| |
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 |
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
They didn´t ask to be freed.
Ever hear of the Iraq Foundation?
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
And the question remains, is the price for his removal too high?
In my opinion, no.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
They had massive problems in another country (India? I´m not sure.). I saw this in a lengthy documentary. Kenneth Lay wrote some letters to the 'Dear George' and gave him some hints. The papers were shown in the film. To make it short: the White House used a lot of ressources to support Enrons negotiation position.
What's the name of this documentary?
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
Mmh. Usually you´re better informed.
I'm quite well informed, thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
In the year ending September 2002, the United States spent $13 billion on the war effort. By contrast, the total Pentagon effort has committed only $10 million to civil works and humanitarian aid."
Bombs and airplanes and troops cost more than rebuilding roads and buildings. There is also the charity aid going to the country. Charities don't pay for the bombs and airplanes and troops, but they help make the cost of rebuilding less.
In contrast, World War 2 cost about $228 billion dollars (at that time, these numbers do not reflect inflation). The Marshall Plan cost around $13 billion dollars. Was the Marshall Plan a failure because it's costs were not equal to the amount spent on the war?
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
Of course. And does this inevitably mean war? The old plan didn´t work, now let´s start an invasion and kill Saddam. The XXX.XXX casualties don´t matter?
This is too easy, IMO.
Then what, pray tell, is your solution to the problem? And don't state something that's already been tried and has failed.
quote:
99% is enough to convince me. Murderers have been convicted with less evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
That doesn´t excuse it. Constitutional states have strict rules. If strong suspicion is enough to be found guilty then one can only pray never to stand in front of a court in such a banana republic.
I guess it all comes down to opinion then. Is the effidence enough for you to convict someone? The evidence presented so far is enough to convince me that Saddam needs to be removed.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
Please explain. I don´t think I said any inappropriate things.
bullshit = profanity
Thus, please watch your language.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
Val, please don´t react in a polemic way when somebody disagrees with you.
I didn't. If I had, I would have torn those quotes apart and spit them back into his face. I meerly stated that I didn't find it surprising that Democrats are opposing war because they are looking for an issue to run on in 2004.
_________________
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=  |
Thu Jan 30, 2003 2:30 am |
|
|
Gothic Soul
Master of Shadows
Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 682
Location: Underdark |
quote:
Originally posted by Finarfin
I really don't understand why the americans want to go to war, if you are going to topple one evil dictator, you should topple them all, but i don't see them going to war with China or Zimbabwe or any of the others, it can't be because iraq are a threat to the US, because Iraq isn't, not in any way, iraq isn't even a threat to middle eastern countries.
Also there isn't any evidence that iraq supports terrorism against the US (infact the threat of terrorism towards the US is very minimal), although once the war starts that will change, US foreign policy has created more terrorists than islam ever did.
Also i just can't agree with the killing of innocent civilians for bush's own political goals, and i wish britain would pull back the way france and germany have
i also find it slightly ironic that he is "fighting for democracy" when the only reason he is in power in the first place is because his little brother rigged the election in his favour!
I see you are well informed you know why they want to go to war only for petroleum, the only thing Bush cares is petroleum he does not care about terrorism or Sep.11 it's only a war for petroleum. If you read books about the american wars topics you would see that the United States have never won a war completely why?, cause they find what they want before even finishing the war. SO this war is exchanging blood for petroleum. I am part of the United States but I have to say Bush is no Angel he is as evil as Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.
<EDIT> Sorry that this post is late but it is true<EDIT>
_________________
"Whow, the necromancer is here" -Bartacus to myself |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 3:41 am |
|
|
TheDarkside
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 46
|
The only thing that surprised me by the speech was that it actually resulted in people being convinced we need to declare war on Iraq. I am deeply saddened that people can be so biased and quick to conclude to war as the conclusion. Why has this country become so indifferent? All of Bush's "case points" were clearly arguable- yet in the court of the average american citizen, Iraq is clearly guilty and it's people deserve to be massacred. What happened to the fundamental principle in our judicial system somethign along the lines of "without a shadow of a doubt" ?? For example: the aluminum tubes he brought up was determined by the IAEA to be unsuable for uraniam enrichment which Bush has claimed. The fact is aluminum is simply not strong enough to sustain the RPMs required in order to diffuse uranium within a centrifuge. All those biologic and chemical 'materials' Bush mentioned: these are from rough estimates by weapons inspectors a decade ago which were not proved before and still not proved today. Saddam has used chemical weapons on his own people- yeah well I hate to break it to you but we did somethign jsut as bad! We knew before the war started that the uranium tipped shells used by our tanks were highly volatile and would be harmful to soldiers operating aroudn it and civilians who will live among it in the future-- it takes a few billion years for this stuff to break down by the way. Yet we had no problem littering Iraq with it and putting our own soldiers at risk! You can find reports of up to 2,000 soldiers since the gulf war dead due to symptoms related to radioation exposure. Countless thousands have complained of minor symptoms as well. Lets not mention the skyrocketing cancer rates among the civilians of Iraq either. All this was clearly warned about in a report published ebfore the war started, yet we ignored it because "uranium tipped shells pierce armor like butter" -- not to mention we have so much of this stuff lying in special storage facilities accross our country and we don't know what to do with all of it. Anyway, enough of my ranting. I can't wait to see the 'evidence' Powell will provide in February. But judging from the average American's response to jsut the state of the Union address Powell could draw Saddam and Bin Laden shaking hands in crayons and everyone will rally to war. |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 4:14 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
@Bilbo (& Kayla!), I don't disagree 100% this time  . I don't actually disagree with any of Kayla's statement, as such. I would be happy to see Iraq disarmed - I just disgree on the urgency of an invasion to achieve this. But I will reconsider this position as/if more information is made available and I consider a complete UNSCOM report to be part of this. |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 4:51 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
@Gothic Soul: I'm quite well read about the wars the US has fought. Let's see:
Revolutionary war, a war of independance to break away from Britian. I do believe we won that war completely.
War of 1812, again, we don't have a monarch, so I'd say we won that one too.
Mexican War, well, Texas is a part of the US, so I'd say we won that one.
Civil War, preserve the union and free the slaves. Both of those happened, so I'd say we won that one.
Spanish American War, the US supported Cuba's bid for independance from Spain and for better or worse, Cuba is certainly free from Spain.
WW I, we obviously came out of it better than Germany did, so I think it's safe to say we and our allies won that one.
WW II, again, same as before, unconditional surrender from our enemies. I'd say that's a call for victory.
Korean War, a war over communism that ended in a stalemate. No clear winners in that one.
Vietnam War, a police action to keep communism out of South Vietnam. The only clear loss of a war in American history.
Cold War, well, the USSR doesn't exist anymore, so I'd say we achieved victory there.
Persian Gulf War, kick Iraq out of Kuwait, yup, objective achieved.
Where is your evidence that Bush is an evil man? I haven't heard of him torturing people to death nor flying airplanes full of civilians into buildings.
If war does happen, it's going to be more about regime change than oil.
_________________
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= |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 4:53 am |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheDarkside
...yet in the court of the average american citizen, Iraq is clearly guilty and it's people deserve to be massacred.
How can anyone believe such an asinine statement to be true?!?! I am offended just hearing it said! The average American does not believe that Iraqi citizens should be killed, rather the average American believes that should Saddam be killed or otherwise deposed, the life of the average Iraqi citizen would have a chance to improve!
The average American citizen is not genocidal! |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 6:32 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
No kidding! See what were dealing with here?
All because there is a Republican in the White House, basically. If Al Gore was running the show, we wouldnt even be questioned on any of this. This would be a "Mission of Salvation". Clinton sent troops all over the place, I dont remember everyone having this coalition obsession either before. In '98 there was full support for giving Saddam his "Last Chance", whats changed since then? Besides his arsenal growing, theres a conservative in the White House, that changes everything. Everyone wants to debate this into the ground, its been debated for 12 years. There was a unanimous 15-0 UN vote, all these senators now against war voted for it last October. Hussien is not cooperating fully with inspectors and forbidding U2 observance flights, and he has not destroyed his stockpiles or even declared them from the Gulf War. Its amazing, for sheer politics some people are willing to let another North Korea be created to blackmail the nations of the world. Its late, Im rambling... it just amazes me
World leaders in '98, talkin tough and ready to take care of business-
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/19/98021903_wpo.html
here we are 5 years later, what's changed, Chretien?
German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel was pretty ominous here, whats the deal now Foreign Minister Fischer?
"Incidentally, I believe that we Germans in particular have good
reason to work toward preventing a dictator from causing something
terrible yet again. There was one dictator who was stopped too late.
This one has to be stopped in good time." (applause)
Ah yes, everyone likes a good dramatic speech. How about actually doing something about it already?
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 7:59 am |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
Yes, some of these charges against Bush and the American people are pure fantasy and disinformation. If you are against military action, say so and give logical fact based reasons why. If you don't have any real reasons, at least be honest about why you are against it, like you hate George W or whatever. Don't just make up a bunch of bitter BS and throw out some conspiracy theories.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 4:39 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
Let's not get too hot under the collar guys.
@TheDarkside: I must say that I agree with Roach. That accusation is extremely insulting. I was convinced that Saddam should have been gotten rid of during the Gulf War. My opinion hasn't changed since then.
_________________
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= |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 5:02 pm |
|
|
HiddenX
The Elder Spy
Joined: 20 Jul 2001
Posts: 749
Location: NRW / Germany |
I am against the Iraq war, because I am a realist.
- wars in the middle east are destabilizing the region.
- there's no plan for the time after the war.
- the world oil resources won't last in any case for the next 80 years, with or witout the Iraq oil, if if we continue to waste it.
- the Iraq military is absolutely no threat to the western alliance
- with a war the hatred against the US and partners will rise in the muslim countries and the probability of terror attacks will rise with it.
- war should not be used as a political utility -> war should only be used as an emergency brake if there is no other solution.
... and there is no emergancy case in Iraq in my opinion...
So I agree with Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder in this case.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild= |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 9:25 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
quote:
Originally posted by HiddenX
I am against the Iraq war, because I am a realist.
- wars in the middle east are destabilizing the region.
- there's no plan for the time after the war.
- the world oil resources won't last in any case for the next 80 years, with or witout the Iraq oil, if if we continue to waste it.
- the Iraq military is absolutely no threat to the western alliance
- with a war the hatred against the US and partners will rise in the muslim countries and the probability of terror attacks will rise with it.
So I agree with Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder in this case.
I have to disagree with a few of your statements.
1. Wars are not destabilizing the region, hatred is. Blind, ignorant hatred that was originally stirred up by the Mufti of Jeruselem in the early 1900's to help build a power base.
2. You don't know that there is no plan for the time after the war.
3. I am not sure about the oil reserves. In the 70's when I was in highschool there was only supposed to be reserves to last until 2005.
4. True the Iraq military is no threat to the west, but that does not mean that unchecked it could not do a lot of damage.
5. I disagree about a war causing more hatred. This claim was also made during the Afgan adventure. In the beginning when things were a little on the slow side there were protests world wide and the Arab "street" was very active ... but once things fell apart and the Afgan/Bin-Ladin (sp?) alliance disintegrated, the "street" got strangely quiet. Unfortunatly it seems that our arab friends see kindness and a willingness to compromise as weakness...for why would one bargain for something if one can take it?
In addition (still on #5) the hatred has become self generating at this point. It is not rational, and if the west does nothing we will be hated because we are weak. If we act we will be hated because we are strong.
This is the result of religious fanaticism gone wild. Logic has no use. The message being promulgated by the extremist muslim clerics is "if we hate we are strong and will win, if we do not hate then we are weak and will lose."
Cripes how I hate organized religion when it goes bad! It is really ugly.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 9:47 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
- wars in the middle east are destabilizing the region.
What would a chemical missile launched into Israel do?
- there's no plan for the time after the war.
How do you know that, and why does it matter much at this point?
- the world oil resources won't last in any case for the next 80 years, with or witout the Iraq oil, if if we continue to waste it.
How do you know that, and what does Iraq's oil have to do with this situation? Anyway, losing the oil from the middle east abruptly would be catastrophic to the economy. I know people like to think they are above needing oil, but just think of what would happen to people and bussinesses if the price of oil tripled
- the Iraq military is absolutely no threat to the western alliance
Perhaps, but their weapons are a threat to everyone.
- with a war the hatred against the US and partners will rise in the muslim countries and the probability of terror attacks will rise with it.
Could be. Can't shake in our boots over such things because it only makes us weaker and them stronger.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 9:50 pm |
|
|
HiddenX
The Elder Spy
Joined: 20 Jul 2001
Posts: 749
Location: NRW / Germany |
~What would a chemical missile launched into Israel do?~
and
~ the Iraq military is absolutely no threat to the western alliance
Perhaps, but their weapons are a threat to everyone. ~
If we start to attack every country that is a possible minor threat to us, we will fight the next hundred years - there are many dictators all over the world.
~ - there's no plan for the time after the war.
How do you know that, and why does it matter much at this point? ~
If the US government had a good after war plan, they would have told the world public to win a few more discussions.
And of cause a good after war plan is necessary to avoid a follow-up war / civil war.
~but just think of what would happen to people and bussinesses if the price of oil tripled~
In fact the oil price have to rise, to show all people that oil is a valuable resource, much too valuable to use it as fuel. Alternative sustainable types of energy have to be developed in future.
---
~Wars are not destabilizing the region, hatred is~
Do you really think the muslim hatred will not rise with an US-Iraq war ?
~I am not sure about the oil reserves. In the 70's when I was in highschool there was only supposed to be reserves to last until 2005.~
fact is there are limited, very limited and if the Chinese would drive as many cars per family as the western countries ...
~This is the result of religious fanaticism gone wild~
I don't speak of the fanatics, I speak of the average muslim citizens in the middle east, in their eyes most people in the western world are arrogant, imperialistic and self-satisfied with no interest in the muslim way of life.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild= |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 10:43 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
@Hidden X - I do not think you quite grasp how throughly soaked in religion the area is, and how differently the world is seen. Most law is ... wait I have a better approach.
A story! I love telling stories, especially true ones.
An UK based health insurer tried to establish a branch in Saudi Arabia (SA). They figured people the world over are pretty much the same, and health care in SA is not backwards so they used European utilization rates to compute costs. What they did not realize is that every doctors office serves tea and small snacks. Why? Because one of the only reasons a woman may leave the home during the day is to go to the doctor. So, of course, she and all her friends book appointments at the same time. The doctor, of course, is very busy and can not see them quickly, so they have an hour or two to chat and socialize. Guess what? The average SA woman sees her family doctor every week or so. Needless to say the UK insurer closed up shop very quickly.
THAT is how different the society is. You are not thinking as an Arab. You are thinking as a European trying to think like an Arab.
Get to know some one who can read Arabic. Have them translate Arabic newspapers for you. What is written and said in Arabic is very different from what is written and said in other languages by the very same people. The anti-west bias is very real, and VERY pervaissive.
You are correct that the west is seen very poorly by the average muslim citizen. Why? If not for religious reasons then why? Explain Indonesia to me. The part of the country that sees the west as evil is the muslim half. Were they singled out in Indonesia for persecution by the west? Are they more exploited than the rest of the country? Why is only the muslim half of the country unhappy enough to blow up discos, take hostages etc.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Thu Jan 30, 2003 11:00 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
