we will never permit any demon to sit over it. ' That still seems to be the main objective of the American policy," the job having been left unfinished in the 1991 Gulf War.

  http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035776822565&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

  Edited by - seawolf on 20 January 2003 1:22:51
• 

  back2dafront

  Dannybear,

  You're loosing me buddy. I totally understand what you mean by conflictl - of course the sacrifice of life is needed during war, I understand that. But that's your excuse for war when what I'm talking about is to try every other option before resorting to war.

  If this country is being attacked, sacrifice life to protect it. I'm all for that. But before we go sacrificing American lives and killing innoncent Iraqi lives, let's get all the facts straight on what the reason for the war is. Make sense?
• 

  Cassiline

  Might I also add what an all-around CREEP this dude is:

  It says in this court document on the Office of the County Clerk, Fort Bend County Texas site that Dubya has been accused legally of having sex with a minor, and then using his powers as President to harass her into committing suicide. http://www.incunabula.org/shrubrub/~~back2dafront

  Back2dafront

  I realize this is not about the war at hand but you mentioned this alleged suit against Bush to show what a "creep" he was. I wanted to comment on the alleged lawsuit. Have you read the unofficial document that you linked to? I found it to be a very interesting read and somewhat incredible.

  Quoted blocks from unofficial document you provided: ( Emphasis mine)

  On or about October 26, 2000 an attempt was made to abduct Plaintiff by unknown assailants

  Plaintiff contacted FBI, filling a race-based harassment complaint, advising that the Sugar Land Police Dept. may or may not be harassing Plaintiff on behalf of her neighbors in Sugar Land

  Not only are George Bush and the FBI harassing her but also the police are as well at the behest of her neighbors?

  Plantiff, had told no lies, committed no crimes, gotten two traffic tickets and dated George W. Bush as a minor.

  This can be read several ways Bush may have been a minor as well.

  ...Plaintiffs opinion was that Defendant (Bush) should simply leave Plaintiff pursue a second attempt at a degree, even a PhD.

  Suggests to me their dating did occur a while ago, as she does not seem to be a minor trying for a second degree or a PhD.

  ...Plaintiffs bank accounts have been expunged; Plaintiffs husband has been dismissed from place of employment. Plaintiff has been raped and beaten, which resulted in miscarriage.

  I would think that with todays technology if indeed she was pregnant there would be means to assure miscarriage other then rape and beating. Stating this with the incredible plot of the supposed law suit. (She alleges this rape by the FBI and Bush; she according to her was raped to assure miscarriage of Bushs baby)

  Plaintiffs degrees will continue to be expunged

  Again IMO suggests she is not a minor and this dating she spoke of occured some time ago.

  The sole reason the Defendant was concerned was if Plaintiff could actually recall the individual sex crimes committed against Plaintiff and Plaintiffs husband utilizing drugs

  So the FBI, unnamed assiliants and Bush drugged and raped her (The Plaintiff) and Plaintiffs husband. Her neighbors via the Sugar Bush Police department harassed her in a race-biased manner. Bush and associates emptied her bank accounts had her husband fired (and raped him) erased all evidence of prior degrees and PhDs just to harass her because they had a relationship which is not clear who was the minor or if both were minors at them time!?!?

  WOW, What a story. I admit I dont watch TV much, but this is better then Monica Lewinski and I have not heard or seen a word about it.

  edit, format

  Edited by - cassiline on 20 January 2003 5:8:27
• 

  dubla

  realist-

  sorry, was away for a bit, but still wanted to respond.....

  i am sorry i don't see you showing ANY evidence for what you say.

  these have just been my personal opinions of hussein.....i dont need evidence to back up an opinion.....you dont have evidence that disproves anything ive said, just as i dont have the evidence to prove it.

  everyone will agree that the CIA is trying as hard as possible to link hussein to the 911 attack....they failed to do so.

  therefore as far as we know Hussein had of course nothing to do with it.

  hey, if the cia was as capable as you make them out to be, we wouldve found bin laden by now too. just because they havent linked him (or at least publicly) to the attacks means little.

  in the immanent war thousadns of innocent iraqies will die and not a single US plane will be lost!

  i agree with you....but the fact that hussein thinks he can win that war is proof enough that hes a madman.

  i have to agree that it was irrational not to withdrew from kuwait.....perhaps he even thought he has a chance?

  your own words prove my point.....only a madman would NOT have withdrawn from kuwait much earlier, and only a madman would think "he has a chance" as you put it. enough said.

  aa
• 

  dubla

  realist-

  i also wanted to point out your own contradiction here.....your quotes:

  he never did anything unrational....he is in charge since a quater of a century!

  i have to agree that it was irrational not to withdrew from kuwait....

  hmmmm.......

  aa
• 

  Realist

  dubla,

  he probably helped fund 9/11 for all i know. for all any of us know, hes got visions of someday ruling the world.....hes a madman, who knows what his exact plans are?

  these have just been my personal opinions of hussein.....i dont need evidence to back up an opinion.....you dont have evidence that disproves anything ive said, just as i dont have the evidence to prove it.

  you made an unsupported claim...therefore it is you who has to show evidence supporting it ...not me to disprove your claim.

  if i for instance claim there are little green man on mars than it is on me to prove it...not on others to disprove me.

  also...if you have no evidence supporting your opinion than how do you know you are right? or do you care about that at all?

  hey, if the cia was as capable as you make them out to be, we wouldve found bin laden by now too. just because they havent linked him (or at least publicly) to the attacks means little.

  one thing has nothing to do with the other. the CIA discounts this claim because it is not substantial. no secret service takes this claim seriously. i ask you why...especially since britain, israel and the US would love to link bin laden to hussein somehow.

  i agree with you....but the fact that hussein thinks he can win that war is proof enough that hes a madman.

  i don't think hussein believes he can win this war. he tells his people he will win...which is not quite the same.

  i also wanted to point out your own contradiction here.....your quotes:

  this is not a religious discussion....i don't love hussein and i don't regard him as God ...therefore i am open to rational arguments.

  i have to admit that it seems highly unrational not to have withdrawn from kuwait. but that doesn't mean necessarily that he was irrational or crazy. he might have had wrong information about the power of his military or he had a sensible reason not to withdrew?

  i guess we will find out soon if he is rational or not. if he stays in iraq and sacrifices his life despite the possibility to leave for good than he is indeed irrational.
• 

  dubla

  realist-

  you made an unsupported claim...therefore it is you who has to show evidence supporting it ...

  i made no such claim....i merely said "for all i know"....did i say, "hussein is most definitely linked to 9/11"?? no i didnt, i simply suggested it was possible, which i believe it is. do i know for sure that he was involved? really i have no idea.......again, i just think its a strong possibility. now why do i need evidence to back up my opinion of this possibility?

  if i for instance claim there are little green man on mars than it is on me to prove it...not on others to disprove me.

  if you told me "for all i know, there are little green men out there somewhere"....i would have to say you are entitled to that opinion, and there is no way for either of us to prove it one way or the other.

  i don't think hussein believes he can win this war. he tells his people he will win...which is not quite the same.

  well then, id have to say lying to your own people and sending them off into certain death, all the while making them believe they could win the war, would also constitute madness on some level.

  this is not a religious discussion....i don't love hussein and i don't regard him as God ...therefore i am open to rational arguments.

  what does religion have to do with it? sure youre open to rational arguments.....but you made two statements that DIRECTLY contradicted each other. did you or did you not say that he had NEVER done anything irrational? then you turned around and specifically labeled one of his actions irrational.

  but that doesn't mean necessarily that he was irrational or crazy.

  again, your previous statement was not "he isnt irrational in general"...your statement was that he had NEVER done anything irrational. can you see the difference? the fact that you even contradict yourself so blatantly casts doubt on your entire stance.

  aa
• 

  cellomould

  "Disarm or we will disarm you"...

  Saddam Hussein will play right into George W's hand. Why would anyone, sane or insane, disarm upon threat of war? A vow has already been made to remove the Iraqi leader from power.

  But George W pretends he doesn't know what Saddam will do. He pretends his regime didn't create an imperative that would surely ensare Saddam. He pretends he has things on his mind besides warfare.

  Saddam, if only you had played along with the U.S.-U.N. hegemony, trading votes for U.S. business interests like all the other two-bit dictators...

  ...your time has come

  cellmould
• 

  dubla

  But George W pretends he doesn't know what Saddam will do.

  ive never got that feeling from his statements....in fact, quite the contrary. bush has continually implied that he doesnt believe saddam will comply......he knows where its headed, and i dont really think hes tried to hide that. you dont send over as many troops as he is and try to pretend youre not preparing for war.

  aa