PDA

View Full Version : US breaking international law once again



EricRG
03-08-2003, 07:10 PM
Glad to see the forums have not been so BORING lately, altough the increasing number of threads closed for little to no reason has been disturbing.:confused:

The top story on CNN.com today says the US military has moved ILLEGALLY into the DMZ between Iraq and Kuwait.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/08/sprj.irq.main/index.html

Also according to the article, the US ordered Kuwaiti soldiers to cut vehicle-size holes in the fence as well.

Meanwhile, Bush and his cronies beg and cry and plead (and probably try to pay off) with the leaders of the rest of the world who do not support unilateral action.

I'm not understanding why the US gov't can point fingers at other countries for breaking UN law, but seem to do the same time and time again themselves.

Beast
03-08-2003, 07:16 PM
They get closed because people can't have a discussion without turning the thread into a political ****ing match. Just like this thread will be, once it starts up after around the first page. Hopefully if it keeps up, Sir Steve will adopt rules against political/religious threads like other forums have. Fire in the hole! :crazed: :p

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

James Boba Fettfield
03-08-2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
Glad to see the forums have not been so BORING lately

There's a pretty interesting discussion about the upcoming Clone Wars cartoon in another section. There's also an interesting poll about what Unleashed figures we want to see. There are other forums here outside general discussion, and they haven't been boring lately. We are a Star Wars board, after all.

DarthChuckMc
03-08-2003, 07:38 PM
If Bush is "crying, begging, and pleading", it's to get the UN to let us go in and get rid of these tyranical dictators that are pointing weapons of mass destruction in our particular direction. Instead of sitting at your PC in the comfort of your airconditioned home, eating Whoppers with cheese, drinking bottled water, and spouting anti-war bullcrap, why don't you head overseas and put a stop to all this nonsense. You wouldn't have the freedom to do all the things that you do on daily basis, like start fights on webboards, collect Star Wars toys, or even spit your anti-Bush statements all over the WWW if the US didn't go to war for petty little causes like the one we are in now. Maybe you don't understan that these are people trying to KILL US. Why? Because we have the freedoms that we do. Because we don't believe in the same GOD as them. There are men and women right now heading to war to support your right to rattle off whatever trash you want, and that makes me sad. They are willing to give up their lives for your right to belittle and degrade everything they are going over there to accomplish. You sir, in my opinion, suck.
I hope that wasn't too BORING for you.

derek
03-08-2003, 07:40 PM
the US military has moved ILLEGALLY into the DMZ between Iraq and Kuwait

it's soothing to know the UN won't do anything though, since they are a meaningless debating society that doesen't actually enforce it's laws.:crazed: ;)

seriously though, how are we supposed to invade iraq if not thru kuwait? i can't see them going thru Iran. and anyway, us soldiers are already in the country, working with the different tribal groups. if the UN had been doing their job for the last 12 years, US marines wouldn't be moving in and getting ready to invade iraq.

and technically we don't need UN approval to invade iraq. if the president believes iraq is a threat, he is legally justified to take military action.


Instead of sitting at your PC in the comfort of your airconditioned home,

EricRG dosen't use the AC!:D

Beast
03-08-2003, 07:45 PM
Wow, didn't take long for a fight to break out. SSG: The Jerry Springer edition. Sir Steve, ya may want to consider a forum rule similar to HTF's. :)

4. The discussion of politics and religion on this forum, except in relation to how they are portrayed in movies is not allowed on this forum.
MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

DarthChuckMc
03-08-2003, 07:48 PM
HomeTheater as in, "Hi, I'd like to buy this Toshiba 50H82 and put it on my Best Buy Card." ?

plasticfetish
03-08-2003, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
We are a Star Wars board, after all.

Oh ... wait ... this isn't the Op-Ed (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html) section of the New York Times?

Beast
03-08-2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by DarthChuckMc
HomeTheater as in, "Hi, I'd like to buy this Toshiba 50H82 and put it on my Best Buy Card." ?
Sort of, they're one of the larger DVD/Movie/Home Theater discussion sites. And they had so much trouble with things like political and religious debates raging on their forums, that they just banned the discussions entirely. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

QLD
03-08-2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by DarthChuckMc
You sir, in my opinion, suck.
I hope that wasn't too BORING for you.


That was the funniest thing I have read in at least a day..... :crazed:

Kidhuman
03-08-2003, 08:24 PM
Ditto QLD

EricRG
03-08-2003, 08:43 PM
ChuckMc, my friend, ChuckMc.

First of all, as Derek pointed out, I don't use the AC. Nor do I own a PC (Mac man!), eat Whoppers (or beef in any form...I also don't eat any fast food at all). I also don't drink bottled water. Why bother? But I LOVE to spew anti-war "bullcrap". You got me on that one. And ChuckMc, my friend, YOU are the one who started the fight here...I simply RAISED AN ISSUE. You resorted to personal attacks. And didn't argue your case at all, I might add, just spewed vitriol.

And you know what...I'm gonna KEEP posting stuff like this despite being CONSTANTLY attacked by JJB, JBF, and QLD (amongst others). As a matter of fact, most likely with increased frequency as the US continues to flaunt international law and begins killing innocent Iraqis (and causing the deaths of our own military men.)

James Boba Fettfield
03-08-2003, 09:07 PM
I didn't attack you. I just merely stated that this message board is used for other issues outside of new political topics every week. I wouldn't have said anything, had you not said: "Glad to see the forums have not been so BORING lately, altough the increasing number of threads closed for little to no reason has been disturbing." To me, that comes off as you saying without political hot bed topics, these forums are boring. That's all I said, I didn't "attack" you.

Beast
03-08-2003, 09:13 PM
Bingo. Gotta agree with JBF. I do not constantly attack you. But your constant attempts to excite the forums with political discussions that you know will turn into a fight is a bit old. You even said yourself that the forums were boring without a political debate raging and causing problems. If you really want a serious political discussion, there are places more suited to that sort of thing. We have enough heated discussions talking about Star Wars. You should see the Brown Vs. Blue debate about Han Hoth's Coat Color. ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

plasticfetish
03-08-2003, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
eat Whoppers

Oh maaAAAANNNnnn ... this is making me hungry! Every time I see "Whoppers" I start drooling. Oh well, I'll just go have one of the vegan burritos that my wife just cooked ... and dream that it's a Whopper.

(OK. let's see if this works ... I'm starting to feel like a good luck charm for getting these threads closed.)

Did anybody see that cool picture of the guys firing rounds from that howitzer over at that CNN page? I'm pretty much a pacifist, but I'll be d***ed if that doesn't look like fun. Look at that shell! It's bigger than a can of Pringles. Mmmmm ... Pringles. Anyway ... so, it's funny that EricRG should mention Pacman in his post above ... oh, wait "PC (Mac man!)" ... that's what he said. Not "Pacman", 'cause I figured that was a weird coincidence because I know that after eating a Whopper (with or without cheese) there's nothing I enjoy more than playing Pacman. And NOT some kind of new fangled version of it on the Play Station or my "personal computer" ... but, I like to warm up the old 2600 and flip those switches. It'd be funny if you could play Pacman on a Mac after eating a Big Mac ... that'd be crazy.

:dead:

Beast
03-08-2003, 09:36 PM
Mmmm. Damn you, Plasticfetish. Now I hunger as well for the flesh of a dead cow presented my way right away on a hamburger bun. Hmm, Western Whoppers are back at Burger King for a limited time. Maybe I'll run up there tommorow and get one. Burger King should hire you to influence people to eat there. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

2-1B
03-08-2003, 09:44 PM
Y'all need to get laid. :)

derek
03-08-2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Sort of, they're one of the larger DVD/Movie/Home Theater discussion sites. And they had so much trouble with things like political and religious debates raging on their forums, that they just banned the discussions entirely. :)

like this one? :crazed:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?threadid=128867&perpage=30&display=&pagenumber=1

Jedi Clint
03-08-2003, 11:48 PM
If the words of the U.N. meant anything, you might have a point Eric........might :)

EricRG
03-09-2003, 12:01 AM
My main point JC, is that the US gov't does show the same regard for the UN as you espouse...when it suits them. I just don't get why the US can cry foul when other countries violate UN resolutions but when we do the UN is "irrelevant". Why bother participating in the process at all? Because the US wants to be able to use UN law for it's own purposes ONLY when it works in our favor.

And I just thought I'd like to mention that even though JediClint and I are at COMPLETE opposite ends of the spectrum on many (all?) issues, I have to say I do enjoy reading his posts and debating him. Clint always writes incisively and never resorts to personal attacks. Nor does he resort to "dumbing a thread to death"...posting useless off-topic replies in the hopes of getting the thread closed.:rolleyes: Many here could learn a lesson from him.

Even if he is wrong.;)

Jedi Clint
03-09-2003, 12:32 AM
I bet there is at least one set of issues that you and I would find common ground on, but that is a different discussion :)

Resolution 1441 required Iraq to disclose all banned weapons. They failed. The security council passed the resolution with a vote of 15 to 0. If they meant what they said, then they would have found Saddam in material breach of 1441 and the consequences laid out in the measure would be acted upon by the U.N. The situation we find ourselves in now seems largely due to the efforts of France, Germany, Russia, and China. A few of those nations obviously have ulterior motives for opposing the measure they initially agreed to. There were French companies selling jet fighter parts to Iraq as recently as January 2003. They shouldn't have passed a resolution that they didn't plan on following through. The decisions of the council now border on irrelevance because of their actions.

And thanks Eric.

QLD
03-09-2003, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by EricRG

And you know what...I'm gonna KEEP posting stuff like this despite being CONSTANTLY attacked by JJB, JBF, and QLD (amongst others). As a matter of fact, most likely with increased frequency as the US continues to flaunt international law and begins killing innocent Iraqis (and causing the deaths of our own military men.)

That sounds cool......though it still won't stop you from being a ****.

EricRG
03-09-2003, 02:28 AM
I'd like to buy a vowel. Is there an O?

Tonysmo
03-09-2003, 02:47 AM
hmmm... too short for COMMUNIST...

kidding.. I dont know you well enough...

Emperor Howdy
03-09-2003, 02:52 AM
Hey! Whaddayaknow! It's EricRG, America's favorite Judas. If it was up to me, I'd strap Eric and that talentless sow Janeane Fatslobalo to one of those two-thousand pound bombs we're about to drop down Saddam's chimney.....


but.....I.....errrr.......guess that's why things aren't up to me, huh? :rolleyes:

QLD
03-09-2003, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by EricRG
I'd like to buy a vowel. Is there an O?

That money might be better spent on a one-way ticket to Iraq, so you can be with your human-sheild buddies. Wait, I forgot, most of them left after a day. Oh well.



Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
but.....I.....errrr.......guess that's why things aren't up to me, huh?

Well, that, and the fact that you are a EARWAX HURLING FLESH ROBOT OF MEAT JELLO!

:crazed:

Emperor Howdy
03-09-2003, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
That money might be better spent on a one-way ticket to Iraq, so you can be with your human-sheild buddies. Wait, I forgot, most of them left after a day. Oh well.


LOLOLOLOLOL!! :D Classic, QLD.

The Associated Press
Published: Mar 2, 2003
LONDON (AP)
"Some of the peace activists who went to Iraq to serve as human shields in the event of war returned
home, fearing for their safety", a spokesman said Sunday.

Right. So not only are they complete morons, but cowards as well. What valuable human beings.


On Friday, the head of Sweden's largest peace organization urged human shields to leave Iraq, saying they were being used for propaganda purposes by Saddam Hussein.
Maria Ermanno, chairwoman of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, cited reports that Iraqi officials were arranging transportation, accommodations and news conferences for the human shields.
"To go down to Iraq and live and act there on the regime's expense, then you're supporting a terrible dictator. I think that method is entirely wrong," Ermanno told Swedish Radio.


Thank God someone sees this clearly. Nevertheless, I don't see EricRG fitting in with those shield types. I think he likes to support a terrible dictator from the comfort of his home....or tent....or VW van....whatever it is. :confused:

plasticfetish
03-09-2003, 03:12 AM
(How do I possibly follow the Archie Bunkers there? Oh well, I'll try.)

Sorry, after your ...


Originally posted by EricRG
The forums have been BORING recently...

... adventure, you lost me. I'm likely to be one of the more "leftist" individuals around here and an unyielding skeptic of our government's current intentions and motives. But you lost me with your recreational protesting. To me, the only thing worse than having no opinion is having one just because you're bored.

I'd like to try and solve the puzzle Pat ... is the answer "Poseur"?

Beast
03-09-2003, 03:30 AM
Hey now, Archie Bunker is cool. I recommend the first two season sets that have been released on DVD. Archie was very wise, for his time. :crazed: :D

"I tell yas'all how to eliminate the skyjackings there. ... You simply ARM all yer passengers. At the beginning of each flight, ya simply pass out the pistols, then collect 'em up again when the flight's over!"

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

James Boba Fettfield
03-09-2003, 03:50 AM
I said it in the last thread, and I'll say it again here:

You guys make me lol.

I feel dirty typing lol.

Emperor Howdy
03-09-2003, 04:04 AM
The surprisingly balmy weather had several thousand people chanting and cheering at a rally before their planned march to the Ellipse just south of the White House. The event was organized by the group calling itself CodePink, the name a protest against the government's color-coded terror alert system.

Activists wore their color of peace in many forms, from scarves to sweaters and even pink bathrobes for some men.

``A lot of us are mothers and grandmothers and we identify with the women of Iraq who will suffer the most,'' said Sara Hinkley, 31, of Oakland, Calif.


CodePink? Pink bathrobes for men? Now it's just getting downright creepy. :(

....and what's with the suffering women statement? On the contrary....no Saddam = no sanctions = improved economy = more jobs = more money to start a family.

derek
03-09-2003, 10:54 AM
Iraq is already surrendering!!!

it seems before the war has even started, iraq soldiers are already wanting to give up. a group of iraq soldiers surrendered to some british soldiers who were conducting training exercises in kuwait. it seems they found a way across the DMZ. so i guess they need to be reported to the UN security council???

this is going to be a short war.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=12715943&method=full&siteid=106694

Kidhuman
03-09-2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
I said it in the last thread, and I'll say it again here:

You guys make me lol.

They could make you feel like Dancing....

James Boba Fettfield
03-09-2003, 11:21 AM
You guys make me feel like dancing.

2-1B
03-09-2003, 12:43 PM
At first I was skeptical of this war and Wubbya's intentions, but after reading about this offer he made (http://www.theonion.com/onion3908/bush_offers_taxpayers.html) recently . . . well now I'm sold ! :D

mabudonicus
03-09-2003, 02:39 PM
On a lighter note, my 30th birthday came and went without much fanfare... I got a Theoden figure from TTT and a Rainbow Mothra which is just awesome!!!
Sorry, I just checked this thread out to see if it had been closed yet and it hadn't, but it's obviously just a matter of time





*checks watch*


...... how 'bout NOW!!!

plasticfetish
03-09-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
At first I was skeptical of this war and Wubbya's intentions, but after reading about this offer he made (http://www.theonion.com/onion3908/bush_offers_taxpayers.html) recently . . . well now I'm sold ! :D
Hahahahahahaha!!!

"I don't know much about what's going on with Iraq, but I do know what's going on with my truck. The brakes are set to go any day now."

Hahahahahahaha!!!

"Free Iraq Of Hussein, Free Rent For A Month." Another upcoming spot asks the question, "War: What Is It Good For?" and answers, "$300, Is What."

Hahahahahahahaha!!!

Aaaaaaahhhh ... I've had the news on all day, I've heard from Collin Powel more times this month (year?) than my own father ... that was a nice change of pace. Thanks.

Happy birthday mabudon ... of course this thread is still open, we're all trying to do our part to make the world safe or democracy.

JediTricks
03-09-2003, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by EricRG
the increasing number of threads closed for little to no reason has been disturbing.:confused: My math says that in the past month, there have been 2 closed threads, both with specific reasons for closure posted as the final reply.

---

There seems to be some confusion to how the "thread closed" policy works, so let me state this part clearly: if I find that any forum user is actively attempting to hijack threads and/or get them closed, I will have no choice but to suspend that user from the forums. If the problem is severe enough, the forums' staff can just start wholesale clearcutting these hijacker threads out via the PURGE command... this would also lead to the complete purging of that user's posts from all of the forums.

And since I've been forced to post in this manner, let me also remind you all that personal attacks are not allowed. Not only do they make you look weak since you show that you cannot discuss the issues on their own merits, but they're also against forum rules.

---


Originally posted by Jedi Clint
There were French companies selling jet fighter parts to Iraq as recently as January 2003. What about our own Vice President doing $73 million in tech & oil business with Iraq in the mid'-90s when it was supposed to be forbidden? I mean, the guy green-lighted the Gulf War as Bush Sr.'s defense secretary (he even chose which plan to go with, vetoing Schwartzkopf's plan for a bloodier ground battle) then oversaw the downsizing of the US military. When the Bush Sr administration left office, Cheney headed back to the private sector as head of Halliburton (now the largest oil drilling, engineering, and construction company thanks mainly to Cheney as CEO). So like this thread's initial point, how is it that it's ok for the US to do it but not someone else?

---

War isn't something to tread lightly into, it isn't a joke and it isn't a video game; it destroys lives on both sides both directly and indirectly and damages our credibility as a race that will take this planet into the future. There is no civility in war, only destruction and death - it is neither funny nor something that should just be accepted, it should be questioned staunchly at every opportunity because there is no room for error. If the powers that be have good enough reasons, they should not fear answering these questions honestly and openly, and most importantly, they should be open-minded to asking these questions of themselves rather than accepting war as an inevitability.

Jedi Clint
03-09-2003, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
What about our own Vice President doing $73 million in tech & oil business with Iraq in the mid'-90s when it was supposed to be forbidden?

I mean, the guy green-lighted the Gulf War as Bush Sr.'s defense secretary (he even chose which plan to go with, vetoing Schwartzkopf's plan for a bloodier ground battle) then oversaw the downsizing of the US military. When the Bush Sr administration left office, Cheney headed back to the private sector as head of Halliburton (now the largest oil drilling, engineering, and construction company thanks mainly to Cheney as CEO). So like this thread's initial point, how is it that it's ok for the US to do it but not someone else?

Cheney was head of Halliburton which held a chunk of 2 other companies that sold oil drilling equipment to Iraq in the 90's.....legally and part of the oil for food program. From what I understand, it sounds more like Cheney either looked the other way or was not informed of the business that the 2 companies did with Iraq (for about a year), before divesting Halliburton of those interests. Whether he knew or found out later, it is a slight bit different when a supposed ally is selling weapons parts to the enemy when military action is a possibility. This brings us back to why we choose war over lifting the sanctions. If they were lifted U.S. oil companies could do as much business with Iraq as they found profitable. We don't want to do business with Saddam. He siphons money off of the program and uses it for banned weapons production. He is a a ruthless dictator, and deserves nothing less than what he will get.

The Overlord Returns
03-10-2003, 12:33 PM
It should be pointed out that a top Kuwaiti official stated that the fence was going through a routine maintenance procedure. This actually makes snese, considering the first strike of any invasion would most certainly be aerial.

Here's the thing with the Oil situation. I certainly don't think America is just after access to the oil, and it really annoys me when either side of the debate attempts to simplify the topic down to this "we want oil". The way I see it, it's about long term control of Oil on a more global scale. To say that this would not interest America, and several high ranking members of it's current regime, er, government, is ludicrous.

It also appears to have something to do with having a foothold in the region on a long term scale. America has israel in its pocket, but, to have what could easily be the most powerful arab nationunder it's control would be a great asset. Eventually, you could see widespread us control of the middle east......


WMD's don't really seem to be the major incentive for this govt, when daily now reports from North Korea, and now Iran show where the real, legitimate threats are. That is why this Iraq situation comes off as so underhanded, it's the singlemindedness of the whole operation that irks me, and, it seems, the rest of the bloody world.

The next question is, why isn't the humanitarian angle working for Bush, the way it worked for Clinton in Kosovo? I know JC feels it is a liberal bias, and, I would agree with him in part. However, it's also the way you go about making your case. Kosovo was clearly about saving an oppressed people who were being slaughtered daily. Had Bush and company actually presented their case based on this from the onset, this could have been a very different situation. But, they didn't, and the questions about oil, and the nobility of intentions came into play.

If it is truly about Disarming, then Bush has no interest in freeing the people of Iraq, as they clearly wouldn't were Hussein to come clean and disarm today. If this isn't just about disarming, then, were Hussein to come clean today, GWB would find some other way to invade...making a war, and takeover, inevitable......


Here's the thing though....now the Inspectors are talking about Iraq's current state of "Proactive" cooperation....and that they want more time to view the new info on VX and anthrax. El Baradei has determined there is NO nuclear program in Iraq, shutting down information provided by Britain and the US as "doctored (not by them, but by Niger, apparently). Should we not wait and see how far this iraqi cooperation will go? Isn't that better than invading prematurely, and slaughtering thousands of innocents, possibly losing many young soldiers from the US and Britain, and in the end......somehow not getting Hussein?

In Viet Nam, 50 000 soldiers died, the regime was never changed, and still poses no threat to the US......to this day, that war was a massive mistake, and one I am sure many officials from the time would think differently about, had they the chance....

Jedi Clint
03-10-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Here's the thing with the Oil situation. I certainly don't think America is just after access to the oil, and it really annoys me when either side of the debate attempts to simplify the topic down to this "we want oil". The way I see it, it's about long term control of Oil on a more global scale. To say that this would not interest America, and several high ranking members of it's current regime, er, government, is ludicrous.

Why not just work with Saddam like we do any other nation that we buy oil from?


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
It also appears to have something to do with having a foothold in the region on a long term scale.

I will agree with you 100% on this statement alone. Iraq is the muscle behind alot of nefarious crap that happens in the region. Strategically it makes perfect sense to force change in that country in order to work toward the end goal of peace in the region.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
WMD's don't really seem to be the major incentive for this govt, when daily now reports from North Korea, and now Iran show where the real, legitimate threats are. That is why this Iraq situation comes off as so underhanded, it's the singlemindedness of the whole operation that irks me, and, it seems, the rest of the bloody world.

What would you propose that we do to Iran and North Korea right now? Should we attack them?

I think we should take the threat seriously by being prepared for action forced by both Iran and N. Korea, deal with what we have on our table now, and begin diplomatic negotiations through the U.N. as we have with Iraq. That is why it is essential that the words of the security council mean something.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
The next question is, why isn't the humanitarian angle working for Bush, the way it worked for Clinton in Kosovo? I know JC feels it is a liberal bias, and, I would agree with him in part. However, it's also the way you go about making your case. Kosovo was clearly about saving an oppressed people who were being slaughtered daily. Had Bush and company actually presented their case based on this from the onset, this could have been a very different situation. But, they didn't, and the questions about oil, and the nobility of intentions came into play.

I'll agree that they haven't worked this angle as the should or could have.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
If it is truly about Disarming, then Bush has no interest in freeing the people of Iraq, as they clearly wouldn't were Hussein to come clean and disarm today. If this isn't just about disarming, then, were Hussein to come clean today, GWB would find some other way to invade...making a war, and takeover, inevitable......

I disagree with the assumptions you use in your speculation. Saddam has a history of deception and non-compliance. The only reason he has offered anything to the U.N. inspectors is because we are threatening force. He has played that game before though. He shows a little, claims that he has come clean, and then when pressure builds a little more, he shows a little more than he did last time. Remember he claimed to come clean the time before that! The only way were going to disarm Iraq is by removing Saddam. That just so happens to coincide with freeing the people of Iraq from his oppression. Once again an aspect of removing him that the admin. could have pushed harder. IMO it decreases focus on the threat to the world community which is the basis of returning to the U.N. to finish what we started with Saddam 12 years ago (rush to war? :rolleyes: ). Why now you say? We got a wakeup call on 9/11.

The Overlord Returns
03-10-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Why not just work with Saddam like we do any other nation that we buy oil from?


That's what I am getting at though. Control of Oil, in a global sense, means you don't have to "work" with any other nations.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint

I will agree with you 100% on this statement alone. Iraq is the muscle behind alot of nefarious crap that happens in the region. Strategically it makes perfect sense to force change in that in order to work toward the end goal of peace in the region.


Thing is, will the go about it correctly...and is that what they want? Control doesn't necessarily mean a peaceful middleeast. Occupation could lead to decades of more strife, and greater terror attacks throughout the west. I am yet to be sold on this idea that American control of Iraq will lead to decreased terror activities in the world. Hell, for that matter, who takes control of the Iraqi govt? The Kurds, the shi'ites? The Sunnis? Do you really think The US wants to replace a non fundamentalist muslim with heavily fundamentalist muslims? The Kurds have major ties with al qaeda (indeed, a lot of the hussein-al qaeda junk the govt. is spewing got it's basis from these known kurdish ties). For that matter, the big problem with Iran is their own Fundamentalist ruling power.....



Originally posted by Jedi Clint


What would you propose that we do to Iran and North Korea right now? Should we attack them?


They are breaking the same resolutions, and they are much further along. How are they NOT the bigger threat?



Originally posted by Jedi Clint


I think we should take the threat seriously by being prepared for action forced by both Iran and N. Korea, deal with what we have on our table now, and begin diplomatic negotiations through the U.N. as we have with Iraq. That is why it is essential that the words of the security council mean something.


The words of Resolution 1441 do not expressly state that military action be the next immediate step. What they are doing now is actually closer to what the resolution stated.



Originally posted by Jedi Clint


Why now you say? We got a wakeup call on 9/11.

Again, something that had nothing to do with Iraq, or Hussein. The fact 9/11 is now being used as propaganda for a war in Iraq offends me...and I'm not even american...

Jedi Clint
03-10-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
That's what I am getting at though. Control of Oil, in a global sense, means you don't have to "work" with any other nations.

Are you saying we would steal it? We have to "work" with any other country we do business with.



Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Thing is, will the go about it correctly...and is that what they want? Control doesn't necessarily mean a peaceful middleeast. Occupation could lead to decades of more strife, and greater terror attacks throughout the west. I am yet to be sold on this idea that American control of Iraq will lead to decreased terror activities in the world. Hell, for that matter, who takes control of the Iraqi govt? The Kurds, the shi'ites? The Sunnis? Do you really think The US wants to replace a non fundamentalist muslim with heavily fundamentalist muslims? The Kurds have major ties with al qaeda (indeed, a lot of the hussein-al qaeda junk the govt. is spewing got it's basis from these known kurdish ties). For that matter, the big problem with Iran is their own Fundamentalist ruling power.....

Their choice. At this point they don't have a choice. I'm sure it will take some moderating. Do you believe it is impossible for them to have a democracy?

We can't make our decisions based on fear of retaliation. Retaliation is expected. If they don't do their best to deal with the expected retaliation that constitutes failure on some level.




Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
They are breaking the same resolutions, and they are much further along. How are they NOT the bigger threat?

How are Iran and N. Korea "the bigger threat"?




Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
The words of Resolution 1441 do not expressly state that military action be the next immediate step. What they are doing now is actually closer to what the resolution stated.


"Serious concequences". What would a serious consequence be in your estimation? The threat of force is the only reason he is even offering what he has!



Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Again, something that had nothing to do with Iraq, or Hussein. The fact 9/11 is now being used as propaganda for a war in Iraq offends me...and I'm not even american...

Ya know, alot of the tripe I read from the left offends me. I did not use 9/11 as propaganda. I told you that the wake up call that was 9/11 was one of the reasons we take issues like Iraq's non-compliance seriously now.

The Overlord Returns
03-10-2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Jedi Clint
Are you saying we would steal it? We have to "work" with any other country we do business with.


No, control doesn't equal theft. I'm looking at the notion that the puppet govt. set up post saddam would essentially leave the US in direct "control" over the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. However, they have hinted at taking oil as reimbursment for rebuilding Iraq post war. Not sure if one could call that stealing....I'd call it opportunistic.


Originally posted by Jedi Clint

Their choice. At this point they don't have a choice. I'm sure it will take some moderating. Do you believe it is impossible for them to have a democracy?


What I was getting at was more a question of would the US government really want Iraq run by fundamentalists.......ensuring it's eventual status as a terrorist haven?




Originally posted by Jedi Clint


How are Iran and N. Korea "the bigger threat"?


Well........proven nuclear programs vs. Iraqs proven non existant nuclear program. Also, in North Koreas case, an aggressive testing program that's started up recently. But, yes, Iraq's possible WMDs are a much bigger threat than North Koreas proven nukes;)



Originally posted by Jedi Clint


"Serious concequences". What would a serious consequence be in your estimation? The threat of force is the only reason he is even offering what he has!


Still, it's not a direct go ahead for war, contrary to what the US wants the UN to think.

However, the threat of action is getting the inspectors the information, and progress they were looking for. During the previous inspections they were able to destroy 95% of Iraqs banned weapons programs before being pulled out by the UN. However, we are supposed to believe that the inspections do not work.



Originally posted by Jedi Clint


Ya know, alot of the tripe I read from the left offends me. I did not use 9/11 as propaganda. I told you that the wake up call that was 9/11 was one of the reasons we take issues like Iraq's non-compliance seriously now.

Ya know, I haven't done the "left vs. right" thing with you yet, and I would rather not bring it in to this, otherwise exciting debate;)

I wasn't accusing you of using it as propaganda, however, I do accuse the administration of doing so, luckily, to little success.

If one is to assume that any arab nation is fair game after 9/11, well, where are the forces going into saudi arabia? After all, the bloody hijackers came from there...and were financed by the ruling families.......

Ah yes....saudi arabia is an ally...I forgot.

Jedi Clint
03-10-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
What I was getting at was more a question of would the US government really want Iraq run by fundamentalists.......ensuring it's eventual status as a terrorist haven?

Explain to me how it "ensures it's eventual status as a terrorist haven".



Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Well........proven nuclear programs vs. Iraqs proven non existant nuclear program. Also, in North Koreas case, an aggressive testing program that's started up recently. But, yes, Iraq's possible WMDs are a much bigger threat than North Koreas proven nukes;)

I've never claimed that Iraq was a "bigger" threat. My point is that it is the threat that we are focusing our attention on now. I'm sure the other two will get the attention they deserve. It would be in the U.N.'s best interest to enforce their own mandates if they expect to have any influence in disarming N. Korea and Iran. Once again, should we attack them? Or would you prefer we bring issues regarding both countries to the U.N.?



Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Still, it's not a direct go ahead for war, contrary to what the US wants the UN to think.

What is it then? A joke. That is exactly the way Saddam treats it.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
However, the threat of action is getting the inspectors the information, and progress they were looking for. During the previous inspections they were able to destroy 95% of Iraqs banned weapons programs before being pulled out by the UN. However, we are supposed to believe that the inspections do not work.

Would that be 95% of their known banned weapons? ;) I'd like to see how your source arrived at that percentage.



Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
I wasn't accusing you of using it as propaganda, however, I do accuse the administration of doing so, luckily, to little success.


Fair enough. Present your case.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
If one is to assume that any arab nation is fair game after 9/11, well, where are the forces going into saudi arabia? After all, the bloody hijackers came from there...and were financed by the ruling families.......

Ah yes....saudi arabia is an ally...I forgot.

Most of the hijackers were from S.A. The Saudi leaders talk a good show and have shown a little initiative for our war on terror. In June 2002, Saudi officials arrested 13 men, all but two of them Saudis, suspected of al-Qaeda activity, including an attempt to shoot down a U.S. military plane. Bin Laden called for the toppling of the Saudi government, which revoked his citizenship in 1994. Should we attack them after we get done with the other 3?

EricRG
03-11-2003, 12:47 AM
OL,

Yeah I think your theory of the real reason for the war being long-term GLOBAL control of oil is spot on. Oil reserves will run out one day. The country left holding the chips at the end will truly be in control of the rest of the world.

QLD
03-11-2003, 01:06 AM
OIL is overrated. What we are really after, is all that precious sand!

bigbarada
03-18-2003, 10:59 AM
My take on the whole UN debate is that the US won it's independence back in 1776. We are a sovereign nation, answerable to no one, especially not to that misguided puppet-show we call the United Nations.

Other countries don't approve of our actions? Who cares? France is ticked off at us? I'm sure we can spare about 5 or 6 soldiers to go and conquer Paris.:p

BOMB FRANCE FIRST!!!!!!:cool:

The Overlord Returns
03-18-2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by bigbarada
My take on the whole UN debate is that the US won it's independence back in 1776. We are a sovereign nation, answerable to no one, especially not to that misguided puppet-show we call the United Nations.

Other countries don't approve of our actions? Who cares? France is ticked off at us? I'm sure we can spare about 5 or 6 soldiers to go and conquer Paris.:p

BOMB FRANCE FIRST!!!!!!:cool:

LOL............. now, back in Reality...

The United States won it's independance from Britain in 1776. However, we have a united group of countries that live under, and must follow the same laws. Despite what some Jingoist americans believe,.......you are not exempt....

It's funny that you should mention the war of independance, and then go on to lambaste the french.......whose army arrived to assist you during your revolt??

bigbarada
03-18-2003, 11:20 AM
Yeah and we pulled Frances butt out of the fire twice during WW1 and WW2; not to mention cleaning up their mess (admittedly not very well) in Vietnam. This current stand they are taking just demonstrates their lack of gratitude.

I personally believe the UN is a joke and we Americans have no business being a part it. The only way to bring peace to the Middle East is to remove the dictatorships and impose a democracy based on the same Christian values that America was founded on.

The concept of world peace and unity is a pipe dream, it'll never truly happen as long as human beings are left to manage their own affairs.

The Overlord Returns
03-18-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by bigbarada
not to mention cleaning up their mess (admittedly not very well) in Vietnam


That's the funniest thing I have read in a while....thanks for the chuckle, bigB ;)


Originally posted by bigbarada

The only way to bring peace to the Middle East is to remove the dictatorships and impose a democracy based on the same Christian values that America was founded on.


Impose Democracy? Isn't that an oxymoron?


Originally posted by bigbarada

The concept of world peace and unity is a pipe dream, it'll never truly happen as long as human beings are left to manage their own affairs.

No, it will never happen as long as people continue to be brainwashed into thinking that their beliefs are absolute.

Darth Trymybestus
03-18-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by bigbarada
I personally believe the UN is a joke

I couldn't have said it better myself, what else can you say about an organisation that appoints Libya as the chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission and Iraq to chair the UN disarmament conference.
As for breaking international law, what about when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979? Did they have the UN backing? no, they didn't.
And the fact is, how many chances has Saddam Hussein had to disarm? He's had 12 years to avoid this, it's his choice to make.

Patient Zero
03-18-2003, 04:59 PM
It is only a democracy as long as you believe what I do! :crazed:

The Overlord Returns
03-18-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Darth Trymybestus
As for breaking international law, what about when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979? Did they have the UN backing? no, they didn't.


And who is the historical villain of that conflict?

(10 points if you say the soviet union) ;)

Jedi_Master_Guyute
03-18-2003, 05:25 PM
Argh!!! Will the mods just please put a ban on political and war related posts?!?!?! This is getting really hella rediculous..these posts always lead to the same conclusion, so why don't the mods put their power into use and ban them??

Browse the other forums too kids, this is a STAR WARS site as it is and there are alot of other forums to talk about stuff which isn't going to offend somebody else in the longrun. That is all. :D

Darth Trymybestus
03-18-2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
And who is the historical villain of that conflict?

Of course it's Soviet Union, they had NO reason to invade Afghanistan and they are a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Although I totally believe that Operation Enduring Freedom is completely justified.

bigbarada
03-18-2003, 10:46 PM
I realized I worded that whole thing about Vietnam wrong after I posted it, but I had to get to class and didn't have time to fix it. What I should have said was that the US got stuck in Vietnam for 13 years trying, unsuccessfully, to clean up France's mess. But, you're right Overlord, the way I typed it in my earlier post was pretty silly.

I'm not talking about necessarily imposing democracy, but removing the dictators and allowing a democracy to develop. The entire government of the US was based on Christian values and it worked very well until people started getting waaaaay out of hand with the 'separation of church and state' thing. The original intent of the founding fathers was nothing like what we have today.

Once they took prayer out of schools and legalized abortion, this country started on a short road straight to hell. So yes, I am biased toward a Christian way of thinking since it was Christian values that founded our medical system, public school system and virtually invented science (but now that the Christian influence has been taken from those areas, they have all become more harmful than good). I'm not so stupid that I claim to have no biases, anybody who claims that is a bald-faced liar.

I believe in God, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God (thus making it infallible). Anybody who doesn't believe that, in my eyes, is wrong and being decieved. Unbelief doesn't change the fact that the Bible is the only absolute truth in this world. And I am definitely willing to put my life on the line defending my beliefs.

I know many people here are biased against a Christian mindset and will label me closed minded, ignorant, unintelligent, brainwashed, etc. So be it, I'm way beyond the point where I care about such things.

Anyway, my ideas are extremely simplistic which is why I'm not a politician. So I guess we can move on to something else.

QLD
03-19-2003, 12:27 AM
This war isn't about oil or revenge, or even weapons of mass destruction. It's all about corporate greed baby!!!!

The real operator behind the war machine is none other than.......STARBUCKS!!!!!!!!

Yes, they are pushing the envelope, so that they can be the first to exploit the untapped Middle Eastern market!!!!

They plan to build new locations all throughout Iraq as soona s the bombs stop flying!!!

Every oasis, corner, and main street will have a Starbucks there!

They believe the Iraqi people will fall all over themselves for the privelage of spending $5.00 American, or $158735674927454.20 in whatever Iraqi money is. The people of Iraq will instantly fall in love with the caffiene induced highs and aroma of such wonderful blends such as Saddam's Choice.

If you don't believe this, you are only kidding yourself.
Where else do they not have stores???? The next logical step is Iraq!!!

If you really want to stop the war, BOYCOTT STARBUCKS!!!!!!

2-1B
03-19-2003, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
whatever Iraqi money is.

the dinar :)



I hate Starbucks.

And the fact that Tommy Lee was too lazy to go down the road to Starbucks . . . which led to the installation of a Starbucks in his home. :rolleyes:

The Overlord Returns
03-19-2003, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Jedi_Master_Guyute
Argh!!! Will the mods just please put a ban on political and war related posts?!?!?! This is getting really hella rediculous..these posts always lead to the same conclusion, so why don't the mods put their power into use and ban them??

Browse the other forums too kids, this is a STAR WARS site as it is and there are alot of other forums to talk about stuff which isn't going to offend somebody else in the longrun. That is all. :D

The general discussion board is here to discuss non starwars related topics...is it not?

Best thing to do to try and avoid being upset by a political thread is simply not read it :D

stillakid
03-19-2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Caesar
And the fact that Tommy Lee was too lazy to go down the road to Starbucks . . . which led to the installation of a Starbucks in his home. :rolleyes:

Could I get a Toys R Us installed in my home? ;)

bigbarada
03-20-2003, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
The general discussion board is here to discuss non starwars related topics...is it not?

Best thing to do to try and avoid being upset by a political thread is simply not read it :D

On this we agree.:eek: :eek: :cool:

plasticfetish
03-20-2003, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
The real operator behind the war machine is none other than.......STARBUCKS!!!!!!!!

So sad, so sad ... so sad to see that you've been duped my brother. It's as clear as an unmuddied lake, as obvious as the nose on your face that the real motivation behind this war is in fact Wal-Mart. Come on ... connect the dots my friend. Is it merely a coincidence that hours after Wal-Mart has finished blanketing the free world with its convenience based super stores that we would go to war? I think not. Wake up and smell the french fries. Sure, Sam had his well known "3 Basic Beliefs" ... "1) Respect for the Individual. 2) Service to Our Customers. 3) Strive for Excellence." ... but what of the lesser known "secret beliefs?" Dig a little deeper and you'll find ... "4) Retail is liberation. 5) A bargain is power. 6) Low prices Always ... all over the World." So debate if you must, rant if you will, pick apart each others arguments word by word until none of the words mean anything anymore and then do it 5 or 6 more times using every high school debate tactic that you can remember ... but, I will know the REAL truth ... regardless of whether you agree with me or not, 'cause lord knows I'm way beyond the point where I care about such things.

2-1B
03-20-2003, 02:25 AM
They should change their name to War-Mart.

SirSteve
03-20-2003, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Wow, didn't take long for a fight to break out. SSG: The Jerry Springer edition. Sir Steve, ya may want to consider a forum rule similar to HTF's. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

I believe we may have to... it's getting to be too much.