1  2  3  4  5  6  |   Order by index

Mar 18, 2003, 3:13pm

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Weapons_of_mass_deception


:-)




[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 3:18pm

[View Quote] I guess this just means we all have our individual points of view.

> and the whole thing about atacking after the destuction of weapons, which
> ananas mentioned, is quite a cowardly thing to do....

Well, I think the point is, if Bush happened to be right, that Saddam has
only gotten rid of his minor weapons, those least important to him, and that
he has other ones, the ones to which Bush refers, capable of doing what
supposedly he is trying to prevent then it would not be the cowardly act it
looks like to the Iraq defenders. Keep in mind, this is a neutral statement
by me. I don't know, and none of us here knows for sure if this is true or
not. I suppose we might know more about that soon. I hope we are all
surprised in the best way. That's why this kind of a discussion in a place
like this is only effective in causing hate among individuals who started
out by coming together for the same purpose, 3d interactive entertainment
and/or friendship (I thought). We sure can't expect that we know more than
any other reasonably informed person in here, and certainly we do not even
know a very minimal amount of what goes on behind any government doors. It's
like trying to argue about what the core of the Earth contains by what kind
of grass grows on the surface.
But the real harm in here is when some say "down with the Americans" or "God
save us from Americans" or even the ones who believe if individual innocent
Iraqi citizens die (which they do NOT deserve) that then individual innocent
US citizens deserve things like 9/11/01 (just for example, I'm not
necessarily relating it). Just like we were strongly urged not to base our
views of Muslims on what happened on that date. During WW2 in the US and
still today in our schools and among our citizens you hear discussions about
heroic German individuals who saved and supported and hid, at their own
great risk, Jewish people who were trying to escape Hitler's hate. These
survivors speak in our schools telling of their escapes and the German
citizens who made it possible. It was Hitler's agenda that was evil, not the
general German population. A person local to me has just written a book
about a German POW camp right near me (there were many here, unknown to most
at the time) and she relates how these German POW's interacted with and were
befriended by many in the towns they were housed. Now, this is an elderly
lady who was there-NOT a propagandist. This is the way it should be, (except
it shouldn't come to that at all). Individuals are individuals first, at
least check it out, and their allegiances are often secondary.

http://www.aiipowmia.com/inter22/in042802wisc.html

http://www.wartburg.edu/trumpet/2001/dec3/feature1.html

(really interesting stuff, no matter what your views, especially for
Americans and Germans)

Treat everyone as an individual and give him or her the respect he deserves,
if any, by his OWN actions, not those of his country or even the rest of his
family.

Thinking back, these particular discussions started when someone gave a link
to a site supporting US troops. At least some of those troops don't even
want war but are there because they were directed to by their government's
order. Actually I imagine there as many different views among them as there
are among the general population. They didn't all join the military with the
thought of killing, many joined way before thoughts of war were in the air.
Some joined to protect and defend, some to be able to afford an education
later, some even for the employment or just to see the world. They are not
mostly evil even if the act they might have to perform is considered evil by
many, just as any military individual anywhere is not essentially evil just
because he has to do what his country tells him or her. Many leave young
children, and also little brothers and sisters. Someone asked then "Where is
the Iraqi support website?" I feel the same about any usually peaceful Iraqi
soldiers who do not want to kill. None of them should be there doing
something totally against his/her whole character. There is nothing wrong
with letting these individuals know they are being thought about. I realize
that this last statement might be very controversial among US readers, but
keep in mind I mean people who do not want to kill.

Mar 18, 2003, 3:18pm

[View Quote] There is a reason, he's inviolation of however many umpteen resolutions that give him
one last chance. All give the right to military intervention if he fails to comply.
Dingity dongity bongity. Next time war heads to Europe, don't expect us to save you.

--Bowen--

Mar 18, 2003, 3:20pm

[View Quote] America is a permanent member of the security council, we're allowed them to enforce
UN resolutions which may require military intervention (Saddam's for instance).

--Bowen--

Mar 18, 2003, 4:11pm

Which statement do you read as "anti-USA" ?


[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 4:14pm

dont worry ananas , they ran out of arguments , and they try to talk oyu
down bu calling you stupid , anti american , or anything else , you are anti
war , and thats the way eveyrone should be .

Mar 18, 2003, 4:32pm

1. ignoring the UN
2. ignoring the International Court in Den Haag
3. ignoring International Laws
4. breaking disarmament contracts (conserving instead of destroying weapons of mass destruction)

#3 is just an envelope that countains several others


Btw., the UN reports that Hussein supports the weapon inspectors very well since January.
Hussein should go because he ignores International Laws, did not respect the UN and does
not respect International Laws and he has broken disarmament contracts in the past.

No one of those who do not want war here in the NGs defends Hussein, he is a criminal, no
doubt about that. But it is not an US job to make him go and a war will place Bush very
close to Saddam Hussein.


[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 4:45pm

um - sorry, this one should read :

Btw., the UN reports that Hussein supports the weapon inspectors very well since January.
Hussein should go because he ignores International Laws, did not respect the UN and does
not respect International Court and he has broken disarmament contracts in the past.


[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 5:16pm

you guys are ANTI-war without thinking about the outcome....thats just ignorant in my view. I hate war also. but i won't be stupid about it. sometimes it has to happen.....because of people like Saddam.



[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 5:22pm

Your right, to an extent KAH. Most (if not all) aviation units in the U.S.
Military do not permit "GI property" decoration to that great of an extent.
Maybe some splashings on the front of the nose, if it does not get in the
way of the radar.
And, like said, this probably is just a 'parade' chopper, something they fly
around on May Day.
But I do think your wrong in the fact that they would burst out in laughter.
First off, the Hind is a pretty formidable gunship by itself. Second off,
regardless of what is painted on a helicopter, the enamy will hear it before
they see it, and wouldnt be to happy. The reason helicopters are painted in
an olive-drab or subdued color is for protection on the ground, where they
are most vulnerable, not for inflight. . Third off, yes, I would think they
would be scared of a US gunship coming at them. There is nothing more better
to scare the thunder out of you thank a volly of hellfires being jammed down
your throat.


LF

Mar 18, 2003, 5:30pm

America does not make Chemical or Biological weapons. We stoped making them
in the Sixties and Seventies, and have fazed them out. They have been
decommisioned, and destroyed.
America also has shown efforts to scale down thier Nuclear arsenal. You cant
despute this, dont try, it would be silly.

I dont think you people get. You say, "oh, America is just as bad, they have
missles and weapons that can do more damage." But have we? Suddam has.

Mar 18, 2003, 5:47pm

In which cave did you live the last 30 years?


[View Quote] NOT true, they still do


> America also has shown efforts to scale down thier Nuclear arsenal. You cant
> despute this, dont try, it would be silly.

NOT true, just conserved, not disarmed


> I dont think you people get. You say, "oh, America is just as bad, they have
> missles and weapons that can do more damage." But have we? Suddam has.

Mar 18, 2003, 5:59pm

saddam wasnt a threat the past 20 years, and he will never be , cause he
doesnt have the weapons , or intention to do that , and its easy to say he
si a threat , say the same about lybia and N Korea 5 bush allready did
actually ) and you can attack them also as preventive action .

Mar 18, 2003, 6:22pm

"saddam wasnt a threat the past 20 years, and he will never be ,"
your nuts and not making any sense right now...not even worth talking to anymore actually.


[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 6:35pm

I think I forgot something :

1.) - no chemical / biological weapons

http://www.sunshine-project.org/
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/
http://www.isreview.org/issues/21/biochem_weapons.shtml

Especially this one is interesting :
http://www.constitution.org/abus/safan017.txt


2.) - efforts to scale down nuclear arsenal

http://www.ransac.org/new-web-site/pub/nuclearnews/04.17.00.html

you'll find a _lot_ more pages with Google :

http://www.google.de/search?q=nuclear+disarmament+USA+russia+%22not+be+destroyed%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en

Mar 18, 2003, 6:38pm

www.globalsecurity.org

Mar 18, 2003, 6:38pm

cause you know i am right , try to prove me wrong , i love when ppl get
pissed cause they know they arent right :)

Mar 18, 2003, 7:19pm

[View Quote] One minute there SS. Can we leave all differences aside just for a minute,
forget what you feel about the US, forget everything else but Saddam Hussein
and his rule in Iraq...no snide comments such as that above? Can you
honestly say that you believe Saddam Hussein has been no threat to anyone,
including his own people, in the last 20 years? How can you alone say what
his intentions are?

Mar 18, 2003, 8:03pm

FYI i'm not pissed heheheheh and i love it when people with very little thinking power on their own are exposed for the fluff they are.

[View Quote]

Mar 18, 2003, 10:11pm

i replied cause he said Iraq is a threat to the USA ,which it isnt . how i
feel about the USA ? same as any other country in the world , i dont judge
on few ppl like bush , you cna try to blame us for being anti american all
you like , we arent .

Mar 18, 2003, 10:42pm

[View Quote] It was a UN resolution that argued if Saddam didn't comply fully, military
intervention was the only other alternative. Not making more and more resolutions to
appease this dictator.

> 2. ignoring the International Court in Den Haag

I wouldn't want to be part of an International court when people dislike others just
because of their origin. You cannot internationalize a "jury of peers", having a
group that's not of your national origin would subvert blind justice. Anyone with a
brain would realize _why_ that is.

> 3. ignoring International Laws

We're enforcing the UN resolutions passed.

> 4. breaking disarmament contracts (conserving instead of destroying weapons of mass
destruction)

Until dictators disarm, we will not either. We're the only one willing to enforce
the UN resolutions anyways.

--Bowen--

Mar 19, 2003, 1:12am

Alright... enough of this.

Chris

[View Quote]

Mar 19, 2003, 1:16am

He's referring to the useless Kyoto treaty and the other one about
international pollution prevention where China and India, both signatories,
were excluded from having to prevent any of their pollution output. We
pulled out of Kyoto because it was outdated and Congress voted unanimously
against entering into the pollution prevention treaty because not all
countries had to follow the rules. He's also referring to Bush's judicious
use of the word "expect" which implies that he doesn't think any country is
the USA's equal. He's got a point. Our diplomacy sucks. :)

SW Chris

[View Quote]

Mar 19, 2003, 1:18am

I support American soveriegnty over the United Nations. I actually feel we
ought to WITHDRAW from the organization which we provide most of the money
for. The U.N. has failed to meet the purposes for which it was established.

The old U.N. building in New York..I wonder what we could use for it if the
United Nations moved out....lol

[View Quote]

Mar 19, 2003, 1:18am

Slow down guys! Don't even bother replying to this. It will just lead down
a road we've already been.

Chris

[View Quote]

Mar 19, 2003, 1:20am

What's with this International Court thing? Where did the US go against its
ruling?

Chris

[View Quote]

Mar 19, 2003, 1:23am

Blah. Pakistan has nukes. India has nukes. Israel has nukes. Russia's
still got its nukes. They may be missing some, but they still got nukes.
:P

Yes folks, I'm being facetious.

Chris

[View Quote]

Mar 19, 2003, 1:23am

Well there you go. We agree on something. :)

Chris

[View Quote]

Mar 19, 2003, 1:24am

Because CNN is a liberal's paradise and everyone knows it. :P

Chris

[View Quote]

Mar 19, 2003, 1:29am

The US never submitted to an International Court and I think that was a
rather good decision.

[View Quote]

1  2  3  4  5  6  |   Order by index