Has it ever occurred to you that... - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-24-2002, 03:49 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Bush "suspended" that executive order, and has ordered Hussein's assassination.

Melon
Saddam Hussein? Really? Not the one of the king of Jordania? (Lets hope so, with Bush you never know )
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 04:28 PM   #77
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama
Didn't President Ford, (the only "non-murderous" U.S. President in recent history), issue an executive order banning the assassination of leaders of other countrues? And isn't that executive order still standing? From what I have read in Free Your Mind over the past 2 years, Ford seems to be the only U.S. President who has not been charged with or convicted of war crimes by the members of this forum.

~U2Alabama
Doesn't his part in covering up the Kennedy Assasination with the Warren Commision make him a co-conspitator?

Hmmm...member of the Warren Commission becomes the first Un-Elected President.

Interesting.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 05:09 PM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:16 AM
HIPHOP,

I would not describe the Republican Guard as victims, and while taken them out may involve unavoidable civilian casualties, the level of civilian casualties would not be on the level that you suggest. One thing that the US does have the technical ability to do is to target the military forces without destroying civilian places on a scale like that of WWII, Korea, Vietnam. That is one technological advantage that we do have. A US invasion of Iraq is far from being a death sentence for the civilians, rather it is an opportunity for liberation and democracy for an enslaved group of people.

We do not have the capability though to target well hidden Chem/Bio/Nuclear weapons with certainty. Only a very large inspection team on the ground, backed up with a very large military force, free to go anywhere, and I mean anywhere in Iraq, would have the capability to accomplish that. Iraq kicked those inspectors out, how in the past were really unable to fully do their job because they were not backed up with military force to prevent Iraq from stalling their inspection of certain sites so they could remove secret material.

The United States can remove him. In fact it will only take a fraction of US military power to remove his regime. The US armed forces is composed of 1.4 million troops, yet only 250,000 are going to take part in this operation. There is nothing Iraq has or can do to prevent us from invading and changing the regime there, with are military force.

The USA through the FBI, CIA is already concentrating on minimizing chem/bio/nuclear trade. Its far more helpful that in addition to doing that, we take out the possible likely supplier, Saddam. You act like you can only do one or the other, you can and should do BOTH!

Just turning of the lights in Iraq is not going to change the regime in Baghdad. Killing top officers and Saddam and his family will just mean the next up in the CHAIN OF COMMAND, will take over take over the country, most likely a Republican guard officer. But its pointless to talk about that because we do not have the capability to simply kill that many top military comanders or leaders, without going after the entire regime meaning, all 100,000 Republican guard troops and Saddam.

In addition to the 100,000 troops of the Republican guard, Saddam has 200,000 to 300,000 regular army troops. It is unknown where their loyalties will lie when the US invades, but some of them can be expected to defend the regime as well.

I wish there was another way that Iraq could be disarmed and the regime changed without military force, but there simply is not another way. The only leverage you have with Saddam is military force.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 05:52 PM   #79
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 01:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
FACT: Saddam personally signed the agreement that ended the Gulf War.
FACT: The Kyoto Protocol has not been signed by the United States
FACT: You can't violate something you have not agreed to.
FACT: Saddam has violated resolutions.


In my eyes, and the eyes of many other people, any UN Resolution will not be worth the paper it is written on if they do not enforce prior resolutions.

makes sense to me
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 06:21 PM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
I may ask you again: civilised in which sense?

I donīt think he is encouraging a civil society, for example.

But I donīt think he is primitive.
He is not primitive?
So what you are saying is:It is not primitive to-
"gas your own ppl"
"behead members of your own family"

Help us out w this one Mr HipHop..

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 06:34 PM   #81
War Child
 
CannibalisticArtist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Coast babyeee
Posts: 511
Local Time: 04:16 PM
all humans are still primitive, some less than others.
__________________
CannibalisticArtist is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 09:14 PM   #82
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 07:16 PM
You know there were millions of British who thought Churchill was wrong not to trust Hitler.

Do you guys think things could have turned out for the better if the allies could have/would have done a pre-emptive strike on Hitler before the blitzkrieg started rolling through Europe?

Ahhh... but one can't predict events like Hitler's actions right?

Or can they through GOOD INTELLIGENCE?

eh?


Mark
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 04:38 AM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


He is not primitive?
So what you are saying is:It is not primitive to-
"gas your own ppl"
"behead members of your own family"

Help us out w this one Mr HipHop..

DB9
Oh come on diamond

Its cruel, its bastardish, its evil.

But go and look up a definition of primitive. Primitive doesnīt mean baaaaad. Primitive means not developed, undeveloped.

Be careful with that word, by the way. It was used too often by us whities.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 05:01 AM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
You know there were millions of British who thought Churchill was wrong not to trust Hitler.

Do you guys think things could have turned out for the better if the allies could have/would have done a pre-emptive strike on Hitler before the blitzkrieg started rolling through Europe?

Ahhh... but one can't predict events like Hitler's actions right?

Or can they through GOOD INTELLIGENCE?

eh?


Mark
Dear Mark, although it is useless to compare the situation of Hitler to the situation with Saddam, I will answer you on this. British intelligence knew there was something in store. Hitler was already in power in 1933. Pushed by who? The steel industry.

So IF YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO COMPARE those two events in history, be aware that without capitalism the second world war would never have happened. Hitler would simply not have had enough money to fight and win the elections. But the steel industry gave it to him. Because they knew that if he was in power, chances would be good for a war - and war needs a lot of steel. You want me to name some of the evil German capitalists? Krupp, and Thyssen, for example.

A preemptive strike would have changed nothing with Germany. People were weakened by the economic crisis, by high first world war reparations which the Germans had to pay, and therefore "slipped" into the trap of national socialism. If there would have been a preemptive strike, Germans would have been even more angry and nationalist german tendencies would have been to at very least the same extent.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 05:07 AM   #85
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 01:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In addition to the 100,000 troops of the Republican guard, Saddam has 200,000 to 300,000 regular army troops. It is unknown where their loyalties will lie when the US invades, but some of them can be expected to defend the regime as well.
I've read somewhere that Saddam has even stationed most of the Republican Guard outside Bagdad as he doesn't trust their loyalty anymore. Only a fraction, the Elite Republican Guard, is allowed in Bagdad to protect him. So as long as there is no direct attack by the USA, increasing diplomatic pressure will further weaken Saddam's position.

(Compare this with Arafats situation. The last few weeks he was getting weaker and weaker, replacing his cabinet, issuing elections, etc. But as soon as Israel started to attack his HQ he was immediately supported by the Palestinians. The paralel is this: when the USA does attack Iraq, the army and the Republican Guard support Saddam, if the USA doesn't attack, they weaken each other).

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 06:19 AM   #86
ONE
love, blood, life
 
mad1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angie Jolie lover from Belfast Norn Ireland. I LOVE YOU ANGIE! Im a Bono fan!
Posts: 13,153
Local Time: 01:16 AM

I was talking to a mate of mine about this and she said............wierdly, (cause shes nuts anyhow!)......that she tinks Bush is bringin Britain into this to see how they would be attacked first...............basically she tinks Bush wants to see how, (if Britain was first or close to, as we're closer), and IF it DID happen, how it happened.......so that Bush can act quick to prepare his public and protect his country.......(she also mentioned with Nuclear/etc attacks on America there are huge underground basements built in and around NASA, or something and blah blah - I tink it was a programme she watched - for members of NASA blah blah to hide and basically say 'fuck the American public, we are gonna be protected and will survive ----------- apparantly this doc had the interviewers trying to talk to them but the American members of these 'high security companies' walked off without answering, almost embarrassed they were caught out, and this was waaaaay before 9/11).........and that Bush doesnt give a shit about Ally countries.......he wants them involved so that America is not alone in being attacked........(again or not)......I dunno.......this dont make much sense to me.....does it to u?............
she said he (Bush) is a selfish fuker who has itchy fingers to pull on his big-time weapons.....that he is just DYING to lead a war......so thats he is hailed a hero...............
ask her..........
__________________
mad1 is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 07:25 AM   #87
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 11:16 AM
lol maddie! Interesting theory I guess, was she serious about that? I remember hearing something once about underground bunkers but I dont remember NASA being involved, and I dont know if it was conspiracy or fact...so I can't really add to that.
No offence, but I personally think the idea of Bush using the poms as guinea pigs is just a tad on the laughable side. Despite what anyone may think of the guy, I believe he is genuine about the whole thing. He believes in his evidence, we all may not be convinced, but he is not a nutso psycho who would resort to such tactics.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 04:54 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:16 AM
Popmartian,

Most of the Republican guard is ALWAYS stationed outside of Baghdad and widely dispursed throughout the country in order to keep order and put down the first sign of resistence to the regime. Another reason that his forces are widely dispursed is to lessen the effect of a US military attack. Massing ground troops in one area with no way of defending against air attack is a recipe for disaster.

Also, when the USA attacked in 1991, the effect on Iraq was not this rallying around the flag and Hussain. This light years away from Palastine and Arafat. Iraq is a complex country made up of dozens of ethnic groups with competing interest. Saddam and the Rupublican guard control everything through brute force. While people who are Sunni might rally to Saddam side, most civilians will either stand out of the way or support a US invasion to topple Saddam.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 05:01 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:16 AM
HIPHOP,

Hitler is not the first dictator to come to power, Capitalism or not. There were other ways and means of funding one's self besides the "steel industry" in Germany. It is obvious in hindsite that pre-emtive action would have prevented Hitlers rise to power in the late 1930s. It is true that it could have been prevented earlier than that if the postwar arrangement after World War I had not helped to impoverish Germany. But worldwide economic depression was a fact nearly everywhere in the 1930s, and even if post World War I arrangement had not been focused on making Germany pay for it, there still would have been conditions for Hitler's rise. The Allies watched and waited, and did nothing to prevent the disaster that was rushing towards them. There are few arguements that are better for pre-emption than this one.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 11:49 PM   #90
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 12:16 AM
In response to STING2's reply to me
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The US does not to go back to the UN to get approval for military action. The case for military action was already posed in the fall of 1990 and approved by the UN. The ceacefire agreement that stopped the fighting has been broken which means that the state of war has already returned. The US and hopefully other member UN states will bring Iraq back into compliance with ceacefire terms by a resumption of military actions in Iraq put on hold in March 1991.
You have a point here regarding past authorisation for military action, however since the cease-fire agreement was UN resolved, it is the UN and not the plaintiff, in this case the US, who has to decide whether there's been a breach in this agreement sufficient to justify resumption of UN backed military action. It's obvious that the US is seeking for UN approval because it is legally necessary, otherwise Mr Bush wouldn't be trying so hard to get the international community's support to force a UN favourable resolution in this sense. The reluctance of most countries including traditional US allies seems to indicate that what you claim is a "clear" violation of the cease-fire agreement isn't such, as the magnitude of the threat posed by Iraq isn't as great either. Otherwise there would be no reason on part of the international community to oppose this attack.

Quote:
About what the inspectors said when they were thrown out in 1998. They did state that Iraq was still a threat and could reconstitute its WMD program in a matter of months. Those are the facts. Even Scott Ritter who has been so critical of the adminstration said himself in 1998, the last time he was in a position to know anything sensitive, that Iraq still posed a threat to the international community and could reconstitute its weapon programs in 6 months.
What's in your opinion Ritter's reason to have changed his mind regarding what you say were his 98 reports and his present claims? Again, why is it that UN decision-makers don't consider the inspection reports which according to what you say, state that Iraq is posing a serious threat to US and western safety in general, as enough proof to authorise immediately the attack on Iraq? After all the reports were made by UN-appointed inspectors which means that they must be worthy of UN authorities' trust.

Quote:
Unlike Iraq, Pakistan actually cooperates with the USA and the international community. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan has not invaded and attacked four different countries with its armed forces in the past 20 years. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan is not in violation of 16 UN resolutions. In many cases, Pakistan has been more helpful than are allies in Europe. There is a world of difference between Iraq and Pakistan. Much of it to do with actual behavior which is the primary reason for are concern with Iraq. Past behavior is an indication of future behavior. The terrorist and Mushareff have opposite goals, so not only does Pakistans behavior show that they are not a threat, but the goals of Mushareff and the terrorist are polar opposites. The same cannot be said for Saddam and the terrorist. But if Mushareff is overthrown and a fundamentalist regime comes to power then, that possibly could be a situation where we would have to become involved. But I seriously doubt fundamentalist will be take over the country based on what I have learned from talking to people from Pakistan.
Oh yeah I'd forgotten that Pakistan has been more helpful than some European allies, esp during the recent war in Afghanistan and that Musharraf applies ultra-orthodox capitalist policies which the US approves of. I'd also forgotten that precisely for these reasons the fact that he's a dictator who oppresses his people, that his country spawned in the past the Taleban (responsible of terrorist harbouring when in office in Afghanistan) and that it possesses WMD are irrelevant details. BTW How does the fact that Pakistan has not invaded 4 countries in the past relate to the fact that they will not supply terrorists with WMD?

Quote:
Please don't tell me you believe it was the USA's fault, or that our foreign policies were the reason we were attacked on 9/11, thats the same logic that Saddam and Bin Laden, who claimed initially that he was not involved, had a year ago. The west and the USA will continue to be a target of terrorism if we do not seek to bring terrorist worldwide to justice and try to somehow withdraw from the mideast or pursue policies that are basically appeasement.
It is more than likely that US foreign policy in the Middle East is not the reason which inspires those who run groups like Al-Qaeda. However it is clearly the reason millions of people in the Islamic world support groups like Al-Qaeda. This is so because these groups use real grievances which are the result of western policies in the area as the reason of their fight, while it's obvious that such motivations are only a cover-up for them to be able to forward their own agenda. However this must not be mistaken as that such grievances don't exist. Maybe if the cause of such grievances were removed it would be easier to do away with terrorist groups since they'd have no support from their own people who would be the first to want to get rid of them.

Hussein didn't have any argument since there's no proof yet that he was actually involved in the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden was obviously using that argument under the "holy war" pretext since it's, as I said, what allows groups like Al-Qaeda to gain ample popular support within the Muslim world.
__________________

__________________
ultraviolet7 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ÂĐ Interference.com