OP
OP
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
U2Bama said:
boom.
Bama says at right again
DB9
Kafir and Alan= MY 2 heroes. Total Diamondmove at the Peace Rally.. luv these guys.
- Thread starter diamond
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
boom.
Bama says at right again
DB9
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Dreadsox said:
That's OK. There's some really heavy duty emotion going down over this, on both sides. It's a little scary, to be honest. Damn, if only Desert Storm had taken Saddam out. None of this
would be going on if it had. Oh, well...........
Last edited:
OP
OP
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
I wished the people would protest Saddam's atrocities of killing 1.5 million of his own people
instead of enabling him....
DB9
instead of enabling him....
DB9
gvox
Ghost of Love
U2Bama said:
Well that's a completely irrelevant observation and the comparison is way out of line.
The people demonstrating weren't crapheads or racists or skinheads, they were people concerned about what they see as a pattern of behaviour by the leader of a major nuclear superpower being one that will lead the planet down a path of war and unrest.
If those two morons (and they ARE morons) had shown up with signs indicating their support for Bush or dislike for Saddam, fine, that is respectfully representing your opinion.
But, and as other posters have pointed out, they weren't there to do that, they were there to mock people and label them as communists. They were there to try (they did not succeed) to make people feel that by marching for peace they were actually supporting evil dictatorships, past and present.
Try reading the signs again. There is nothing respectful or peaceful about how they are stating their opinions.
Not to mention that most of what they stated were complete logical fallacies anyways.
OP
OP
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
gabrielvox said:
Well that's a completely irrelevant observation and the comparison is way out of line.
If those two morons (and they ARE morons) had shown up with signs indicating their support for Bush or dislike for Saddam, fine, that is respectfully representing your opinion.
But, and as other posters have pointed out, they weren't there to do that, they were there to mock people and label them as communists.
Gabriel-
I think you are wrong.
First of all they werent "morons", as you labeled them. I listened to them, they were calm, collected and well mannered.
They were also extremely knowlegable.
What they did was turned the protester's logic around on them and sadly the protesters were exposed..
The rally was
sponsored in part
by
Communist organizations..
DB9
U2Bama
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Well, gabrielvox, I guess we will disagree about what is acceptable, relevant, etc. It was admitted in here awhile back by some of the anti-war people that there are some questionable groups that organize in and/or participate in these rallies, specifically the San Francisco rally. If, for example, there were any Islamic extremist groups at the rallies, then a Jewish person could reasonably say that racists and crapheads were present amongst the demonstrators. Obviously, the majority of the demonstrators were pacifists, church councils, mainstream Muslim groups, moderate Socialist organizations and concerned individuals. But knowing some of the shady causes that some of the fringe groups have supported perhaps inspired Kafir and Alan (the "morons") to go out there and male a counter-point.
Their signs were flippant and sarcastically shocking, but aren't many of the signs carried by the anti-war demonstrators as well?
~U2Alabama
Their signs were flippant and sarcastically shocking, but aren't many of the signs carried by the anti-war demonstrators as well?
~U2Alabama
gvox
Ghost of Love
Diamond,
Its a free country. Im free to call them morons cause they are (and they dont post here so I cant be accused of offending LOL)
You are free to align yourself with them if you'd like..
But I had hoped better of you...
I mean, unabashed love of GW is one thing...
:LMAO:
Its a free country. Im free to call them morons cause they are (and they dont post here so I cant be accused of offending LOL)
You are free to align yourself with them if you'd like..
But I had hoped better of you...
I mean, unabashed love of GW is one thing...
:LMAO:
OP
OP
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
esp for-Gabriel and HipHop
DB9
gvox
Ghost of Love
U2Bama said:
1. You are stretching on the "If, for example". There has been no evidence presented that these rallies were organized or even attended by "Islamic extremist groups".
2. In any organized crowd of people, there will be the odd nutbar or extremist who operates on the fringes of popularly accepted opinion. Im sure that even at U2 concerts this would be possible. Does that mean anti-U2-fan-protesters should show up with placards that state that people who support concerts where such people *may* be present are themselves supporting these nuts? Resoundingly, the answer is no.
3. The shocking and flippant placards that anti-war protesters carry are not mockingly aimed at other protesters, they are aimed at world leaders who to them are clearly not listening to the growing voice of dissent from those who voted them in in the first place. Thus they are fittingly shocking, to gain attention from said leaders and let them see how public perception is evolving about them.
OP
OP
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
diamond said:
esp for-Gabriel and HipHop
DB9
gvox
Ghost of Love
diamond said:
esp for-Gabriel and HipHop
DB9
Not sure even who this is or what youre implying but you're slippin dude...
gvox
Ghost of Love
Oh now I get it...he was at the rally...
Well in this photo we see a respectful display of one's opinions that doesn't necessitate attacking other protesters or trying to make them feel like shit.
Kafir and Alan still suck.
Well in this photo we see a respectful display of one's opinions that doesn't necessitate attacking other protesters or trying to make them feel like shit.
Kafir and Alan still suck.
Where was public opinion 10, 20 years ago!?
A full-out war is not necessary to remove Saddam, but it does serve its other purposes. Being anti-war does not mean being pro-saddam. In any case, I support the removal of saddam 100%.
It's sad to me how the U.S. (and others) tend to take the moral high ground only when it suits them. History proves this again and again. Iraq is an easy, and important, target though. I don't think we dare attack poor little mad North Korea, or worse yet China. The U.S. hypocrisy on the whole human-rights/communism/threat-to-the-world issue is massive. The U.S. primarily wages war to advance its own agenda. If it's the removal of communism, then so be it, if not then we don't really care either. We should have taken Saddam out in the 80's once we learned he liked to gas his own people, but he was too useful to the U.S. at the time, and instead we had Rummy happily shaking hands with the fucker. Using our current humanitarian/threat-to-the-world logic, it would be naive to think we're going to stop with Iraq. Syria and Iran, for example, know they're in the crosshairs. And if the geo-political map of the area is reshaped because of that, well then I'm sure the Zionists over in Israel won't mind a bit.
We had a chance in the first Gulf War to remove Saddam, but "political pressure" and "public opinion" kept daddy Bush from doing so. Why on earth Bush bowed to public pressure is beyond me. Worse yet, why on earth this opinion was counter to the removal of Saddam and didn't seem to mind his gross human-rights violations is again mind-boggling. Shortsightedness? Self-interest? Or just plain apathy? Yet, even that war was steeped with corruption, so maybe it was designed that way.
Instead of a limited tactical extraction of Saddam we are going to see an "over-the-top" shock-and-awe strategy from the pentagon. It's designed to intimidate and destroy absolutely. Most Iraqi soldiers want their freedom just as the civilians. But they're forced to fight or be executed. Yet, they're going to die. Only Saddam's Royal Guard is fiercely loyal to him. We have the weaponry and technology to disable Saddam's military regime with very little casualty. The pentagon has publically (but limitedly) stated we will see the use of new electromagnetic weaponry in Iraq. If the royal guard has to go, then all the better, but why all this purposefully-driven over the top nonsense is beyond me. It just means excessive spending $$$ (good for the military-industrial machine and the Federal Reserve), excessive casualties, excessive anti-US sentiment, and other complications. If we were really doing this as a humanitarian and preemptive mission, then we should be as humanitarian in our war plans as possible. But we're not, we have a MASSIVE buildup and we're going to use the shock-and-awe strategy and flex our big muscles and make sure every one else gets the message. U.S. imperalism will not be deterred!
I think most everybody is for the removal of Saddam, and sense it can be done without a massive full-scale shock-and-awe war and the hidden agendas associated with it. I think that is what is reflected in the anti-war movement more than anything.
A full-out war is not necessary to remove Saddam, but it does serve its other purposes. Being anti-war does not mean being pro-saddam. In any case, I support the removal of saddam 100%.
It's sad to me how the U.S. (and others) tend to take the moral high ground only when it suits them. History proves this again and again. Iraq is an easy, and important, target though. I don't think we dare attack poor little mad North Korea, or worse yet China. The U.S. hypocrisy on the whole human-rights/communism/threat-to-the-world issue is massive. The U.S. primarily wages war to advance its own agenda. If it's the removal of communism, then so be it, if not then we don't really care either. We should have taken Saddam out in the 80's once we learned he liked to gas his own people, but he was too useful to the U.S. at the time, and instead we had Rummy happily shaking hands with the fucker. Using our current humanitarian/threat-to-the-world logic, it would be naive to think we're going to stop with Iraq. Syria and Iran, for example, know they're in the crosshairs. And if the geo-political map of the area is reshaped because of that, well then I'm sure the Zionists over in Israel won't mind a bit.
We had a chance in the first Gulf War to remove Saddam, but "political pressure" and "public opinion" kept daddy Bush from doing so. Why on earth Bush bowed to public pressure is beyond me. Worse yet, why on earth this opinion was counter to the removal of Saddam and didn't seem to mind his gross human-rights violations is again mind-boggling. Shortsightedness? Self-interest? Or just plain apathy? Yet, even that war was steeped with corruption, so maybe it was designed that way.
Instead of a limited tactical extraction of Saddam we are going to see an "over-the-top" shock-and-awe strategy from the pentagon. It's designed to intimidate and destroy absolutely. Most Iraqi soldiers want their freedom just as the civilians. But they're forced to fight or be executed. Yet, they're going to die. Only Saddam's Royal Guard is fiercely loyal to him. We have the weaponry and technology to disable Saddam's military regime with very little casualty. The pentagon has publically (but limitedly) stated we will see the use of new electromagnetic weaponry in Iraq. If the royal guard has to go, then all the better, but why all this purposefully-driven over the top nonsense is beyond me. It just means excessive spending $$$ (good for the military-industrial machine and the Federal Reserve), excessive casualties, excessive anti-US sentiment, and other complications. If we were really doing this as a humanitarian and preemptive mission, then we should be as humanitarian in our war plans as possible. But we're not, we have a MASSIVE buildup and we're going to use the shock-and-awe strategy and flex our big muscles and make sure every one else gets the message. U.S. imperalism will not be deterred!
I think most everybody is for the removal of Saddam, and sense it can be done without a massive full-scale shock-and-awe war and the hidden agendas associated with it. I think that is what is reflected in the anti-war movement more than anything.
gvox
Ghost of Love
elfyx said:
Not to mention the fact that the number he quoted (1.5 m), is in reference to some other poster's far-fetched contrived calculation of how many deaths in total, not necessarily Iraqi, Saddam is apparently responsible for.
Cmon Diamond!
But I have to agree with you elfyx, if I understand you correctly. If the US really wanted Saddam out, they could figure out a way of taking him out without launching a full scale invasion of a country that will kill hundreds of thousands, and then with him gone his military would likely collapse.
But it ain't all about Saddam tho, is it?
Like Janet sang, it's about Control.
U2Bama
Rock n' Roll Doggie
1. I do not think I am stretching the example, wtihout looking at a list of organizations that organized and participate in the event. I am not going to seek such information from www.rushlimbaugh.com, either. However, several years ago, when the Clinton administration ordered bombing operations in Iraq, a few members of a Middle Eastern-American interest group held a street corner protest demonstration at the Federal Courthouse near my office downtown. Along with their "anti-bombing" signs, they were also waving signs with anti-semitic messages. This is why I drew that "for example" into it. I can start postin letters to the editor from the BIRMINGHAM NEWS, written and submitted by the president of the Birmingham Jewish Federation, on the offense he and his fellow Jewish citizens have taken at some of the anti-war and anti-U.S./Israeli policy sentiment that has been expressed in our community and in the national and international community.
2. I told you what I think of the majority of the protestors, and I felt that I was being quite generous. Without picking apart the idealogies of all of the groups involved and my disagreements with them, I will leave it at that.
3. I have been offended by some of the anti-war placards waved at U.S. and international demonstrations, regardless of whom they are aimed at; yet I do not wish to supress anyone's right to wave such cards, whether it is at an anti-war demonstration ot a ticker tape parade for U.S. soldiers on their homecoming.
Tell me this: why aren't any of the protestors addressing the current human rights abuses in Iraq if humanitarian causes are truly their concern? Is it the same attitude of Jesse Jackson, who refuses to campaign against institutional slavery in Sudan because it would be perceived as "anti-Arab" for him to speak against it? I am not trying to put the burden and liability of any of these proterstors on your shoulder, I am just wanting to hear an explanation from any of you.
~U2Alabama
2. I told you what I think of the majority of the protestors, and I felt that I was being quite generous. Without picking apart the idealogies of all of the groups involved and my disagreements with them, I will leave it at that.
3. I have been offended by some of the anti-war placards waved at U.S. and international demonstrations, regardless of whom they are aimed at; yet I do not wish to supress anyone's right to wave such cards, whether it is at an anti-war demonstration ot a ticker tape parade for U.S. soldiers on their homecoming.
Tell me this: why aren't any of the protestors addressing the current human rights abuses in Iraq if humanitarian causes are truly their concern? Is it the same attitude of Jesse Jackson, who refuses to campaign against institutional slavery in Sudan because it would be perceived as "anti-Arab" for him to speak against it? I am not trying to put the burden and liability of any of these proterstors on your shoulder, I am just wanting to hear an explanation from any of you.
~U2Alabama
U2Bama
Rock n' Roll Doggie
gabrielvox said:
Ideally, I agree with this, and who knows, it may yet happen. But even if it does, the U.S. will be accused of employing "death squads" or backing a coup or dictatorship (as opposed to what is in place now) and 10 or 20 years from now, one of the local foot soldiers who we used will get a DUI or head up an anti-Western terrorist organization ('blowback") and the U.S. will be blamed for the way we handled it. I am reminded of some photos I once posted of Saddam brandishing his collection of double-edged swords. I feel like we are currently faced with one of those swords, no matter what we do.
~U2Alabama
gvox
Ghost of Love
1. What constitutes an 'anti-semitic' placard? "Israel out of Palestine?" "Give us our homes and cities back"? "Stop the Israeli state sanctioned murder and pillaging in our communities"? Well I for one happen to believe that much of what Israel has done and does in that region is rooted in racism and/or religious intolerance. There is also the element of self defense now that radicals have made it their point to strike back at civilians, also clearly wrong.
2. The bottom line is that you drew a parallel in racist gatherings, and none was appropriate. You are stretching in using the example, because it is clearly not what the majority of protesters where there for. They weren't there to persecute Jews. They weren't there to burn crosses. They weren't there to preach Communism, Marxism, Fascism or Me-ism. They were there rallying for peace.
2. The bottom line is that you drew a parallel in racist gatherings, and none was appropriate. You are stretching in using the example, because it is clearly not what the majority of protesters where there for. They weren't there to persecute Jews. They weren't there to burn crosses. They weren't there to preach Communism, Marxism, Fascism or Me-ism. They were there rallying for peace.
Last edited:
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Obviously no one can speak for all the people attending the rallies, but I'd assume focusing on the human rights aspect supports indirectly, the war movement in itself. People who are in support are hoping this war does exactly that, and assist in bringing down the man responsible for all the suffering of the people of Iraq.
I'd also assume the irony isn't missed by them...so I dont really know.
I'd also assume the irony isn't missed by them...so I dont really know.
Angela Harlem said:
Good point.
I think the situation has been greatly exacerbated though, by Bush's incomprehensible "your either with us OR against us" rhetoric. You either support war, or you:
1. "will all have blood on your hands." -blaire
2. enable, support, or give comfort to Saddam (and should be convicted of High Treason according to the NY Sun)
3. are with the terrorists
4. are anti-humanitarian
It's just insulting to most, and embarrasing to the administration.
I'll try to answer
Even though I am pro-peace, I too was offended at some of the placards. Especially the ones aimed at our troops! Our troops should be held in the highest respect; they are out there protecting our freedom. It's our leaders that should be targeted, not our soldiers!
This bothers me too. Of course it's impossible to speak for everybody, but I do think that most everyone agrees that Saddam's human-rights abuses are intolerable. It's exacerbated by Bush's "you are either with us OR against us" rhetoric. There's no middle ground, or alternative solution with that kind of propaganda. The focus of the peace-marches was anti-war; the Bush administration wants us to think solving the threat to the world or human rights violations isn't possible without it. I think that's mainly why we weren't seeing a combination of the anti-war/anti-hr-violations themes. However, I do have to agree that some anti-war protesters probably couldn't care less about the human-rights issue. And I even question the Bush administration on this point. If it were really that much of a concern to everybody, in so much as it actually took time and effort out of our daily lives to address, then where has this concern been the last 20 years??? I see it on both sides of the issue: many in the pro-war group have suddenly "realized" this is a problem and have clung to it like some kind of moral salvation. Others in the peace group pretend its just not a concern at all, because they've bought into Bush's rhetoric. I know that there has been organized campaigns by A.I., amongst others, against Saddam's HR violations, but for the most part - I really do think that most people the last 20 years really haven't given a damn. It just doesn't "affect" them. Sure, it'd be nice to see peace and justice in the world, but hey they can't be bothered enough to become politically active on the issue: that's what our fearless leaders' are supposed to do! Sheesh. Perhaps that's a cynical viewpoint, but I just don't see the evidence to deny it. If only more people were like Bono, u2 fans, and other activist folks, the world would be a very different place.
U2Bama said:
Even though I am pro-peace, I too was offended at some of the placards. Especially the ones aimed at our troops! Our troops should be held in the highest respect; they are out there protecting our freedom. It's our leaders that should be targeted, not our soldiers!
This bothers me too. Of course it's impossible to speak for everybody, but I do think that most everyone agrees that Saddam's human-rights abuses are intolerable. It's exacerbated by Bush's "you are either with us OR against us" rhetoric. There's no middle ground, or alternative solution with that kind of propaganda. The focus of the peace-marches was anti-war; the Bush administration wants us to think solving the threat to the world or human rights violations isn't possible without it. I think that's mainly why we weren't seeing a combination of the anti-war/anti-hr-violations themes. However, I do have to agree that some anti-war protesters probably couldn't care less about the human-rights issue. And I even question the Bush administration on this point. If it were really that much of a concern to everybody, in so much as it actually took time and effort out of our daily lives to address, then where has this concern been the last 20 years??? I see it on both sides of the issue: many in the pro-war group have suddenly "realized" this is a problem and have clung to it like some kind of moral salvation. Others in the peace group pretend its just not a concern at all, because they've bought into Bush's rhetoric. I know that there has been organized campaigns by A.I., amongst others, against Saddam's HR violations, but for the most part - I really do think that most people the last 20 years really haven't given a damn. It just doesn't "affect" them. Sure, it'd be nice to see peace and justice in the world, but hey they can't be bothered enough to become politically active on the issue: that's what our fearless leaders' are supposed to do! Sheesh. Perhaps that's a cynical viewpoint, but I just don't see the evidence to deny it. If only more people were like Bono, u2 fans, and other activist folks, the world would be a very different place.
AcrobatMan
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Diamond is right !!
Calling those two guys moron is unwarranted no matter how much free a country you live in. Everyone has his views and you cant go on calling everyone who doesnot agree with you as "morons"
I really envy Saddam Hussian - he has got so much of world support. I am beginning to think he is getting more & more popular. Not in Iraq but in USA.
Saddam must go with or without any UN resolutions, with or without war.
The ideal thing would be people in Iraq somehow managing to get rid of him and install a democratic government there..but then nothing is ideal !
AcrobatMan
Calling those two guys moron is unwarranted no matter how much free a country you live in. Everyone has his views and you cant go on calling everyone who doesnot agree with you as "morons"
I really envy Saddam Hussian - he has got so much of world support. I am beginning to think he is getting more & more popular. Not in Iraq but in USA.
Saddam must go with or without any UN resolutions, with or without war.
The ideal thing would be people in Iraq somehow managing to get rid of him and install a democratic government there..but then nothing is ideal !
AcrobatMan
OP
OP
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Re: I'll try to answer
but , see they're not my friend.
after viewing the taught hatred of almost anything USA/or WesternCulture by the main body of protesters..
this is a tough sell.
You see the protesters turn a blind eye to all of the good America has done thru out the world.
It seems they are preoccupied w/one thing-hatred towards America, no Bono openmindedness there.
Also-
The UN, USA and Allies have -
pleaded
begged
implored
cajoled
demanded
requested
petitioned
encouraged
for Saddam to disarm, WITH PLENTY OF TIME.
It will be upon Saddam's hands if the blood of his people is spilt.
DB9
elfyx said:
but , see they're not my friend.
after viewing the taught hatred of almost anything USA/or WesternCulture by the main body of protesters..
this is a tough sell.
You see the protesters turn a blind eye to all of the good America has done thru out the world.
It seems they are preoccupied w/one thing-hatred towards America, no Bono openmindedness there.
Also-
The UN, USA and Allies have -
pleaded
begged
implored
cajoled
demanded
requested
petitioned
encouraged
for Saddam to disarm, WITH PLENTY OF TIME.
It will be upon Saddam's hands if the blood of his people is spilt.
DB9
Last edited:
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Haven't we had enough of this misconception that its all about Anti Americanism yet?
gvox
Ghost of Love
OK, let me rephrase:
What those two ultra respectful protesters with their moronically illogical slogans failed to comprehend is that the majority of people showing up at the rallies aren't there to support Saddam Hussein, and probably wish he were out of office just as much as you and I.
What they showed up to support was PEACE.
Yay protesters...including Bono.
Boo warmongers.
What those two ultra respectful
protesters with their moronically illogical slogans failed to comprehend is that the majority of people showing up at the rallies aren't there to support Saddam Hussein, and probably wish he were out of office just as much as you and I.What they showed up to support was PEACE.
Yay protesters...including Bono.
Boo warmongers.
Re: Where was public opinion 10, 20 years ago!?
I love how on these boards everyone says the United States created and allowed Saddam to continue to exist. Your facts, while partially correct, are distorted and not 100% correct. There were other nations that helped in the creation of Saddam. Other nations that had the same fears the UNited States did. Lest you forget France and Germany were major players before Rumsfeld ever took his trip. China, France and Russia, supplied a majority of his military equiptment and might.
France provided the nuclear technology and Germany provided a majority of the biological technology.
Yes, Rummy shook his hand and the United States delivered huge packages of food aid freeing up lots of cash for Iraq to spend it on weapons. We also provided some technology.
Was it the United States that helped creat him, YES. Does the responsibility rest soley on our shoulders? NO at least take the time to look at the history of the past 40 years and not just one photograph.
Again, you may be partially right. However, your facts are 100% wrong. The Gulf War was not about the removal of Saddam from anywhere other than Kuwait. That said, if he had dies in the attacks during the war I do not think that anyone would have cried, and yes he was a target. However, the UN RESOLUTIONS only authorized the use of force to remove the occupying army from Kuwait. We were part of a coalition and had to respect the coalition.
People are screaming today, work through the UN, work through the UN. Which do you all want. Working through the UN last time left us Saddam. Now they UN does not want to do ANYTHING.
But you blame the US. Take a look at the Security Council. They wrote the resolutions. They brokered the peace. They are in charge of enforcing the resolutions.
Excellent part of your post by the way. I like it . I do not agree with it and I find your imperialism comment insuulting but hey, it is a free world.
I guess in your statement above, you think the whole army is going to let us go into Bagdhad untouched? They will just let us go right in and fight the LOYAL soldiers to Saddam? I hope you are right. However there is a problem, the Iraqi's will fight because inside of the units are the al-Amn-Khas (SSO). They are in the miltary units and they are there to execute people who do not follow orders. They are directed by non other than Saddam's Son Quasayy.
But maybe the regular forces won't fight and we can do your Strategic strike. But do I think it is wise to allow an Army to remain ARMED behind us on the chance that they are not going to allow us to go fight the the Murafiqin, the al-Himaya, the al-Amn al-Qasr, and the al-Haras al-Jumhuri al-kas. And any other layer of special security force that this man is surrounded by.
If the world were looking to enforce the UN resolutions then we should have less there. And there would be more troops from other countries supporting us, since EUROPE, RUSSIA, and CHINA helped to create him.
Do you have the breakdown of the troop make up because I think you are missing major details. WE need massive amounts of troops for supplies, medical, and prisoner processing. There have already been Iraqi soldiers escaping and surrendering. Not all of the troops are there in the manner you speak of.
As an American, I am 100% for whatever action it takes to protect American and civilian lives. IF we need this many troops so be it. How many American soldiers died the last time? 150. If that is what it takes to preserve the lives of the people who put themselves on the line for us, so be it. As for using new weapons to disable their infrastructure, IT IS A WAR. Do you fight to lose?
One last thing, on top of removing Saddam and his sons, you will have to do something about the Ba'ath party and the cities that re loyal to Saddam. Yes, not all Iraqi's are looking to be liberated. He has done an excellent job at keeping the cities loyal to him well fed, with great medical supplies, and other nice perks.
PEACE
elfyx said:
I love how on these boards everyone says the United States created and allowed Saddam to continue to exist. Your facts, while partially correct, are distorted and not 100% correct. There were other nations that helped in the creation of Saddam. Other nations that had the same fears the UNited States did. Lest you forget France and Germany were major players before Rumsfeld ever took his trip. China, France and Russia, supplied a majority of his military equiptment and might.
France provided the nuclear technology and Germany provided a majority of the biological technology.
Yes, Rummy shook his hand and the United States delivered huge packages of food aid freeing up lots of cash for Iraq to spend it on weapons. We also provided some technology.
Was it the United States that helped creat him, YES. Does the responsibility rest soley on our shoulders? NO at least take the time to look at the history of the past 40 years and not just one photograph.
elfyx said:
Again, you may be partially right. However, your facts are 100% wrong. The Gulf War was not about the removal of Saddam from anywhere other than Kuwait. That said, if he had dies in the attacks during the war I do not think that anyone would have cried, and yes he was a target. However, the UN RESOLUTIONS only authorized the use of force to remove the occupying army from Kuwait. We were part of a coalition and had to respect the coalition.
People are screaming today, work through the UN, work through the UN. Which do you all want. Working through the UN last time left us Saddam. Now they UN does not want to do ANYTHING.
But you blame the US. Take a look at the Security Council. They wrote the resolutions. They brokered the peace. They are in charge of enforcing the resolutions.
elfyx said:
Excellent part of your post by the way. I like it . I do not agree with it and I find your imperialism comment insuulting but hey, it is a free world.
I guess in your statement above, you think the whole army is going to let us go into Bagdhad untouched? They will just let us go right in and fight the LOYAL soldiers to Saddam? I hope you are right. However there is a problem, the Iraqi's will fight because inside of the units are the al-Amn-Khas (SSO). They are in the miltary units and they are there to execute people who do not follow orders. They are directed by non other than Saddam's Son Quasayy.
But maybe the regular forces won't fight and we can do your Strategic strike. But do I think it is wise to allow an Army to remain ARMED behind us on the chance that they are not going to allow us to go fight the the Murafiqin, the al-Himaya, the al-Amn al-Qasr, and the al-Haras al-Jumhuri al-kas. And any other layer of special security force that this man is surrounded by.
If the world were looking to enforce the UN resolutions then we should have less there. And there would be more troops from other countries supporting us, since EUROPE, RUSSIA, and CHINA helped to create him.
Do you have the breakdown of the troop make up because I think you are missing major details. WE need massive amounts of troops for supplies, medical, and prisoner processing. There have already been Iraqi soldiers escaping and surrendering. Not all of the troops are there in the manner you speak of.
As an American, I am 100% for whatever action it takes to protect American and civilian lives. IF we need this many troops so be it. How many American soldiers died the last time? 150. If that is what it takes to preserve the lives of the people who put themselves on the line for us, so be it. As for using new weapons to disable their infrastructure, IT IS A WAR. Do you fight to lose?
One last thing, on top of removing Saddam and his sons, you will have to do something about the Ba'ath party and the cities that re loyal to Saddam. Yes, not all Iraqi's are looking to be liberated. He has done an excellent job at keeping the cities loyal to him well fed, with great medical supplies, and other nice perks.
PEACE
Last edited:
Re: I'll try to answer
This I can agree with. I truthfully believe that in that one statement he set us back tremendously in the eyes of the world. It troubles me incredibly that his advisors let him say it. It may very well be one of the reasons, we are not able to use diplomacy in the security council. Why would a proud nation like France or Russia, go along with us? Diplomatically, that statement cost us.
elfyx said:
This I can agree with. I truthfully believe that in that one statement he set us back tremendously in the eyes of the world. It troubles me incredibly that his advisors let him say it. It may very well be one of the reasons, we are not able to use diplomacy in the security council. Why would a proud nation like France or Russia, go along with us? Diplomatically, that statement cost us.
AcrobatMan
Rock n' Roll Doggie
gabrielvox said:
Your deduction and inference is not great either.
Lilly
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
I want to congratulate this thread for delving into an extremely serious issue and yet staying calm and respectful.
