The Propaganda Machine - In Action!

Page: 1 2 3 4
Mar 28 2003, 5:24 pm
In response to Kusanagi
Have you tuned into an Arabian news station, Kusanagi? I fully guarantee 100% that it is a way, way different stance.

-Dagolar
Mar 28 2003, 5:51 pm
In response to Kusanagi
I would like to point out something here. Of course Iraq most likely has chemical weapons, but if we've been fighting them for atleast a week, you'd think that because of their cruelty they would've used atleast one chemical weapon? The U.S. has used chemical weapons before also, and no doubt does other countries and the U.S. has nuclear weapons/Weapons of mass destruction, but of course they don't use it. Atleast wait until they use the chemicals until you start saying such thing, it'd be like reporting your neighbor to the police for having a gun which he could use to kill someone.

Saddam in the most likely case, does not want the U.S. to look good for attacking him, so far he has done a good job. I'v heard of this exscuse that we have used chemical weapons and have nuclear weapons, but we used chemical weapons before the treaty against them was created, and unlike us, Iraq was forced into a treaty with the U.N. so that they were ordered to remove all nuclear and chemical weapons, therefore making it valid to attack them for not removing them/stopping production(Especially because we gave them 10 years to get rid of the weaponry, and the factories!)

Ok, so if I made fake money and used it before they made a law saying you can't make fake money is good, moral, and just? Hardly.

No, the way you say it makes it seem worse than it is,

Odd, that's what the headline said in quotes. Maybe the way your saying it is making it better than it is?

I believe the problem was, was that the UN was never directly addressing the issue, and because of that, he felt that they werent going to answer it with the one he wanted.

So, if Bush doesn't get the answer he want's, he decides to go attack anyways?

Bush knew that Iraq was funding even more attacks upon us and did not want to face those anymore, and not to mention his own personal reasons(The assassination attempt on his father while the old Bush was president.).

Well, how much evidence do we have that he has been funding more attacks besides two planes crashing into the world trade center? Also how much do we know that he is making weapons off mass destruction?

What I wonder is, you want him removed, but not by war? Do you expect us to walk up to Saddam's headquarters, and just take him out, then poof! His reign is over and Iraq has become a free country! Uhh, no... that would be nice but in the real world it does not happen. If we tried removing him out of office, a war would start anyways, meaning it would be inevitable any way you try to get rid of him. You also forget that Saddam might not have a big enough army to carry out a war, but he does have weapons that can do enough permanent damage to land masses, you also forget that Saddam is not the most sane person on the planet, and could really care less if his army dies... if he attacked someone in any case, he would use parts of his arsenal that would even the battleground. As seen in combat, he is not one to obey treaties and set laws, and everybody has known this, including the UN, but nobody has done crap about it. Well something must be done, and it's being done now.

I beleive what I said was "I do beleive Saddam should be removed, but I don't think by war, atleast not now and if the U.N. hasn't agreed". It's funny how you assume how I think, you make it sound that I'm less intelligent than most people. I do know that saddam is not as mentally as stable as we all wish we were. I meant if more countries agreed on the war, then I would be all for war, and I do beleive France even said that they will say "No" no matter what. Apparently, since I was not corrected either, that the U.N. has not allowed us war with Iraq, which is really bad since it shows the U.S. does not care about other countries. You really do make it sound like the other countries have no clue what they're doing and they're inferior.
Mar 28 2003, 6:09 pm
In response to Geo
I agree with your part of about the evidence. The arguments that were brought to the table at the U.N. were downright ridiculous. Speculation, suspicion, and accusations without backing. No wonder the international community is appalled. The prosecution doesn't have a case! The jury says they don't have a case. Prosecution responds by grabbing the defendant and jailing him themselves.

-Dagolar
Mar 28 2003, 6:49 pm
In response to Gughunter
Gughunter wrote:
Not to mention dressing up in U.S. uniforms. I think the objections generally stem from violations of the Geneva Conventions -- my understanding is that the U.S. is not actually a signatory, but its policy is to attempt to comply anyway.

I cringe a bit when the US gripes about Geneva Convention violations, because I'm uncomfortable with our current classification of everyone we captured in Afghanistan (including possibly some innocent non-combatants) as "enemy combatants" not subject to the Geneva Convention. It's not clear to me we are doing the right thing there. I'm especially uncomfortable about American citizens classified this way, with no access to legal representation.

On the other hand, the amazing fact that there has been no major terrorist attack on the US since 9/11 may indicate that some of these on-the-edge tactics have been effective.
Mar 28 2003, 7:00 pm
In response to Geo
I believe you only assume that I say other countries are inferior, but if you ask me this whole disagree with America thing seems to be a game of follow the group, "Don't side with America or other countries will be unhappy with you.". I also never said it was moral and good that we developed and used chemical/nuclear weapons before any law was set before it, I'm just saying that they were used out of minor ignorance, but using them or threatening to use them afterwards with knowing the full consequences is much worse.


Odd, that's what the headline said in quotes. Maybe the way your saying it is making it better than it is?

Notice how it wasn't direct, it was just a headline? Newspapers/magazines want readers, readers want interesting articles to read, the way they find them is by seeing an interesting header.

So, if Bush doesn't get the answer he want's, he decides to go attack anyways?

Yes, or we could just sit here and wait a few more years for Iraq to develop even more powerful weapons to use against us, then have the UN still ignore it like they have been for the past decade.


Well, how much evidence do we have that he has been funding more attacks besides two planes crashing into the world trade center? Also how much do we know that he is making weapons off mass destruction?

We have caughten a few terrorist who were organizers of the attack, and they point to him. Not to mention the past logs on large transfers between Saddam and terrorist organizations.

I beleive what I said was "I do beleive Saddam should be removed, but I don't think by war, atleast not now and if the U.N. hasn't agreed". It's funny how you assume how I think, you make it sound that I'm less intelligent than most people. I do know that saddam is not as mentally as stable as we all wish we were. I meant if more countries agreed on the war, then I would be all for war, and I do beleive France even said that they will say "No" no matter what. Apparently, since I was not corrected either, that the U.N. has not allowed us war with Iraq, which is really bad since it shows the U.S. does not care about other countries. You really do make it sound like the other countries have no clue what they're doing and they're inferior.

This is the case of nobody wants to be left in the spot light with America, except for Britain. You said yourself that you feel it would only be ok if other countries agreed with it, and the UN doesn't want bad publicity so it would turn Bush down because everyone else is against it, for some odd reason. That's another thing, why is everybody against destroying Saddam? Oh wait, I remember, he is the dictator who supplies your country with cheap oil for weapon funding, if America defeats him, you lose your good buisness, but while you keep your buisness, you screw over thousands of civilians living in Iraq, this is where the selfishness kicks in.


<<>>Kusanagi<<>>
Mar 28 2003, 7:12 pm
In response to Kusanagi
Follow the group? It's DEMOCRACY! People, worldwide, are expressing their dissatisfaction with American foreign policy. Nobody cares if America stays in its own territory and does its business. But now the U.S. is imposing itself on other nations for trivial reasons. If you want to know why it seems like follow the group, it's because its fairly justified opposition! Just talk to some people who are well-informed and opposed to the war...like me. [;

-Dagolar

p.s. - I'm probably not as well-informed as I could be.
Mar 28 2003, 7:12 pm
In response to Dagolar
Dagolar wrote:
Guess again, Kusanagi.

You want some reasons why the international community is against this? These are some (and I bet most) of the reasons as to why the international community sees this war as an atrocity:

-Weapons inspectors were still at work when the war began.
-The U.N. held a position that inspections would continue.

The U.N. has been inspecting them for years, knowing that his weapons were under their nose, and they still have ignored it. I watched a retired U.N. inspector talk on a late night talk show one night, he said they knew weapons were there, they just didn't think it would do that much harm, but now the threat is growing at a dangerous rate, and the retired inspector was furious at how the UN didn't do much about it.

-Something around 80+% of the citizens in virtually every country outside of the U.S. opposed this war.

It's because Iraq's oil supplies most of the countries in the world, and if Iraq can't supply as much then economy drops.

-The argument coming from the U.S. for war was speculative and unconvincing (and still is).

Even if it is unconvincing, I don't see why you all are against it, this is why it seems to me like you all want Saddam to thrive in power.

-The U.S. played down EACH AND EVERY attempt by the United Nations to avoid war. "They are deceiving us again, the weapons inspectors are getting nowhere", etc.

Seems kind of funny to me that weapons inspectors say everything checks out ok, while Saddam murdered some of his own civilians with chemical weapons a few months back.(I'll find the proper article in a while.)

-The so-called link between Saddam and Osama that U.S put forth to the international community. Oh. There's a link alright. Osama thinks Saddam is a moronic infidel who should die with all the other infidels in Iraq.

You do realize that that type of organization is very protective of itself and it's leaders, I'm sure Saddam could of easily put up a deal with Osama to make him seem like he hates him, its the best way to disconnect himself from the crime.


-The constant downplay that oil was a factor for war.

If it is, so what? Ever heard of spoils of war??? The oil was originally funding an evil dictator, you do realize this I hope....

-The repeated attempt by U.S. media to show people what a violent and evil dictator Saddam Hussein is. Fine, he's violent and evil and mean. So we should wage war on the country?

Violent, evil, and the most potential threat to the U.S. for the past 10 or so years.

-Why, may I ask, did George Bush himself never negotiate with president Hussein? This was something that, here anyway, was a question raised many times.

Remember, Clinton did that, and guess what happened? WE payed them a large sum of money, which funded their organizations weapon plans even more in the most likely case, it didn't do anything to stop Suddam's scornful reign.

-Iraq: suspected weapons of mass destruction. North Korea: re-initiated nuclear missle testing.

I have no idea how this became a reason....
I could find more if I asked around, probably. But those are reasons that stick out in my mind and the minds of my friends. That's what we think, that's what we see.

-Dagolar

I have yet to see any of this as truly valid reasons to be against liberating innocent people.


<<>>Kusanagi<<>>
Mar 28 2003, 7:15 pm
In response to Dagolar
Freedom of Speech is not always the case, fear and pressure has a lot to do with it. If your allied with French for supplies, and are a small country, in this current time do you want to look like your siding with America with the war? No, because you don't want to lose your connections with France. It's basically "Peer Pressure" for governments. Look at Blaire, he is being mocked and called Bush's lap dog, but at least he is doing what he wants to.(Unless he really is Bush's lap dog.)


<<>>Kusanagi<<>>
Mar 28 2003, 8:03 pm
In response to Kusanagi
Hey! Canada is the largest trading partner of the United States. And CANADA said NO to supporting the war! Man, if the biggest trading partner says no, I think that's pretty extreme, but it says something.

-Dagolar
Mar 28 2003, 8:09 pm
In response to Dagolar
The U.S. isn't going to drop Canada because it is one of it's closest trading partners, not to mention we already have our own history. Your also forgetting that it is everbody against Britain and the U.S., so it doesn't matter if Canada loses us, if it's against us then it will ok with other countries, pointless exscuse.


<<>>Kusanagi<<>>
Mar 28 2003, 8:12 pm (Edited on Mar 28 2003, 8:20 pm)
In response to Kusanagi
-The U.S. played down EACH AND EVERY attempt by the United Nations to avoid war. "They are deceiving us again, the weapons inspectors are getting nowhere", etc.


You JUST did that! You responded to each and every point I made that is backed by countries the world over by downplaying and dismissing them. This is why the international community has very little faith that this is a "humanitarian" mission. The arguments are presumptuous, speculative, and unconvincing.

Look, YOU might believe that U.S. arguments are valid. The international community doesn't! And they're not going to! The arguments are ridiculous...

Even if it is unconvincing, I don't see why you all are against it, this is why it seems to me like you all want Saddam to thrive in power.

Even if it was MILDLY convincing, most people wouldn't be all gung-ho. Internationally, the U.S. case for war was a joke. Still is...that's just how people see it.

And please...You think that 80% of the world's population is against this war because Iraq supplies OIL to these countries? Kusanagi, go talk to people that are opposed to this war. Go on the net and talk to them. Listen to people debating against this war. Go find some information OUTSIDE of the United States. If you're only going to listen to (and proceed to believe) one side of the argument, then you're only getting one half of the full story, and that's exactly how your arguments sound. They are, all in all, opinions without factual backing, and the international community simply doesn't buy it. Rightfully so.

-Dagolar
Mar 28 2003, 8:13 pm
In response to Kusanagi
The point I was trying to make is that the incentive to support such a war wasn't even good enough for Canada to join.

-Dagolar
Mar 28 2003, 9:17 pm
In response to Kusanagi
but using them or threatening to use them afterwards with knowing the full consequences is much worse.

Really, Have they threatened to use the chemicals against us? Think logically, is it even possibly to somehow transport tons of gallons of chemicals from iraq by plane or boat to another country without them finding out? It'd be a feat upon itself delivering the chemicals, much less delivering the weapons to the country. Not only that but a nuclear/chemical missile could not reach america from across the seas, nor could it hit europe or any other country besides it's neighbors.

Notice how it wasn't direct, it was just a headline? Newspapers/magazines want readers, readers want interesting articles to read, the way they find them is by seeing an interesting header.

Actually, when it's in quotes, it quotes what the person has said directly, if this isn't true then the news is lying, and it doesn't do that unless it is misinformed.

Yes, or we could just sit here and wait a few more years for Iraq to develop even more powerful weapons to use against us, then have the UN still ignore it like they have been for the past decade.

Again, your still saying the other countries are ignorant. How do you really know they are developing "Weapons of Mass destruction"? The most they have is chemicals that weren't dumped years ago, even the weapons inspectors havn't found anything.

We have caughten a few terrorist who were organizers of the attack, and they point to him. Not to mention the past logs on large transfers between Saddam and terrorist organizations.

Who is "We"? in the next paragraph you said "if America defeats him, you lose your good buisness, but while you keep your buisness, you screw over thousands of civilians living in Iraq, this is where the selfishness kicks in." which clearly shows your not american, and of course american news doesn't cover news on other nations, so who do you refer as We?

This is the case of nobody wants to be left in the spot light with America, except for Britain. You said yourself that you feel it would only be ok if other countries agreed with it, and the UN doesn't want bad publicity so it would turn Bush down because everyone else is against it, for some odd reason.

Some odd reason.... You think countries just say "Hey, me no like bush, me say no!"? I'm positive the countries have their reasons, which is why I have said I would feel it would be ok if other countries supported us and saw it was the right thing to do.

That's another thing, why is everybody against destroying Saddam? Oh wait, I remember, he is the dictator who supplies your country with cheap oil for weapon funding, if America defeats him, you lose your good buisness, but while you keep your buisness, you screw over thousands of civilians living in Iraq, this is where the selfishness kicks in.

Wrong, Bush dislikes saddam and is trying all he can, even ignoring the U.N., which could seem like Germany in WW2 how they just randomly started wars with other countries, but I could be wrong in that too, and we wouldn't lose oil, we'd just capture it.
Mar 28 2003, 10:11 pm
In response to Geo
Really, Have they threatened to use the chemicals against us? Think logically, is it even possibly to somehow transport tons of gallons of chemicals from iraq by plane or boat to another country without them finding out? It'd be a feat upon itself delivering the chemicals, much less delivering the weapons to the country. Not only that but a nuclear/chemical missile could not reach america from across the seas, nor could it hit europe or any other country besides it's neighbors.

Think logically why have chemical weapons if oyu don't plan to use them either directly or to point at and say "If you don't comply we're using this!"? Point is they might not have the capability to use these weapons over long ranges but why should we wait until they can before doing anything about it?

Actually, when it's in quotes, it quotes what the person has said directly, if this isn't true then the news is lying, and it doesn't do that unless it is misinformed.

Well as soon as the first person tells a story from an experiance the story will only be an approximation of what happined due to the limitations of language. By the time it gets to the next person it's further skewed. So it's either a lie or something only so close to the truth as you can only come so close to the absolute truth through communication of any means.

Again, your still saying the other countries are ignorant. How do you really know they are developing "Weapons of Mass destruction"? The most they have is chemicals that weren't dumped years ago, even the weapons inspectors havn't found anything.

They claimed they didn't have SCUD missiles but somehow they had some to fire on day one of the war. The reason the inspectors didn't find anything is the fact that they were never allowed to immediatly check for weapons. So of course since Saddam didn't want them to find anything they moved the weapons then allowed the inspectors in. So the inspectors did find nothing which is the wierd part. Why have an empty factory?

Who is "We"? in the next paragraph you said "if America defeats him, you lose your good buisness, but while you keep your buisness, you screw over thousands of civilians living in Iraq, this is where the selfishness kicks in." which clearly shows your not american, and of course american news doesn't cover news on other nations, so who do you refer as We?

The news on any side is skewed to only show what they want you to see. If news isn't interesting people don't watch it and the network loses money. So what do the newscasters do? They try and show what people want to see. Just look at the whole "West Nile Virus" inncident. The news here in the US was saying it was a great epidempic. But if you looked at the numbers it killed less people than the common cold does a year and the people the died were either old people or young children. Guess what? Those are the same type of people that die from the cold. The fact is broadcasting news is a business so they try to make money. They might not outright lie but they do try to set up what they show so that it's either exagerated or made more interesting.

Some odd reason.... You think countries just say "Hey, me no like bush, me say no!"? I'm positive the countries have their reasons, which is why I have said I would feel it would be ok if other countries supported us and saw it was the right thing to do.

Yep they probably have reasons for not wanting to stop Saddam. But the US does and we have enough fire power and man power to remove Saddam along with more than enough reason to be doing so. Also the whole peer-preasure thing shouldn't be a factor since even if everyone else jumped off a cliff and said it was cool I wouldn't find the idea appealing.

If you don't think we should remove Saddam by force before he's got some weapons that can hurt more people than he's already currently hurting, what do you think should be done about the situtation? I've heard plenty of people say war isn't the way to handle the situtation but of all the people who have said this I haven't heard any peaceful solutions.

Wrong, Bush dislikes saddam and is trying all he can, even ignoring the U.N., which could seem like Germany in WW2 how they just randomly started wars with other countries, but I could be wrong in that too, and we wouldn't lose oil, we'd just capture it.

Please tell me how what Saddam is doing is in any way a good thing? Now is that any worse than Bush trying to take out Saddam for any reason?
Mar 28 2003, 11:11 pm
In response to Theodis
Think logically why have chemical weapons if oyu don't plan to use them either directly or to point at and say "If you don't comply we're using this!"? Point is they might not have the capability to use these weapons over long ranges but why should we wait until they can before doing anything about it?

Well, who says they will be able to do it? They arn't the most advanced nation, and to be able to build, say, a giantic missile that could carry enough fuel to proppel enough chemicals to wipe out a major city in, let's say, the U.S. and it's own fuel would be a miracle of a invention. You also should know that chemicals arn't the type of thing that'd you throw in the ocean or bury in the ground, thus they arn't the easiest thing to get rid of, I'm not saying they are just keeping the chemicals around because they can't get rid of it somehow, but it's a small, small possibility. Also the most they could do with the chemical weapons now is use it on our troops in iraq, which would be pretty useless since from what the news shows, they carry gasmasks.

Again, your still saying the other countries are ignorant. How do you really know they are developing "Weapons of Mass destruction"? The most they have is chemicals that weren't dumped years ago, even the weapons inspectors havn't found anything.

They claimed they didn't have SCUD missiles but somehow they had some to fire on day one of the war. The reason the inspectors didn't find anything is the fact that they were never allowed to immediatly check for weapons. So of course since Saddam didn't want them to find anything they moved the weapons then allowed the inspectors in. So the inspectors did find nothing which is the wierd part. Why have an empty factory?

I'm talking weapons of mass destruction here, you really just can't pack it up and move it when inspectors come. Even if you could pack up a nuclear weapon on a truck, and repack it at another factory/base and continue production where it left off, sattelites could pick it up, and a line of trucks headed toward the same place is pretty suspicious, mainly when coming from the weapons storage where inspectors were going to. I'm not sure, but I don't think they were Scud missiles, unless they were a type because I could've sworn they were called something else. Also, I beleive if the inspectors did find a entirely empty factory they would know something is wrong, or something is really messed up in today's common sense. Obviously they would most likely have standard weapons there.

Who is "We"? in the next paragraph you said "if America defeats him, you lose your good buisness, but while you keep your buisness, you screw over thousands of civilians living in Iraq, this is where the selfishness kicks in." which clearly shows your not american, and of course american news doesn't cover news on other nations, so who do you refer as We?

The news on any side is skewed to only show what they want you to see. If news isn't interesting people don't watch it and the network loses money. So what do the newscasters do? They try and show what people want to see. Just look at the whole "West Nile Virus" inncident. The news here in the US was saying it was a great epidempic. But if you looked at the numbers it killed less people than the common cold does a year and the people the died were either old people or young children. Guess what? Those are the same type of people that die from the cold. The fact is broadcasting news is a business so they try to make money. They might not outright lie but they do try to set up what they show so that it's either exagerated or made more interesting.

I shall say this.... Eh?

Some odd reason.... You think countries just say "Hey, me no like bush, me say no!"? I'm positive the countries have their reasons, which is why I have said I would feel it would be ok if other countries supported us and saw it was the right thing to do.

Yep they probably have reasons for not wanting to stop Saddam. But the US does and we have enough fire power and man power to remove Saddam along with more than enough reason to be doing so. Also the whole peer-preasure thing shouldn't be a factor since even if everyone else jumped off a cliff and said it was cool I wouldn't find the idea appealing.

so, let's say someone is late for work. He goes above the speed limit or parks in a no parking zone because it is closer. Sure he has a good reason to do that, but does it make it right? Further along, if we add that he has enough firepower, legal action or a gun, does that make it any more better?

If you don't think we should remove Saddam by force before he's got some weapons that can hurt more people than he's already currently hurting, what do you think should be done about the situtation? I've heard plenty of people say war isn't the way to handle the situtation but of all the people who have said this I haven't heard any peaceful solutions.

Nothing.... Absolutely nothing right now. Countries have said we have illegally attacked Iraq and that is pretty bad.

Wrong, Bush dislikes saddam and is trying all he can, even ignoring the U.N., which could seem like Germany in WW2 how they just randomly started wars with other countries, but I could be wrong in that too, and we wouldn't lose oil, we'd just capture it.

Please tell me how what Saddam is doing is in any way a good thing? Now is that any worse than Bush trying to take out Saddam for any reason?

alright, bad example, new example: Let's say a kid, Billy, lives down the street and you've seen him a couple times be mean to his cat, maybe kick it or something, but generally be mean. You call whatever protection services to animals and they don't seem to find anything wrong and don't do anything. Are you going to take your baseball bat, go to his house at night, and threaten him not to be mean to his cat, and any other pets he has? Basicly, wtf are you going to do about it?
Mar 28 2003, 11:49 pm (Edited on Mar 29 2003, 12:13 am)
In response to Geo
Well, who says they will be able to do it? They arn't the most advanced nation, and to be able to build, say, a giantic missile that could carry enough fuel to proppel enough chemicals to wipe out a major city in, let's say, the U.S. and it's own fuel would be a miracle of a invention. You also should know that chemicals arn't the type of thing that'd you throw in the ocean or bury in the ground, thus they arn't the easiest thing to get rid of, I'm not saying they are just keeping the chemicals around because they can't get rid of it somehow, but it's a small, small possibility. Also the most they could do with the chemical weapons now is use it on our troops in iraq, which would be pretty useless since from what the news shows, they carry gasmasks.

These people may not be advanced but they're probably not that dumb. They're probably working on some way to use the weapons they're making. You don't make a weapon unless you have some way to use it, so I'm quite sure they have plans to make some way of using them.

I'm talking weapons of mass destruction here, you really just can't pack it up and move it when inspectors come. Even if you could pack up a nuclear weapon on a truck, and repack it at another factory/base and continue production where it left off, sattelites could pick it up, and a line of trucks headed toward the same place is pretty suspicious, mainly when coming from the weapons storage where inspectors were going to. I'm not sure, but I don't think they were Scud missiles, unless they were a type because I could've sworn they were called something else. Also, I beleive if the inspectors did find a entirely empty factory they would know something is wrong, or something is really messed up in today's common sense. Obviously they would most likely have standard weapons there.

Things were suspicious but Saddam was using the laws the UN follows to evade the inspectors so under thier rules they couldn't find anything.

I shall say this.... Eh?

The news is never telling the whole truth, just the interesting parts which might not be enough to draw an accurate conclusion.

so, let's say someone is late for work. He goes above the speed limit or parks in a no parking zone because it is closer. Sure he has a good reason to do that, but does it make it right? Further along, if we add that he has enough firepower, legal action or a gun, does that make it any more better?

This is a different story altogether. If a serial killer kills someone you don't wait till he does it again before taking action just to make sure he's really a bad person. The fact of the matter is we know he's doing illegal things and we're almost certain he's only continuing these actions.

Nothing.... Absolutely nothing right now. Countries have said we have illegally attacked Iraq and that is pretty bad.

Yeah well I'd rather have the US commit these "illegal" actions and crush a threat that is only going to get worse with time, than wait until he actually uses these weapons of mass destrutction or uses them as black mail.

alright, bad example, new example: Let's say a kid, Billy, lives down the street and you've seen him a couple times be mean to his cat, maybe kick it or something, but generally be mean. You call whatever protection services to animals and they don't seem to find anything wrong and don't do anything. Are you going to take your baseball bat, go to his house at night, and threaten him not to be mean to his cat, and any other pets he has? Basicly, wtf are you going to do about it?

This is a completly different legue. It's not a cat we're talking about. It's millions of people and they're being slaughtered as well as tortured! Was it right for Hitler to kill jews? Was it right for Stalin to kill his own people to rush the production of weapons of mass destruction? Something must be done to stop these mass slaughterings whether or not the UN wants to or not. If this was the slaughtering millions and millions of jews by gassing them and the UN says don't attack would it be right to just let the killings go on?
Mar 29 2003, 7:28 am
In response to Geo
Geo wrote:
Really, Have they threatened to use the chemicals against us? Think logically, is it even possibly to somehow transport tons of gallons of chemicals from iraq by plane or boat to another country without them finding out? It'd be a feat upon itself delivering the chemicals, much less delivering the weapons to the country. Not only that but a nuclear/chemical missile could not reach america from across the seas, nor could it hit europe or any other country besides it's neighbors.

The threat is enough, if you saw someone with broken legs and a sword crawling towards you screaming, "I'm going to kill you!", would you just stand there and let him make it over to you and start stabbing you? No, you most likely wouldn't. You would run, or attack him.


Actually, when it's in quotes, it quotes what the person has said directly, if this isn't true then the news is lying, and it doesn't do that unless it is misinformed.

I believe you said it was something like that, meaning it's not that exact way he said it, remember?


Again, your still saying the other countries are ignorant. How do you really know they are developing "Weapons of Mass destruction"? The most they have is chemicals that weren't dumped years ago, even the weapons inspectors havn't found anything.

No, I said the UN has ignored it, don't try to make me look like I hate other countries. My other point is, they have had over 10 years to dump out all their chemical weapons, and chemical weapons ARE weapons of mass destruction.


Who is "We"? in the next paragraph you said "if America defeats him, you lose your good buisness, but while you keep your buisness, you screw over thousands of civilians living in Iraq, this is where the selfishness kicks in." which clearly shows your not american, and of course american news doesn't cover news on other nations, so who do you refer as We?


We is the United States, or are you not informed that a democracy includes the government and the people? How does that show I'm not American? I just said that all most of the foreign countries want is Iraq to stay thriving so they can have cheap oil, but in this process of letting Iraq thrive and Saddam get more money, they are basically in an act of killing off thousands of his civilians each year without even caring, is that not selfishness? I don't really understand why you put in, "american news doesn't cover news on other nations", so I'm not going to answer that until clarification.

Some odd reason.... You think countries just say "Hey, me no like bush, me say no!"? I'm positive the countries have their reasons, which is why I have said I would feel it would be ok if other countries supported us and saw it was the right thing to do.

Really, I have yet to hear a valid reason to why nobody likes Bush and the idea of freeing innocent people.


Wrong, Bush dislikes saddam and is trying all he can, even ignoring the U.N., which could seem like Germany in WW2 how they just randomly started wars with other countries, but I could be wrong in that too, and we wouldn't lose oil, we'd just capture it.

I can't even believe you compared us to Germany, its disgusting and utterly wrong to even be placed here. Germany had only one intention, attacking innocent countries and taking control over them to enlargen their Nazi government. America is not even attacking the country, it is attacking Saddam himself, and his small force. We have nothing against the civilians, just Saddam.



<<>>Kusanagi<<>>
Mar 29 2003, 7:36 am
In response to Dagolar
Well, if it's so horrible, give me just one, one very good reason to why attacking Iraq is a bad thing to do, and that reason has to be the reason on why all the other countries are against it, it must be convincing. Oh, and stop trying to say I'm ignorant on the subject, I have spoken to foreigners and even watched some foreign news channels through internet broadcasting.


<<>>Kusanagi<<>>
Mar 29 2003, 7:52 am
In response to Theodis
I, personally, simply don't buy the argument that Saddam and his regime are a threat. They weren't a threat 10 years ago? 8 years ago? 4 years ago? Now...majestically, they are a threat and must be removed. I don't buy it. [;\

-Dagolar
Mar 29 2003, 7:58 am
In response to Kusanagi
I didn't say you were ignorant. When did I say that?

One VERY GOOD reason...which I'm mildly certain will be downplayed as usual. Here you go:

-The justification for war is too weak.

That's it. It's that simple. The justification for a WAR...okay, it's a WAR...citizens are going to die. They already have. War. Soldiers will be killed. It's war. This is not a political diplomacy stand-off, okay? It's war. In my opinion, for WAR to occur, there has to be fantastic, fully-backed proof that it needs to occur. Arguments went from disarming Iraq to regime removal in 3 months flat, AFTER the inspectors began actually having some success. An argument change...for WAR, for christ's sake. Hmm. That makes sense. The United States simply has not convinced the world that what it is doing is right and just. The United States is not seen as the "good liberator" removing the "evil dictator". To the people IN America it might seem fine. But as far as the world is concerned, there is an underlying agenda here (be it oil? I dunno...), and countries and people are simply not buying the argument for a humanitarian mission here.

Operation Iraqi Freedom. They weren't freeing them in the 1990s. They weren't even THINKING about anything like that up until last year. Now, of course, they say,"Better now than later." That is what some of us call the catch 23. We'll use the lack of inaction in the past to justify action now. Well, the world is unconvinced. The case is weak. That's how it is seen. You wanted a reason, you got it...

-Dagolar
Page: 1 2 3 4