Interesting Gulf War News

[frogboy4]

Argh! I'll rememmber taht next tome.

 

[Drtooth]

Re: Kim

Originally posted by frogboy4
Violence at a peace protest could be the very definition of hypocrisy. I think you'd have a different impression if this were in your back yard every day.

Violence at a protest has nothing to do with the action overseas. The message that the destructive protesters are sending is that they aren’t more enlightened or have any better answers to solve their issues than the US government. Whatever side you fall on the debate, that’s a moot point.

I have said it several times, I pray that there is no more loss of life - from either side of the conflict.

(BTW, not all the protesters are violent and they cast shame on those who are actually out there, spending their time to encourage peace.)

I quite agree. I am against the war, but I do not wish to pound any cops, or do anthing rash. I have no problem if protestors would sit in, or have Mahatma Ghandi style passive resistance. But this is agressive resistance. i know where you're coming from, because I hear of the worst most violent protests coming from your home town, big J...

I do not go to ANY Protests for this reason. I do what I do best, saturize things in comics....

 

[BoyRaisin2]

Originally posted by frogboy4
Argh! I'll rememmber taht next tome.

...boozer.

 

[tomahawk]

Originally posted by BoyRaisin2
...boozer.

Hey, just like dubbya!!!

 

[DirthNader]

The use of violence to protest violence does seem strange. I guess it's kinda like using violence to bring about peace in another country.

Me, I'm agin' it in either case. I feel that the situation in Iraq should have been thought out more carefully. Unfortunately, I don't think we have the best man for that job. Thinking doesn't seem to be one of our leaders strong points. He leans more to the side of personal passion. I would say that it was his right to do so, but I think it's a poor quality in a leader of the most militarily powerful country in the world. Kinda like handing a stick of TNT to Crazy Harry. If he has it, he tends to want to use it.

As for Sadam, I understand that he is a tyrrant. I even feel that something should have been done to remove him from power, possibly years earlier. However, wouldn't it have been as effective to bring him up on official charges. It seems to me that his history of humanitarian attrocities would have warranted a day in the world court, some sort of tribunal or something. Heck, his entire administration could have been charged, right down to his sons. If the charges stood, if the voice of the Iraqi people could have finally been heard without fear of retribution from the man who holds all the strings, then I think the world would have stood together and happily watched him unseated.

Instead, war has begun, people are dying, and much of the world is on the fence, knowing that something had to be done, but feeling certain that this was not the way.

I hope for peace, I plead for sanity in all this, and in the end I hope that the people of Iraq can forgive us. May they be better off for this misguided effort.

(A disclaimer: I wasn't sure if I should make my statement. I'm trying not to get involved in any discussions about the whole affair. We all have our oppinions, each of us thinking ourselves in the right. May we all respect the oppinions of others.)

Thank you

 

[sidcrowe]

Tomahawk: Thanx for the moment of silence, but I've been asked to go back to this thread by "management"

Okay then...

Like I said, it's gonna be messy. Only SEVEN days in, and already...ah, jeez...lemme just copy and paste...I don't wanna rewrite from scratch. Be back in a minute

 

[sidcrowe]

ALL: Okay, here are the arguments I was making on the other thread. I'll put them here and see if anybody salutes...so to speak.

Muppetsrule...Luke: I started off with, and was referencing to...."Both sides are showing prisoners."

I meant prisoners on both sides. Not the dead soldiers.

When I said "how can you blame them" I meant the INTERVIEWS with the prisoners are being way out of line.

There were photos (at least in Canadian newspapers) or Iraqi soldiers, on thier knees with their hands bound behind their backs, still in uniform, being fed something from a jug by an American soldier. That's humiliating to the other side. You're not supposed to use prisoners for propaganda.

The footage with the dead soldiers is wrong. That doesn't fall under my "how can you blame them" thing. I meant both sides using prisoners for propaganda. The dead soldiers' footage I don't agree with, either.

In other news, Syria has been accused of sending night vision goggles to Iraq. Rumsfeld has warned Syria to stop it. What if they don't stop?

It's gonna be messy the longer it takes...more complicated.

"1) The filming of Iraqi POWs is being shown by independent news services and not by a state-run television."

Yeah, so it is sort of an "official" move by the Iraqis, which does make them look bad...but the state-run channel is all they have. And the channel is being blown up. You've got tons of channels, and nobody is blowing them up.

"2) Most importantly, the filming of POWs from both sides also brings up an interesting contrast though. We see POWs in Iraqs controll beaten, and sometimes executed. The Iraqi POWs in the coalitions control are shown being fed, cared for, and wounds tended to. Just a little more humanitarian."

I haven't seen any coverage showing those American POWs being beaten up.

Yeah, probably a few of those soldiers may have been executed. It's wrong, but then again, where are the bombs falling on people who live on your street? If Iraqis were running around in your backyard, killing your friends, I'll bet a few of you would execute them...not all, but some.

If someone killed my mother, I'd execute him if I had the chance. Screw the Geneva convention. I'd bet you may do it, too.

This isn't like an army going in to fight off the Nazis who took over a country. This is going in to "liberate" a screwed up country that has already done a lot of screwing itself up. A lot of those civillians DO NOT want to be taken over by America. Would you like to be taken over...by ANYBODY?

Any person with a gun might fight your soldiers. Your guys are being forced to fight civillians who have no miltary training, and are using the only weapon they have besides a crummy gun---surprise. I don't blame your soldiers as individuals. Some Iraqis want to surrender, while others pretend to and do a surprise attack. They are outclassed, are guaranteed to lose, and are being invaded.

It ugly. I don't think it ever should have taken place.

Luke:
"Though if you are against them executing the American and British POW's and showing them dead with bullets in their heads then i don't much see how you can be strongly against the reasons for war - this is completely the kind of barbaric acts and behaviour that we are going to war to rid the world and the Iraqi people off."

I admit it's a country ruled by a maniac. But it's still their country to reshape or suffer with. Saddam has many doubles because a lot of people would like to kill him, and then themselves, before they got captured and tortured to death. Maybe it woulda happened eventually.

If America can't control its booze and drugs, and its rampant murder rate, should we all band together and invade, in order to make things better?

JUST as I told you all.......it's very complex. The US has just warned Iran and Syria not to get involved. Iran is sending some soldiers...Syria some arms.

THAT is why I said Bush is a madman. Maybe this will turn out as the US and Britian hopes it will......but what if things escalate?

IF...IF...IF.......Iran and Syria or just ONE of them decides not to take orders from Rumsfeld, the US will be obliged to fight them as well. Then what about Pakistan? And India? With their nukes? One button...then the US presses a button. Then RUSSIA says "STOP IT! America, it was a mistake, you gambled and lost...go home!" What if America says "no?" Then what? Now that the U.N. has been ignored by the world's greatest military, NOW WHAT?

It has only been SEVEN days, and already other countries are starting to dip their feet in the water, and the US is telling them to back off.

SEVEN days!

How CLOSE Bush takes the Earth to the brink of World War III. My God!

It is NOT going as smoothly as Bush or Blair told us it would

FellowWLover: If you've been here for any length of time, you know that the threads are just starters for conversation.

I've kicked myself off of the "War News" thread, so that others may talk about Elmo dolls (off off original topic), and taken myself off of the Oscar thread, even though Michael Moore's comments were ON the Oscars itself.

I was answering Luke and Muppetsrule. The coverage includes the news that Syria and Iran are starting to mess about, which is VERY bad news for the whole world. Bush and Blair said it'd be easy, quick, simple. It's not.

Try this flash:
http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

FellowWLover: This is an insult: Saddam is a *******! Bush is a *******!

I have not insulted you.

Slander is an untruth.

"If America can't control its booze and drugs, and its rampant murder rate, should we all band together and invade, in order to make things better?"

You have a super-high rate of killing each other. It is the truth. It's not slander. Go to Michael Moore's website. You know that America's murder rate is high.

I challenge you to surf through your tv or radio channels or pick through your magazines, or drive through your streets, and not find ads for "Budweiser" in everything. Everywhere in America is the message: DRINK! GET DRUNK!

Bush had past troubles with booze. His daughters are found drunk. Can't you find a leader that isn't in a bottle or getting favours (Clinton) from an intern?

America is far from perfect, so who is it to upset the Earth?

What if Korea waits for you to place more troops in the Middle East, and then makes a move on South Korea while you're occupied over there?

It is madness, FellowWlover. The Earth is in danger, and before Bush led this invasion, Saddam was weak, castrated, and covered in U.N. agents.

I don't take your suggestion to find another forum as an insult. I can take it.

Can you take my suggestion that maybe you'd rather turn your interests to the threads about upcoming toys?

Insults: 0
Slander: 0
Rebuttals: 2
Opinions: 2
(you suggested I leave the forum FIRST, I suggested you talk about toys if you don't like the topic of "war." I did not call you a name. I did not call you a baby)

Lord, enough of the forum for one night

 

[MuppetsRule]

IF...IF...IF.......Iran and Syria or just ONE of them decides not to take orders from Rumsfeld, the US will be obliged to fight them as well. Then what about Pakistan? And India? With their nukes? One button...then the US presses a button. Then RUSSIA says "STOP IT! America, it was a mistake, you gambled and lost...go home!" What if America says "no?" Then what? Now that the U.N. has been ignored by the world's greatest military, NOW WHAT?

There is an old saying, "If if and buts were candy and nuts then every day would be Christmas."

The point is let's not deal with hypotheticals. I really don't believe this is the beginning of the end of the world. The war has already started so any opinions we may express really have very little bearing. But before we declare the beginning of World War III let's see how this plays out first. War is not black and white. It is a gray area. It is not static but a fluid thing. Many things change during the course of events and you deal with them when they come up. The decision to go to war is made with these different scenarios in mind.

 

[MuppetsRule]

For those that believe that the decision to invade Iraq was about the United States' wish to occupy and take over the country and are cynical about the U.S. responsibilities in the world consider this:

When in England recently at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush. He answered by saying that,

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for is enough to bury those who did not return."












For more info on the U.S. role in the world and it's case for war with Iraq it is explained pretty clearly and eloquently in Powell's full speech:

http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Remarks+from+Colin+Powell,+US+Secretary+of+State



May God Bless Our Troops!

 

[tomahawk]

I don't get it. The U.S can get a coalition together but if someone is found helping Iraq they are threatened.
Lets take a poll, what country do you think "President" Bush will try to conquer next?
my vote is for Syria