nuke iraq till they bleed american - Page 13 - 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 02-07-2003, 11:58 AM   #181
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 10:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JOFO
I gotta love when people say that the u.s. should just mind their own buisness.

when we go to somalia, people say "stay out".

when we don't go to bosnia, they say "where the hell are you?"
Talk about immature questions...

If I attacked an innocent man in the street, people'd call me an asshole.

If I didn't attack a man who's trying to rape someone, they'd call me an asshole too.

It's not the actions an sich people are condemning, it's the US' decision when, and when not to pull their weight what's been pissing people off.
__________________

__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 12:23 PM   #182
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 09:24 PM
not sure I understand your response dr.
__________________

__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 12:27 PM   #183
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 10:24 PM

I edited mine before I saw yours, hope this clears things up for you.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 12:48 PM   #184
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:24 PM
DrTeeth:

Most people are not upset that the USA soldiers go to a country, it's how they do it.
(for example, they prefer it if it's under UN control)

Also.. to get a little polemic:

A man who works for the Mafia and kills 10 people is called a murder, is considered "danger to the mankind and everyone wants to see him imprisoned.
A man who works for the military (government) and kills 100 people is called a hero, and nobody is surprised if he gets medails for that.

A man who is not willing to kill just because he is told to kill won't get any of the above jobs.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 01:02 PM   #185
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

I understand where you are going with this question. I will ask you some questions back. How many of these other nations have used them in the past 30 years? How many of them have attacked or invaded three other countries in the past 30 years? How many of them have signed Cease Fire treaties, and violated them?
Dreadsox: you should remember that the Daisy Cutters the US military used (not only)in Afghanistan awe WMD - and they are internat. illegal, many countries feel invaded from the US - so just counting "how many" might not be the best choice to devide good from evil.

Also i don't think that Iraq is the last country which will be attacked, if Bush can do what he wants to do.

U2girl:
I guess the Bush administration decided to finish the iraq war even for 9/11, they just need some reasons to "sell it to the public". That's why they pay 5 people to abuse the informations of CIA and FBI because those institutes weren't willing to abuse their power by:1st: decide who's guilty and then take only the documents who verify that thesis.

I'm affraid that Bush also put too many military to the iraqi border to stop now. If you start a war nobody cares about a few 100.000.000 $ more or less - if there's no war he has to tell the american people why he wasted that money.
So i'm affraid the autopilots course is set on "war".

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 01:31 PM   #186
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus


If you start a war nobody cares about a few 100.000.000 $ more or less - if there's no war he has to tell the american people why he wasted that money.
So i'm affraid the autopilots course is set on "war".

Klaus
But the Americans should care! At the very least it takes their free college education, their ability for one free car per year, and they have to pay for medical care!
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 02:43 PM   #187
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 10:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JOFO


that is an immature question. one crisis at a time please. this is not about the u.s. verses the world.
Immature? I didn't mean that question as "us verses the world", I am just hypothetically wondering how US would/will treat future situations like Iraq. (N. Korea for example)

If these kinds of things will happen with such regimes, what makes you think the world will get to pick it "one at a time"?

Dreadsox: well, who's to say there aren't countries that might do any of the things you mentioned?


All we are trying to say is that the "they might be dangerous, so let's strike first" pre-epmtive strike logic is a bit strange, and dangerous if other states will follow it, or the "inspectors didn't find any WMD, so that must mean that Iraq has them" logic.
Last but not least, this is not about hating America(ns), it's just a different opinion on its foreign policy.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 03:51 PM   #188
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:24 PM
People,

There are 17 UNITED NATIONS resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules that Iraq is in violation of. Iraq is in violation of the conditions of the UN 1991 Ceacefire agreement. The international community is obligated to use military force to enforce these resolutions and ceacefire agreement if Iraq is in violation of them. That is international law. That is the United Nations. The USA and several other countries are ready to do their duty under international law. Countries like France, Germany, Russia, and China, seem to value short term economic gain over international law.

Oh, Iraq is definitely a unique case. There has never been another country in history that has been in violation of 17 United Nations resolutions passed under chapter VII rules and United Nations Ceacefire agreement passed 12 years ago.


Klaus,

It is your opinion that daisy cutters are a mass destruction weapon. It does not do unlimited and unpredictable destruction like WMD can do. Its a 15,000 pound bomb with a definite burst radious. The USA has built some 30,000 pound bombs for possible use against the Iraqi military.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 04:03 PM   #189
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Sting2:

not only my opinion, i guess it's outside the US republican party or outside US military common sense:

Quote from the Guardian:
...
Accordingly, the FBI has broadened its definition of WMDs to say that "though typically associated with nuclear/radiological, chemical or biological agents, [they] may also take the form of explosives, such as in the bombing of the Alfred P Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City."
...

Take the American "Daisy Cutter" bomb, which causes an explosion almost as impressive as that of a nuclear weapon. Television pictures of the US bombardment of Afghanistan last November showed a huge, red mushroom cloud with flames reaching 300 metres into the air - that was a Daisy Cutter doing its stuff near Kabul. It uses explosives similar to those in the bomb detonated in Oklahoma City, but is six times more powerful. Its blast flattens everything within 600 metres, which would seem very much like "mass destruction" in the middle of a city. In fact, even airliners flown by suicide hijackers can become WMDs, as September 11 showed.

Full article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...671522,00.html

Klaus

p.s. also interesting the intro:

"In order to get beaten up by the United States, a country has to be two things: a "rogue state" and a possessor (or potential possessor) of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). So who qualifies? Let's start with WMDs. The US government generally defines them as "nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons". Lots of countries have some: either openly, such as Britain, France, Russia and China; or more shiftily, such as Pakistan, India and Israel.

The nation with the world's biggest arsenal of WMDs is, of course, the US. But that's beside the point, as the US is not going to attack itself. More to the point is whether the customary definition of WMDs is satisfactory in the first place..."
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 04:05 PM   #190
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl

Dreadsox: well, who's to say there aren't countries that might do any of the things you mentioned?

All we are trying to say is that the "they might be dangerous, so let's strike first" pre-epmtive strike logic is a bit strange, and dangerous if other states will follow it, or the "inspectors didn't find any WMD, so that must mean that Iraq has them" logic.
Last but not least, this is not about hating America(ns), it's just a different opinion on its foreign policy.
I think I am oing to start a poll. I need to get a grasp on the number of people who believ Iraq has/does not have WMD. It is pointless to continue rehashing things again and again.

I guess you believe he does not have them?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 04:10 PM   #191
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Dreadsox:
well i'm sure Saddam has these weapons and we have to do something against that but current Bush-logic would be also fine for a strike against the US.
Thank god we only have one US and one G.W.B on this planet.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 04:48 PM   #192
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:24 PM
Klaus,

Did you know that the US drops leafletts telling the enemy to leave the area, that they are about to drop one of those?

Pretty interesting military strategy isn't it?


Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 04:52 PM   #193
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Dreadsox:

Imagine the 9/11 terrorists would have written letters to the workers or called them in the wtc - do you think the US people would love them for this?

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 04:59 PM   #194
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Dreadsox: what does it matter what I think? It matters what UN think, since they *should* decide what happens. And if there will be war - whoever goes in - there had better be a good re-build of Iraq later.

I think this can be done other way, and not by war. And especially not by using nuclear weapons. I also think Iraq might be more dangerous to its neighbour countries than US and that N. Korea is more dangerous than Iraq (because it definitely has nuclear abilities, and long range rockets, plus it has threatened regarding sanctions and any US attack). But that's just me.


But you know what? You're right, it's no use talking anymore because we can't see eye to eye. If you have anything further on this PM me.



*edit* Allright, explain this: if US government is going in the right direction, how come there are anti-war demonstrations even in US (not to mention elsewhere in the world)?

Imagine that terrorists would use a WMD in Europe or US, and than they would say that they were "pre-emptive striking".

I think it's interesting to know that the "live shield" action (of civilians going to Iraq) was initiated by an ex-marine who thought in the Gulf war.


__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 05:35 PM   #195
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth


Talk about immature questions...

If I attacked an innocent man in the street, people'd call me an asshole.

If I didn't attack a man who's trying to rape someone, they'd call me an asshole too.

It's not the actions an sich people are condemning, it's the US' decision when, and when not to pull their weight what's been pissing people off.
Exactly.

And I agree with U2girl's posts, too.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel 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 04:24 PM.


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