| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Did Bush make a case for war? |
| Yes |
|
38% |
[ 10 ] |
| No |
|
50% |
[ 13 ] |
| Will decide with evidence from Colin Powell |
|
11% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 26 |
Hyrrix
Fourty-two
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Posts: 282
|
Ni-Androth, with all due respect for you and your religion, I'm actually quite shocked after reading your post. If you would reverse that theory and put Islam in the place of Christianity in your post, you would get the sort of things the muslim-extremists say. No offense intended.
You are saying that the nation of Israel is there by God's will and that God will protect them. Then why, does that nation kill hundreds of innocent people every year, why does that nation need nuclear weapons to protect itself and why does it have someone as president who ordered for a genocide (if not ordered than he let it happen passively) in Sabra and Chatila? That sounds like a cruel God to me; and that is not what you (or I) believe in, I think.
About the European Union being the 'new' Roman Empire... that has happened many times before, actually. Karolingan renaissance, Napoleon, Habsburg dynasty, ... no, those things were a lot more like the Roman Empire was.
Again: I'm judging no-one and certainly not wanting to offend anyone... I'm just giving my opinions and thoughts; which might differ from those that are more casual overseas 
_________________
Vault Network Editor |
Fri Jan 31, 2003 10:08 pm |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
@Ni-Androth I have a question, what current EU leader is the anti-Christ? If he’s going to try to destroy the world in about 3.5 years then we should at least know his name. |
|
Fri Jan 31, 2003 11:14 pm |
|
|
Ni-Androth
Village Dweller
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 6
Location: United States |
@Hyrrix, with respect, I would expect anyone not Christian such as yourself as you appear to come back at my statement in that way. Thats just fine, interesting is your statement about Islam in the place of Christianity. I agree, it would be extremist to people who don't understand either faith. You just have to choose which side your going to be on; Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist. Then that will ofcourse formulate your religious and political views. God told the Jews when they first entered the promised land to kill every living person who lived in those lands to make it their own. Those people God spoke of were wicked idolaters. Cruel? ofcourse it was for those who wern't God fearing and for the people targeted. Ofcourse the Jews didn't do exactly as God told them to do, instead they intermarried with many of the people they were suppose to rid of. As a result they were cursed with many of the problems they have today. They were suppose to own much of the modern Middle East, from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, and a large mass north to south. But instead, because of their disobedience, they control the small land mass they do today. Not to mention their continuing struggel with the Palestenians and other Arab neighbors. But through all this they are still Gods people and He won't abandon them. God is not fair, but He is just, and his justice may seem cruel to many. Do you think the Palestians simply want a homeland of their own? Its much deep than that, they don't want to see a Jewish nation, neither does the other Arab countries. They all would like to completely eradiacte the existance of the Jewish nation and their people. Their are many Arab nations and only one Jewish. I wonder why they are so agressive in their actions to defend their country? They live in a constant terroist enviroment full of anti-semitism. Once again the reason they have these problems goes back to Abrahams two sons, a curse that will plague Israel to the end of time. Now you mentioned why Israel must have nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Well they don't, that was just a purely human decesion on their part to keep up with the rest of the world. They don't have to be a nomadic nation to be under the protection of God. During their time as a kingdom before the Roman Empire, God used Israels fighting men in his will for defeating their foes. They were greatly outnumbered during the Six Day War. There is no way Israel could have defeated them even by superior strategy if it wasn't for Gods intervention on their part. Every humanbeing is Gods people, but everyone has free will, and their are consequences for every decesion. God doesn't enjoy death that occurs as a result of conflict, but is a part of mans destiny as a result of sin. Finally, concerning your opinion of mine about the European Union as the Roman Empire in prophecy. The EU resembles the Roman Empire in a symbolic sense more than anything. It covers the land mass of what was much of the Roman Empire, and its power over the European nations will grow stronger over time, and have much influence on the world scene. I'll go ahead and end my message here. This is my answer to some of your statements Hyrrix. I respect your difference in opinion, and anyone else. I don't seek to change anyones opinion, that they must do on their own if they choose so. Every man has his own version of the truth. Only when one dies will he ever get all the answers to lives questions, and find out wether he was right or wrong.
@Suicidal Cockroach,  I didn't say any current EU leader was the anti-christ. Nor did I say he was going to try and destroy the world in 3 1/2 years. You greatly misunderstood my statement, which is of some importance, because I don't like to be taken for something I didn't say. Putting it more clearly, the anti-christ is suppose to come to power in the reborn Roman Empire mentioned in prophecy, which the EU has much resemblence to. About the 3 1/2 year thing, whenever the anti-christ finally comes into power, it will be the beginning of a seven year period called the tribulation. The first 3 1/2 years no one will even know he is the anti-christ, and there will be world peace as a result of his leadership for these 3 1/2 years like the world has never known. Nearing the middle of his seven year reign, it will begin to get worse and his true idenity will be somewhat exposed. At this time he will have power that even the strongest dictator couldn't dream of and all the world will support him. All this will end at the final battle in the vally of Megiddo where all the nations of the world will fall upon Israel and God will return to save his people. Before all this happens, Christians who have accepted Christ as their saviour will be raptured, taken from this physical world to heaven.
Once again every one has their own beliefs, so take this how you will. |
|
Sat Feb 01, 2003 12:13 am |
|
|
Bilbo
High Emperor
Joined: 12 Mar 2002
Posts: 1620
Location: New York |
The people who have made anti-war posts here basically have their criticisms in 3 categories:
1) Iraqi civilians will die or otherwise be hurt;
2) Iraq is no different than other dictatorships around the world. Why go after Saddam instead of others? and
3) The US is being hypocritical on the question of WMDs.
Each of these questions can be answered to explain why war there is necessary.
1) Iraqi civilians are already being hurt by Saddam. Gassing his own people. Diverting food and medical supplies, including for re-sale outside of Iraq, intended to help the Iraqi people so as to keep them oppressed to feed anti-Western sentiment. For 12 years Saddam has had the ability to comply with UN requests to get sanctions lifted - out of pride and stubborness he refused to do so. The UN ordered no-fly zones to protect both Iraqi minorities and coalition forces; yet Saddam has repeated violated them to provoke confrontation, leading to further attacks which kill Iraqis (soldiers and civilians) and further depredation (knocking out a power plant being used to power military operations, but also providing non-military electricity). The idea is to get rid of Saddam so as to help most Iraqi citizens. Yes, Iraq had a high standard of living before 1991 compared to other parts of the Middle East, but that's all relative - their standard of living was pitiful compared to most places outside of Africa and parts of South America.
2) There is 1 big difference between Saddam and other dictators - Saddam has threatened other countries in the region. Saudi Arabia, the other big Islamic army in the Middle East besides Iraq, isn't going around threatening other countries. The only Islamic Middle Eastern country besides Iraq currently flexing its military outside of its borders is Syria (in Lebanon, and occasionally via Lebanese proxy in Israel). And even Syria is pushing Iraq to comply with the UN (at least publicly; no comment on what is being said behind the scenes, as I don't know).
3) There is a big difference between having WMD for "defensive" purposes, and threatening to use them. Could the US wipe out Iraq with a couple of nukes, thereby "solving the problem"? Yes, but no one is seriously suggesting that because no one is advocating the genocide of the Iraqi people. Russia has nukes, but is not using them in Chechnya. India and Pakistan have nukes, and are threatening no one but each other with them (and note that in all of the border clashes so far, there has been no WMD use). Israel has had nukes for five decades, and never used them in 5-6 wars (depending on what you count as being a war). England and France have nukes, but one never even hears talk of them using it. Iraq is different, because Saddam has sought WMD for stated OFFENSIVE purposes, and he has used them on Iraqis, so one can conclude that he would not hesitate to use more. So consider the question like this: Do we wait for Saddam to get WMDs and use them, and then remove him after the damage is done? Or do we act pre-emptively where there is a known threat, to try to stop a potential and future threat, and in the process risk him using whatever WMDs he has now, sooner? I support the offensive strike now to remove Saddam, before the consequences could be worse.
(Note: Yes, I know I omitted the North Korea situation in my analysis in #3 above. This is deliberate, as that is a different problem which should be discussed in much more detail than I want to in a thread about Iraq. In fact, I'll start a discussion in another thread so people can air their views.)
_________________
The world itself shifts and changes and fades to mist like the strings of a minstrel's harp, and mayhap the dreams we forge are more enduring than the works of kings and gods.-Robert E. Howard
=Member of the RPGDot Shadows, The Nonflamers' Guild, and The Alliance of Middle Earth= |
|
Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:35 am |
|
|
ballistic
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 13 Dec 2002
Posts: 44
|
Bilbo, I'll give you another reason against the war, I've seen argued.
4) costs to the US
I dont' know if you've noticed, but the US economy is not doing very well, people are being laid off, IT jobs are being shipped overseas due to costs, the stock market is bleh,
Mainaining the war and the aftermath, ( I assume the US will have to maintain control there for a while) may drive this country into ruin yet.
Who's going to re-build the US? China, etc... are probably having a good laugh at this, while Bush is is flushing our cash on wars to 'project power', and setting them up for the next superpower.
What about overextending? We are already 'supervising' half of the world. When will we pull a muscle?
Doesn't anyone care about us Americans? |
|
Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:53 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
quote:
Originally posted by ballistic
Doesn't anyone care about us Americans?
Despite my position against a war with Iraq (at this moment) I have still found some of the pro arguments quite powerful. However, if a unilateral war with Iraq proceeds it will have been the choice of the US to deal with this issue now rather than at a point when the international community agrees. That choice comes at a financial (and probably human) cost. |
|
Sat Feb 01, 2003 5:15 am |
|
|
Bilbo
High Emperor
Joined: 12 Mar 2002
Posts: 1620
Location: New York |
quote:
Originally posted by ballistic
Bilbo, I'll give you another reason against the war, I've seen argued.
4) costs to the US
I dont' know if you've noticed, but the US economy is not doing very well, people are being laid off, IT jobs are being shipped overseas due to costs, the stock market is bleh,
Mainaining the war and the aftermath, ( I assume the US will have to maintain control there for a while) may drive this country into ruin yet.
Who's going to re-build the US? China, etc... are probably having a good laugh at this, while Bush is is flushing our cash on wars to 'project power', and setting them up for the next superpower.
What about overextending? We are already 'supervising' half of the world. When will we pull a muscle?
Doesn't anyone care about us Americans?
Yes, cost is a factor, but most people here aren't arguing about the cost. I was focusing on what people were talking about.
Whose going to rebuild the US? The US. The economy was already cooling off pre-9/11. 9/11 just accelerated the decline. However, some economic indicators are showing positive signs. Recessions don't last forever. Wars have multiple effects on economies, not all of which are negative. Since no one can predict how long a war and the subsequent rebuilding in Iraq will last or be necessary, the strain on the US economy is impossible to predict. But I would say the US economy is strong enough now to survive a multi-year war without putting us into a depression. IT jobs going overseas is another function of a strong dollar making overseas labor cheaper, and the general shift over the past 45 or so years in the US to a service economy. [Note: My job is somewhat paradoxical, in that when the economy tanks, my business booms, and things can slow down if the economy is good. Fortunately for me, there are other aspects of my business where the reverse is true, and this is part of a deliberate business strategy. And being in a service industry of sorts, my job can't go overseas.]
Overextending? One thing the US has is support from allies. (Of course there are many "allies" who are not allied with the US on this one - France and Germany are the big 2.) But the US military and economy are not running the war on their own. Yes, fewer allies means more costs borne by the US, but it does not mean US bankruptcy.
_________________
The world itself shifts and changes and fades to mist like the strings of a minstrel's harp, and mayhap the dreams we forge are more enduring than the works of kings and gods.-Robert E. Howard
=Member of the RPGDot Shadows, The Nonflamers' Guild, and The Alliance of Middle Earth= |
|
Sat Feb 01, 2003 5:15 am |
|
|
ballistic
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 13 Dec 2002
Posts: 44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bilbo
quote:
Originally posted by ballistic
Bilbo, I'll give you another reason against the war, I've seen argued.
4) costs to the US
I dont' know if you've noticed, but the US economy is not doing very well, people are being laid off, IT jobs are being shipped overseas due to costs, the stock market is bleh,
Mainaining the war and the aftermath, ( I assume the US will have to maintain control there for a while) may drive this country into ruin yet.
Who's going to re-build the US? China, etc... are probably having a good laugh at this, while Bush is is flushing our cash on wars to 'project power', and setting them up for the next superpower.
What about overextending? We are already 'supervising' half of the world. When will we pull a muscle?
Doesn't anyone care about us Americans?
Yes, cost is a factor, but most people here aren't arguing about the cost. I was focusing on what people were talking about.
Whose going to rebuild the US? The US.
Out of whose pocket? Yours and mine? and, Joe Shmoe on the street? By raising taxes? Printing money? The 'allies', or IMF sure wont be there with their checkbooks.
quote:
The economy was already cooling off pre-9/11. 9/11 just accelerated the decline. However, some economic indicators are showing positive signs. Recessions don't last forever. Wars have multiple effects on economies, not all of which are negative. Since no one can predict how long a war and the subsequent rebuilding in Iraq will last or be necessary, the strain on the US economy is impossible to predict. But I would say the US economy is strong enough now to survive a multi-year war without putting us into a depression.
'survive' doesn't sound too encouraging. Besides, can you be sure Iraq is going to be the end of it?
quote:
IT jobs going overseas is another function of a strong dollar making overseas labor cheaper, and the general shift over the past 45 or so years in the US to a service economy. [Note: My job is somewhat paradoxical, in that when the economy tanks, my business booms, and things can slow down if the economy is good. Fortunately for me, there are other aspects of my business where the reverse is true, and this is part of a deliberate business strategy. And being in a service industry of sorts, my job can't go overseas.]
(Ok, this is really OT to this thread, but)
{
That's great. But, I'm in IT and I'll tell you, I've never seen it this bad. And, by jobs going overseas I meant places like India, China and Eastern Europe where the value of the dollar is irrelevant, since labor costs there are far far below the american cost of living threshold.
}
quote:
Overextending? One thing the US has is support from allies. (Of course there are many "allies" who are not allied with the US on this one - France and Germany are the big 2.) But the US military and economy are not running the war on their own.
By 'overextending' I meant too many 'hotspots' they'll be spending our tax dollars on, for whatever reasons known only to the federal government. Allied doesn't mean monetary support. They simply allow our planes use thier air space, or move troops through their territory. BTW, we still pay for all our bases all around the world.
quote:
Yes, fewer allies means more costs borne by the US, but it does not mean US bankruptcy.
If you say so. But, perhaps, Iraq will be followed by another adventure(s) of this, or next administration across the wolrd map. And, again you and me will be paying the bill.
Personally, I'm really confused about a lot of things in this and haven't formed my own opinion, yet. But, I can see how some people have arrived at thiers.
Last edited by ballistic on Sat Feb 01, 2003 6:02 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Sat Feb 01, 2003 5:55 am |
|
|
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
@Bilbo,
I read somewhere that 80% population of 15 EU members didn't support US to invade Iraq if US didn't get approval from UN. So do you think US still should attack Iraq (act alone) with only few countries supporting US or no one at all? |
|
Sat Feb 01, 2003 6:00 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
@TheDarkside: So in the Court of Darkside freedom has no value? I'd give my life for freedom. And I am not advocating the slaughter of innocents. I am advocating the death of a tyrant who has slaughtered innocents. The prison camps for children alone is enough to convince me that Saddam deserves the death penalty. You have the audacity to question my values when you advocate leaving that monster in a position where he can continue to harm others?
As for the having guns pointed at their backs, I didn't get that from Bush. I do my own research. I've read accounts by Iraqi refugees who witnessed people being shot because they didn't cheer.
@Gorath: We've been trying that with North Korea. Seen any results yet?
And how is it naive of me to admit that innocents will be harmed or killed? As I said, we will take great pains to avoid civilian casualties. However, in a war it is impossible to avoid it completely.
@ballistic: I can tell you what my cousins, who are soldiers in that region currently (they got called over there from there previous assignments), are being told if you like. They're told to avoid harming civilians. I assume these orders are similar to the rest of the soldiers as well.
@Hyrrix: The UN and the US have both given him ultimatums. Several in fact.
My one cousin who was stationed in Afghanistan before being shipped off to the gulf commented on how friendly and happy the people were that the US soldiers were there. His job was removing land mines.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Sat Feb 01, 2003 9:08 am |
|
|
Hyrrix
Fourty-two
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Posts: 282
|
@Ni-Androth: I think the most important thing you said there was the word "respect". Altough I don't see it much applied to the other things you say... on one hand you say everyone is free to believe whatever he wants to believe, on the other hand you think it is just that people who freely chose another religion, are killed for that. I know you probably think that I can't truly judge about this, because I don't believe in Christianity; my opinion is that as an atheist (and having studied both Islam and (early-)christianity) I can be closer to both of these religions at the same time than someone who is dedicated to only one side can be. Still, I think we agree with eachother that everyone has the right to choose his own religion; without having to be killed for that because God (or the US) said that there should be a land there. (n/o)
@Bilbo: Then why is it that Saddam is actually very popular in his region? That doesn't mean he is a 'good' dictator or anything, but it means that going to war would possibly make things worse. Kill Saddam won't solve the problem, believe me. The majority of the people there are supporting him (can you blame them? I already mentioned the effects of poverty, mixed with extreme religion and propaganda), so killing him would create even more hatred; as would killing innocents do.
@Remis: True, 8/10 Europeans are against a war in Iraq without a UN resolution. The majority would still be against it even with the resolution; but what I don't understand is the faith people have in the UN. There is nothing "just" or democratic about the UN... having veto for 5 countries, with US supremacy (China and Russia can be bought, UK has always been the lap-dog of the US).
@Val: The thing is that a war won't help the situation a bit. It are things like these that result in terrosit actions like 9/11.
_________________
Vault Network Editor |
|
Sat Feb 01, 2003 11:39 am |
|
|
Bilbo
High Emperor
Joined: 12 Mar 2002
Posts: 1620
Location: New York |
quote:
Originally posted by Remus
@Bilbo,
I read somewhere that 80% population of 15 EU members didn't support US to invade Iraq if US didn't get approval from UN. So do you think US still should attack Iraq (act alone) with only few countries supporting US or no one at all?
Yes. I have a very negative opinion of the UN (which I've expressed previously), so the lack of UN endorsement means nothing to me.
Generally, I feel the decision whether or not to invade Iraq should be done in consultation with the US & its allies (England supportive, France & Germany negative, Russia flipflopping but currently supportive, Australia reluctantly following the US lead IIRC, etc.) and not by the world at large. I personally think it is the right thing to do (and I know others here disagree with me, and they are free to do so), and would go so far to say it should be done unilaterally in this case.
quote:
Originally posted by hyrrix
@Bilbo: Then why is it that Saddam is actually very popular in his region? That doesn't mean he is a 'good' dictator or anything, but it means that going to war would possibly make things worse. Kill Saddam won't solve the problem, believe me. The majority of the people there are supporting him (can you blame them? I already mentioned the effects of poverty, mixed with extreme religion and propaganda), so killing him would create even more hatred; as would killing innocents do.
Saddam's "popularity" depends on what media you listen to; Al-Jazeera and other Iraqi media cite him as popular, Western media does not. Removing Saddam from power may bring more stability to the region by getting rid of a dictator seeking more WMDs. (Simply killing him without further changes will accomplish nothing, as his son is set to succeed him, and the son is reportedly worse than the father.) Poverty tends NOT to endear one to ones leaders. Killing innocents always engenders hatred; the goal is to do it by killing as few innocents as possible, and by rebuilding the country afterwards to improve the standard of living there.
_________________
The world itself shifts and changes and fades to mist like the strings of a minstrel's harp, and mayhap the dreams we forge are more enduring than the works of kings and gods.-Robert E. Howard
=Member of the RPGDot Shadows, The Nonflamers' Guild, and The Alliance of Middle Earth= |
|
Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:35 pm |
|
|
Hyrrix
Fourty-two
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Posts: 282
|
The media I was talking about was in no way affiliated with Al-Jazeera or other Arabic media, but Western. Only there might be a difference between Western in general and American...
As the current war rhetorics of president Bush and his treatening works supportive for Saddam's popularity I do believe it only helps him gain support. Of course, if a war might prove necessary, things should be arranged as you say, and I do believe that the rebuilding in this unstabilized area of the world is very important to prevent the growth of hatred against the West.
_________________
Vault Network Editor |
|
Sat Feb 01, 2003 6:15 pm |
|
|
Doc
Village Dweller
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 4
|
Who the hell is going to fight this war against Iraqi? Isn't going to be people in the Bush family? Or any congressmens family? How about the senaters sons and daughters? Are they going to war? No their not. Almost every single public school in NE, SE, and SW of Washington D.C. has a ROTC program. In NW their isn't a single one. NW is considered the rich part of DC while the rest is the slums. My friends in Chicago(were i used to live) say that their are more recruiters and army programs in their neighborhood then their ever was in High Park (one of the rich parts of CHicago, Operah and Muhammed Ali used to live their). Your not going to see the Gore daughters go of to war, no i'm going to have to go off to war. And until i hear about people from Beverly Hills and High Part and North West going off to war i will never support a American war. |
|
Sat Feb 01, 2003 8:10 pm |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hyrrix
The majority of the people there are supporting him.
In the city of Baghdad maybe but if you mean the majority of Iraqi citizens then you are very wrong. 50+% (the majority) of Iraqi citizens are Kurdish, the very people Saddam has attempted to commit genocide on, or perhaps Ethnic Cleansing would be a more accurate term. Many of the people in Baghdad who do support Saddam do so because they are told, by the medias Saddam controls, that if the country was to become democratic that the Kurds would have the majority and would use it to take their revenge on “real Iraqis.” Many support him because they are told that Saddam and his republican guard are the only one’s standing between them and the revenge of the Kurds. Those that believe this, and why shouldn’t they since they don’t have access to any other sources of information, think that should Saddam fall they will be killed or enslaved. |
|
Sat Feb 01, 2003 8:47 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:03 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
