Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Why war with Iraq is necessary...


Recommended Posts

Partric, I have noticed that your hate for your own country has grown over the last several months. You must remember that ALOT of these people in this forum are not from America and have nothing but hate to spout. Also, there are alot of plain crazy conspiricy people in this forum. Also the hate big business crowd. You can learn some good stuff here( I have), but dont let them talk you into hating your own country. By the way, have you heard about the fact that the french and a bunch of other nations HAVE OIL INTEREST IN IRAQ RIGHT NOW, and that that might be the reason the french are against us?
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply
[quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b]Partric, I have noticed that your hate for your own country has grown over the last several months. You must remember that ALOT of these people in this forum are not from America and have nothing but hate to spout. Also, there are alot of plain crazy conspiricy people in this forum. Also the hate big business crowd. You can learn some good stuff here( I have), but dont let them talk you into hating your own country. By the way, have you heard about the fact that the french and a bunch of other nations HAVE OIL INTEREST IN IRAQ RIGHT NOW, and that that might be the reason the french are against us?[/b][/quote]I don't let anyone sway my opinion. I let them state theirs, state mine, and argue. I've never let anyone try to persuade me into something I didn't originally believe. My hate for this country is growing because of the injustices that are being made against others, and against us. As for the French and the Germans, they are really starting to hate us because we want to take all of Iraq's oil. They do have large interests over there, Bush just want the whole damn thing for himself. They were only starting to dislike us after the WTC thing, because we were going over there and blindly bombing the shit out of the place, killing numbers of people that most likely had nothing to do with anything against the US. And for what? One guy that WE initially funded and set up? I think that's quite a lot of BULLSHIT. Thanks for your thoughts, but I really don't see the point in funding this any longer. I think I'll give up my citizenship rights...don't really care what the parents have to say. Don't really care what the friends have to say. Just wish that girl hadn't joined the army, because I have to go to her base for her graduation over spring break.....oh man, is this going to be fun. Too bad we aren't taking MY car, with the "America eats its young" sticker, and the soon to be purchased "WAR: What is it good for/Absolutely nothing" sticker. As well as all the hippie band stickers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by CarmenC: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Arnold Schwarzenegger: [b]Foah all uff you who ssink ve shutn't kick zayah ahssess, I say: [img]http://flack.datajunkie.net/misc/stfu.gif[/img][/b][/quote]So AAANOLD.... Presented with the facts, this is your rebuttal????? You're from Europe, aren't you...... ;) [/b][/quote]Vut makess you ssink I vus rrrebuttink you? I vuss agrrrreeink vis you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CM and Patrick, disagreement has nothing to do with hate. Nobody in France or Germany hates you! We all love you as brothers. :D This whole subject is very complicated, nobody knows exactly what Saddam is planning. And Saddam is not the only one. We need each other very badly in the near future I suppose. It's not only the oil, there must be so much more. I don't trust the Bush administration, never did. Hope there will be no war, there must be a better way to get rid of Saddam. And Osama? You can't scare any terrorist, a terrorist is beyond that. They don't care about their own life, so what about yours? I wonder why people become terrorists, do you have any idea? I wish you peace and wisdom!
The alchemy of the masters moving molecules of air, we capture by moving particles of iron, so that the poetry of the ancients will echo into the future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Super 8: [b] [quote]Originally posted by CarmenC: [b]Please. You're very smart. Take the five min. to read what Iraq has done for the last 12 yrs. If Saddam could sell Usama a nuclear device to explode in New York, do you think he would? I have no doubt... There will be no warning of imminent attack from Al-Queda or Iraq or any other terrorists. No smoking gun, but a smoking city. [/b][/quote]I wish I could say it only takes 5 min. I have a reading disability. I'm very literate, but I'm also very slow... I'm big on prefaces and conclusions. Then I hit the index for the details. It's not optimal, but it works. Hell, that's how most people get their graduate degrees! You don't have to preach to me, I'm already on board. I don't think it is about oil, but honestly, I could give a fuck less if it is. Those people are completely insane with their suicide missions. Cut their financing, and hunt them down, and get rid of them.[/b][/quote]See. You know your shit inside out! Peace. Carmen :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/QUOTE]C.M., I believe this is a good fight against what Carman has said. Human rights have no precedence in this war for oil. Bush doesn't care...he never did, he never will. It's only for his usurpation of power, as he did during elections, that he is after Iraq and all it's resources. He doesn't give a fuck for Osama or anyone else, and will stop at nothing to get what he wants. What ever happened to Osama? They're saying he's got a new video out, but I don't hear anything calling for another "war on terrorism". Ain't gonna happen, I'm afraid. Bush has got his little coke-filled beady eyes set on Iraqi oil, because we need it. Well, I say, fuck it. I'll go back to riding a bicycle all the time. This crap is pointless, really. No reason at all to be killing people on the premise of them killing people just so we can get oil...I feel that Bush and all his cohorts are going to Hell, and there's no looking back. He'll drag the whole nation down with him, if he feels like it. Satan has many forms.[/QB][/QUOTE] If it's for oil, why didn't we take the oil when we were there the last time? Don't the Kuwaitis still have their oil? I'm sorry, but your conclusion is based on a premise I don't buy, so for me, your argument falls apart after about 2 sentences. Read the beginning of the resolution (my first post in this thread). These are the Iraqi violations and the reason for war. You act as if they're not there. It was a unanimous vote of the Security Counsel. This is the 17th UN Resolution against Iraq since the 1st Gulf War. If your wife cheated on you 17 times, would you give the private investigators you hired to follow her more time to see if she is still cheating? She says she's not cheating any more. Really. ;) Peace. Carmen :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie-brm: [b]Carmen, I've never agreed with one thing you've ever said, but thanks for posting the complete resolution because I have wanted to read it for some time now. So take a minute to read this: The resolution is a condemnation of Iraq with no teeth. So if this is the lynch pin for war, it doesn't fly. As a legal document this UN resolution is like receiving a first notice from the IRS for failing to file your tax return. All it translates to is "or else". No fines or penalties are mentioned. There is nothing in the resolution that mentions military intervention, invasion, occupation or otherwise. [b]Para 11 & 12[/b] say if Iraq's reports are not complete, the council will receive reports immediately and will reconvene to "consider the situation further". That is what they are doing now. I was hoping it would contain what specifically it allowed the UN to do in that case. The resolution doesn't go that far. [b]Para 10[/b] requests all members support the resolution "by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed," etc. [i]The U.S. is not cooperating.[/i] Time and again the UN has expressed its frustration at Washington for not sharing what is claimed to be crucial evidence to locate prohibited materials. [b]Para 8 [/b]Iraqi personnel delay or impede inspectors, but they have not taken or threatened hostile acts against UN personnel in respect to their inspection duties. The UN inspectors say this themselves. [b]Here is a crucial point:[/b] Now if the fly-overs by the U.S. are considered part of the UN process, then Iraq has taken hostile action by firing surface to air missiles because the U.S. is a member state taking action to uphold the resolution. (paragraph 8) I said this weeks ago. The best premise to invoke an invasion is for the U.S. to increase its fly-over missions and the result sooner or later is that an aircraft crew will be killed. Still the resolution does not cover military response. Maybe there is another resolution containing remedies by force, but 1441 isn't it.[/b][/quote]Charlie, If I understand you correctly, I agree with everything you said in your above post. No UN resolution has teeth without consequences. But, the Gulf War never ended, and it says so in the resolution. This gives us the right to use force. NOW.   [b]Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,[/b] [b]Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,           Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,[/b] Here's Resolution 1441... http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm Peace, Carmen :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by C.M.: Carmen , I was going to post and back your position but NONE of the people have even put up a decent fight against your facts. Good work !! :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Arnold Schwarzenegger: [b] [quote]Originally posted by CarmenC: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Arnold Schwarzenegger: [b]Foah all uff you who ssink ve shutn't kick zayah ahssess, I say: [img]http://flack.datajunkie.net/misc/stfu.gif[/img][/b][/quote]So AAANOLD.... Presented with the facts, this is your rebuttal????? You're from Europe, aren't you...... ;) [/b][/quote]Vut makess you ssink I vus rrrebuttink you? I vuss agrrrreeink vis you![/b][/quote]My bad, Ahnold... I think it was the accent. ;) Peace, Carmen :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by sign: [b]CM and Patrick, disagreement has nothing to do with hate. Nobody in France or Germany hates you! We all love you as brothers. :D This whole subject is very complicated, nobody knows exactly what Saddam is planning. And Saddam is not the only one. We need each other very badly in the near future I suppose. It's not only the oil, there must be so much more. I don't trust the Bush administration, never did. Hope there will be no war, there must be a better way to get rid of Saddam. And Osama? You can't scare any terrorist, a terrorist is beyond that. They don't care about their own life, so what about yours? I wonder why people become terrorists, do you have any idea? I wish you peace and wisdom![/b][/quote]I think this is a very intellegent post! Peace. Carmen :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Alndln Hammer: My English tells me that we should take care of the "present" danger first,Alkaida(bad spelling,but I don't give a fuck)and Bin Laden and his accociates(remember him?).I'm sorry if this doesn't fit into George JR.s buiness schedule,but there's a thing called facing up to reality and ones responsibilities.Fist things first.2 years later and were still waiting.[/quote]I've heard this argument by several people. What makes you think that the USA is NOT doing everything it can to get Osama and Al Qaeda? I have listened to several unbiased, intelligent people...who have access to intelligence information... ...and they all agree that we ARE doing all that can be done to pursue Al Qaeda. If any of you are waiting to see Osama's head on a plate before you are convinced that the USA is doing something...you don't really understand the scope of the mission, and you are not following events closely enough. Do you think that Al Qaeda is just a small bunch of fanatics...and all we need to do is round them up...kill Osama...and shaaaazzzam!...terrorism is wiped out... ...boy...I wish it was that simple. You know how difficult it is to track down some common criminals just here is the USA...and we have some of the most sophisticated investigative systems available to us. Now...multiply that difficulty by about a 1000%...and THAT is what it is like trying to round up all of Al Queda…all over the world. The military/political focus on Iraq...has NO negative effect on our ability to pursue Osama and Al Qaeda to the fullest. The USA has NOT cut back, just because of the Iraq issue.

miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

 

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by patrick_dont_fret: As for the French and the Germans, they are really starting to hate us because we want to take all of Iraq's oil. They do have large interests over there, Bush just want the whole damn thing for himself. They were only starting to dislike us after the WTC thing, because we were going over there and blindly bombing the shit out of the place, killing numbers of people that most likely had nothing to do with anything against the US. And for what? One guy that WE initially funded and set up? I think that's quite a lot of BULLSHIT. Thanks for your thoughts, but I really don't see the point in funding this any longer. I think I'll give up my citizenship rights...don't really care what the parents have to say. Don't really care what the friends have to say.[/quote]Patrick...obviously you have deep feelings...and that's good. But this "taking the oil" argument...is really quite uninformed and a bit speculative and fantastic. We were there 12 years ago...did we take the oil? If anything...it is France and Russia that have very big, self-serving economic interests in Iraq...and that is the ONLY reason they are vetoing in the UN, where there currently exists a MAJORITY that supports the USA. France, Russia, Germany and China...are in the minority. If you believe in the democratic process...then the USA has majority support. Do we rally need one country (France) to make our decisions? I don't know how serious you are about giving up your citizenship rights…or if that is just soap-box rhetoric used for effect…but remember that many have fought and died in exactly these kinds of situations just so you and I and others could have those rights. I hate war…but it is a necessary evil when you are dealing with countries that do not believe in the same principals of freedom and democracy, and that may one day threaten yours and mine. Just curious…if you really give up your US citizenship…where do you feel would be a bettor place to pledge your support? Do some serious research before you jump over that fence…'cuz the grass may not be greener on the other side. Hope you find what you are looking for.

miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

 

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We didn't take Iraq's oil 12 years ago because we were protecting our oil interests in Kuwait. Yes, we have interests there, and Iraq wanted a port city, and control of the rest of the oil in the area. We didn't take Iraq's oil because we would've had to stayed longer, and possibly lost american lives in the process. We took care of Iraq trying to take over Kuwait...that was the mission. Sure, we killed Saddam's daughter in the process...should that have happened? I think not. Yeah, I'd like to see Osama in custody as much as the next guy, he shouldn't have done what he's done. But to think that they are still doing something over there that will accomplish anything is preposterous. We're interested in getting what we couldn't in the Gulf War. This isn't about weapons...we'd have found some by now if there were any. Fuck the war. Fuck the US. Fuck Bush.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by CarmenC: [/quote]I think this is a very intellegent post! Peace. Carmen :wave: Sorry, can't help it, I was born stupid. But what's your excuus? BTW it's "intelligent" (damn foreigners)
The alchemy of the masters moving molecules of air, we capture by moving particles of iron, so that the poetry of the ancients will echo into the future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if the reason is the UN resolution, then the war should follow the UN's direction... No? Hussein's an easy target (at least politically---in reality he'll suffer little) for frustration at not being able to actually get the purpetrators of terrorism. Let's try to remember that he himself has no love for the extremists of Islam. They would target him as much as they did the Shah of Iran.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by miroslav: [b][QUOTE]Originally posted by If you believe in the democratic process...then the USA has majority support. [/b][/quote]New York, October 9, 2002) - Pakistan's entire election process has been deeply flawed and the October 10 parliamentary vote is stacked against democratic rule, Human Rights Watch said in a backgrounder released today. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In the three years since the coup, Pakistan has witnessed a consolidation of military power rather than a transition to democracy. Pakistan's international partners cannot ignore this fact any longer. They need to insist on progress toward democracy in Pakistan." Brad Adams Executive Director of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In the three years since the coup, Pakistan has witnessed a consolidation of military power rather than a transition to democracy," said Brad Adams, Executive Director of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch. "Pakistan's international partners cannot ignore this fact any longer. They need to insist on progress toward democracy in Pakistan." Adams said it may be too late for this election to be conducted in a free and fair manner, but it was still crucial that election day, and the vote-counting process, remain free of intimidation and corruption. In its backgrounder, Human Rights Watch said that Pakistan's military government has employed a variety of legal and political tactics to control the process and outcome of the elections. Those tactics include constitutional amendments giving President Pervez Musharraf virtually unfettered powers over parliament and government, and the revision of electoral procedures that effectively eliminate the leaders of the two major political parties from participating in the election. At the same time, the military government has offered overt support to Pakistan Muslim League Quaid-e Azam (PML-QA) candidates, while working hard to sideline two mainstream political parties: the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Pakistan People's Party (PPP). In the weeks preceding the elections, human rights activists, Pakistani journalists as well as the PML-N and the PPP members have alleged extensive poll-rigging by the military government. Allegations include the relocation of polling booths at the behest of the PML-QA, the appointment of polling officers handpicked by the PML-QA, the tearing down of campaign posters and banners, police raids on PPP and PML-N offices and police harassment of PPP and PML-N workers and candidates at the behest of the government. On October 6, Punjab's Jhelum district police forcibly closed two election offices of the PPP and one of the PML-N and beat up their workers. In response to various complaints, the Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan issued a statement on September 21 warning the police not to harass any contesting candidate. The European Union and Japan have sent a delegation of election observers to monitor the election process while the Commonwealth has sent a team of monitors to determine whether conditions exist for a free and democratic election. Human Rights Watch urged the Pakistani government to take measures to address election-related abuses and a meaningful transfer of power to civilian rule following the elections. These include: Ensure the political rights of all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation; Allow international and domestic election observers unfettered and unconditional access to polling stations; Allow the Election Commission to immediately investigate allegations of poll-rigging and police raids on political party offices and take corrective action; Immediately rescind all restrictions on political meetings and rallies imposed after Musharraf's October 1999 coup; and Withdraw constitutional amendments unilaterally imposed in August that formalize the military's role in governance, including the formation of a military dominated National Security Council. The international community, and the United States in particular, have been reluctant to speak out forcefully on the issue of democratic reform in Pakistan in order to encourage Pakistan's continued support in the war against terrorism. When he met President Musharraf at the U.N. last month, U.S. president George W. Bush praised Pakistan as a "key partner" in the war on terrorism but made only vague comments about reform, saying adherence to democracy is key. The U.S.-Pakistan Defense Consultative Group met in Islamabad from September 24-27, the first time since U.S. sanctions were imposed following Pakistan's nuclear tests in 1998, to discuss arms deals and the possible resumption of joint military exercises. The U.S. authorized the sale of aircraft, harpoon missiles, and other equipment totaling about U.S. $400 million. More arms transfers are expected. "Rewarding Pakistan prematurely with more military aid is a mistake," said Adams. "Any new military aid should be linked to the government's willingness to make more fundamental changes to restore civilian, constitutional rule and place human rights and the rule of law at the heart of the new government's agenda." Human Rights Watch called on the international community to: Offer a genuine assessment of the elections process based on international standards, taking into account legal and political developments in the pre-election period, the voting and counting process, and the post-election period leading to the formation of a new government; Investigate allegations of election-related abuses (EU and Commonwealth monitors, as well as embassy monitors); Support the efforts of domestic election monitors; Urge Pakistan to reverse steps taken to consolidate military rule; and Refrain from providing any additional military aid or arms supplies until Pakistan implements meaningful democratic reforms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semitone...I really can't follow why you quoted one of my sentences and then brought up all that stuff about Pakistan...??? I was referring to the UN council membership…and the fact that even though there is a majority backing the USA…it's being ignored by the minority (France, Russia, Germany and China)... ...Pakistan is another issue all together.

miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

 

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by sign: [b] [quote]Originally posted by CarmenC: [/quote]I think this is a very intellegent post! Peace. Carmen :wave: Sorry, can't help it, I was born stupid. But what's your excuus? BTW it's "intelligent" (damn foreigners)[/b][/quote][img]http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2003/02/10-cartoon.jpg[/img]

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CarmenC said of Osama, "Look what he did with 19 guys and three planes." My point exactly. While on the other hand, ONE of our guys with ONE plane could probably eliminate 1900! Osama's wealth is overestimated. And not large enough to take on the responsibilities mentioned. Add the fact that Muslim fundamentalists, at least those as extreme as Osama are far too outnumbered by Muslims who shun the doctrine of Al-Qaida. Factor in what the administration may be up to concerning both Bin Laden and Hussein while tossing the red herring of having nationalist reactionaries run around like headless chickens hoarding duct tape and plastic. And after you are done with that, come on over and name your price for that bridge... Whitefang
I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation large or small. We no longer live in a world where the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril." -President John F. Kennedy, Oct. 21, 1962 :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by whitefang: [b]CarmenC said of Osama, "Look what he did with 19 guys and three planes." My point exactly. While on the other hand, ONE of our guys with ONE plane could probably eliminate 1900! Osama's wealth is overestimated. And not large enough to take on the responsibilities mentioned. Add the fact that Muslim fundamentalists, at least those as extreme as Osama are far too outnumbered by Muslims who shun the doctrine of Al-Qaida. Factor in what the administration may be up to concerning both Bin Laden and Hussein while tossing the red herring of having nationalist reactionaries run around like headless chickens hoarding duct tape and plastic. And after you are done with that, come on over and name your price for that bridge... Whitefang[/b][/quote]Are you saying that even though he was responsible for >3000 American civilian deaths,and wants more, we shouldn't pick on him beacuse were bigger than him? Now I've heard everything.... "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation large or small. We no longer live in a world where the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril." -President John F. Kennedy, Oct. 21, 1962 :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by whitefang: [b]CarmenC said of Osama, "Look what he did with 19 guys and three planes." While on the other hand, ONE of our guys with ONE plane could probably eliminate 1900! Whitefang[/b][/quote]Not so very long ago two planes "eliminated" 210.000 civillians, remember? That was a country showing it's power to Japan. That was the limit, our fathers said NO MORE! NEVER AND EVER. What's wrong with you guys?
The alchemy of the masters moving molecules of air, we capture by moving particles of iron, so that the poetry of the ancients will echo into the future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by sign: [b] [quote]Originally posted by whitefang: [b]CarmenC said of Osama, "Look what he did with 19 guys and three planes." While on the other hand, ONE of our guys with ONE plane could probably eliminate 1900! Whitefang[/b][/quote]Not so very long ago two planes "eliminated" 210.000 civillians, remember? That was a country showing it's power to Japan. That was the limit, our fathers said NO MORE! NEVER AND EVER. What's wrong with you guys?[/b][/quote]and ended WWII... :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard some interesting info on the radio the other night regarding the oil argument. I don't remember the program, but the host asserted that Canada is our (US's) number one importer of oil. He also gave out some others that were in the top 5. I seem to remember Mexico was in there somewhere. Middle East sources were way down on the list. I don't remember the specifics. Maybe someone can snoop out some web sites for us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by CarmenC: and ended WWII...[/quote]That's true, certainly for the 210.000 civillians.
The alchemy of the masters moving molecules of air, we capture by moving particles of iron, so that the poetry of the ancients will echo into the future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
  • Create New...