Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/12/06 11:17 AM, zeus-almighty wrote:

At 11/12/06 10:59 AM, Peter-II wrote: This topic is idiotic.

Which part the first post or the negative responces?

I think both...

At 11/12/06 03:18 PM, Draik50th wrote: Man I can't believe I have to describe how the UN "works" to people, it should be obvious, when the US wants to do something in the UN what countries are key in blocking?

Actually it's really any country with the power of Veto, so the big 5 (US, France, Russia, China and the UK)

-Lastly the most important fact is that UN resolutions are just pieces of paper with no power behind them except when the larger countries armies are involved. So violating them is not a big deal, I mean just look at North Korea or Iran which are great examples.

-Sure the US overrides them but so does everyone else in the world, cause without the power behind them there's no obedience to follow them. Like if there were no cops in America, do you think people would still follow the laws, I doubt it.

Yup, UN resolutions are useless without one of the major 5 countries supporting it. And, seeing as they all have veto power it might not even get passed.

-Guantanamo Bay has been a military base for a LONG time, it was there during the Cuban Missile Crisis under former President John F. Kennedy. Yeah those soldiers shouldn't have been doing that but its not as bad as fraternity jokes. Those damn things actually kill people.

Are you saying Gitmo isn't bad? What the...? Gitmo holds people indefinately without trial, it breaches Human Rights.

They don't even have to stay in the field all the time and fight. They can just shoot an American soldier or civilian, (which of course under Geneva Conventions you cannot shoot civilians), go home, then sleep like nothing happened. Then the next day they would go out and do it again or blow themselves up.

A bit like coalition forces minus the going home and the suicide.

What people are mad about is that there are Humans killing fellow humans. I have and will again fight in Iraq. I Have seen the people there. The ones that we are not killing love us. CNN only shows the bad shit that goes on not the good. TV is all about ratings and so they show what sells. I know for a fact that there are more good people out there than bad.

The concept of putting suspected people in prison indefinitely is not a new concept nor has it been only done during the Bush administration. It has been done several times by several Presidents over the course of history. Every President has had a form of the Patriot Act just written in different words that's all.

For countries beside the US, this issue doesn't matter because Communists countries will pretty much do it all the time and let them die in prison.

-Gitmo was not brought up by me because in both, Guatanamo and Gitmo, the terrorists/suspects get treated the best US money can afford by the Geneva Conventions which they shouldn't be granted, seeing as they already break them themselves. I don't think we should keep them in prison though because the chance you can get a terrorist to cough up information is very unlikely seeing as they'd gladly die for Allah then tell an American anything.

-We shouldn't let them just go back though either because for:

1. There is no way they just "happened to not know" that a terrorist had been living with them, (the AK and their usual dress is a giveaway. It is not a uniform however because they won't wear it if they want to sneak in and kill, (most of their attacks being geared on civilians). Islamic terrorists will usually keep the rest of their populous defenseless while they have guns, a good current example is in Somalia, where Islamic terrorists ordered a city to give up their guns, which they did and then they completely annihilated that city's population for fear that they would rebel against them.

2. That they were found "unintentionally" funding or helping a terrorist group. Come on, they would know just as Americans know which groups suck in America.

3. If US soldiers SEE you helping other terrorists you're pretty much caught red-handed.

At 11/12/06 04:01 PM, Draik50th wrote: For countries beside the US, this issue doesn't matter because Communists countries will pretty much do it all the time and let them die in prison.

Well, i don't live in a communist state so that's irelevant.

-Gitmo was not brought up by me because in both, Guatanamo and Gitmo, the terrorists/suspects get treated the best US money can afford by the Geneva Conventions which they shouldn't be granted, seeing as they already break them themselves. I don't think we should keep them in prison though because the chance you can get a terrorist to cough up information is very unlikely seeing as they'd gladly die for Allah then tell an American anything.

The thing is the majority of the people in Gitmo are not terrorists, the majority have no connection to al-Qaeda, they were just given to the US government by the Pakistani government for a price. They are predominantly innocent civilians who didn't have any money. Don't you think terrorists funed by al-Qaeda would be able to bribe the Pakistani government into not turning them in.

-We shouldn't let them just go back though either because for:

1. There is no way they just "happened to not know" that a terrorist had been living with them, (the AK and their usual dress is a giveaway. It is not a uniform however because they won't wear it if they want to sneak in and kill, (most of their attacks being geared on civilians). Islamic terrorists will usually keep the rest of their populous defenseless while they have guns, a good current example is in Somalia, where Islamic terrorists ordered a city to give up their guns, which they did and then they completely annihilated that city's population for fear that they would rebel against them.

2. That they were found "unintentionally" funding or helping a terrorist group. Come on, they would know just as Americans know which groups suck in America.

The term "terrorist group" is very vague.. You could argue that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation while i could argue the opposite. Afterall the ANC was considered a terrorist organisation.

3. If US soldiers SEE you helping other terrorists you're pretty much caught red-handed.

Against, the term terrorists and the term helping is very vague.

UN is worthless!! how can u reach agreement between big 5 countries!Only one vote can mess the other mass voter!! eheheh... i dont even know what that mean... but its like Lord of The Ring When You Hold A power to do anything one this world you will become evil? so when you choose some one to hold it,Please make sure they dont have hidden agenda! like OMG my father failed to kill that guy,I`ll prove i`m better!

and one more thing everytime UN come to a peace resolution for Israel-Palestine,USA will definitely Vote against it,No matter how many died or how cruel the killing is done.what is wrong with united state and Israel?and How can the israel PM say that oh we killed 18 civilian while they are sleeping,Ops technical error, well things like this happen!It cant be help.(this statement says that well what can you to me?nothing!) and many more event like this happen...While people of the world view it as injustice?guess it?USA still vote against it?hm... I wonder why... Probably because theres a lot of rich jewish people in the USA?or Because of The Book Of Revelation(go google video Dooms Day Code! sit down and watch )?

Interesting rite? Yup so I believe Bush Is doing God Work?But One thing Bothers me.. If I remember The Book Of Revelation is not actually On of the 4 holy books(When I say books I mean gospel) and there this if your a christian then you should follow the tenth Commandment Correct?While all it seem to wrong according the bible.Still they say this is the will of god and The god is saying this to them to do it?hm.. I dont remember Jesus being cruel, and always talk about love and peace.Where are this value in america? since the pastor claimed to give advise to The president on how to proceed.If I were jesus I`ll go preaching in the middle east and take the palestine land through peace,But what is this war?

any way,America is still a great country except now there is no more freedom of any kind.. seriously I cant believe u guys actually agree to inject tag device in ur body so u can be located where u go,and been.. (means no privacy no more red light district i guess?),This would make american the honest people in the world i mean when u said u never been to any kind of kinkey things and would like to work in some goverment(they can check and black mail u?) so thats that.One good thing about bush is nobody is brave enough to make fun of anything although you see so many thing that is done like pause for1 to 10 second during an interview then not actually answering the question?usually u see this stuff on the Late Night show?(Correct me if I`m wrong Its been like 5 yrs since the last one i watched).

Any Way As A Christian and Jewish u Must Be Proud Of What your country is doing.Thats all Bye bye now
Peace

Goddamnit I guess I'm going to have to rip your Hezbollah loving ass to shreds ain't I?

-Hezbollah is Iranian leader Ahminejad's state sponsored terrorist group/cell/organization. They set up their command base in one of the main cities of Lebanon, (Yeah, I'm sure the Lebanese Government "didn't" notice a facility like that with its many followers). Since Hezbollah was using Lebanon as a shield to protect them from Israel's wrath for the kidnappings and slaughter of many, MANY innocent Israeli soldiers and civilians, Israel decided "the Hell with negotiations" especially when Lebanon denied any actions to stop the obvious terrorist group that had been harboring in their country for a long while. Followers waving Hezbollah's flags are kind of a dead giveaway that they are there and that their cleric leader proclaiming him to be the head of his group is right there also.

-If Lebanon didn't want to get owned by Israel they shouldn't have let Hezbollah get a hold in their country. *That is to say that the Lebanese Government didn't want them to come and kill those "dirty" jews, right?*

-All fundamentalist Islamofacist terrorist groups around the world have these goals:

1. Kill all Israelis, stems from a long culture of anti-Semitism stemming as far back as biblical times.

2. Kill all Americans, because all their followers believe the US to be the "Great Satan."

-Terrorism grows whether the Americans are there or not, the fact that Al-Qaeda officially said they have 12,000 terrorists in Iraq now just say how much we owned them, considering that Al-Qaeda "used" to have a LOT more terrorists, hundreds of thousands I might recall. There is the possibility that they may be keeping them in other countries but I like this idea more. I mean all we have to do is kill that many and that's it, (12k is not a lot in terms of people).

-The media has said 600,000 Iraqi civilians die every "what"? The time they said how fast they died would imply at that rate there would be no Iraqis left by now. Of course there is many, many Iraqi civilians alive, but with the dumbass Iraqi PM stopping US checkpoints that amount is bound to decrease. I swear, he officially stated that he supported Hezbollah's actions when he knew the US doesn't support terrorist groups.

-There were WMD's in Iraq but they were moved by a Russian truck convoy as seen by US intelligence obtained prior to the invasion. Of course the slowness of bureaucracy gave the Russians plenty of time to move it to most likely Syria, (aka the terrorist's safe abode and asscrack for storing everything from WMD's to AK's). Even the media stated this too but very briefly in a 4 seconds or less public statement as usual.

At 11/11/06 02:56 PM, neoptolemus wrote:

Well, according to my sources over 600,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of the war.. and to be honest, i'd trust my sources more than CNN.

The only source that gave 600,000 was the same that said over 100,000 died the first year and was recently regarded as "extremely overexaggerated".

So, don't listen to this this guy as he no idea what he's talking about when most sources (MSN, Yahoo, Fox) will record the iraqi death toll as around 40,000-60,000.

At 11/12/06 05:34 PM, Techware wrote: So, don't listen to this this guy as he no idea what he's talking about when most sources (MSN, Yahoo, Fox) will record the iraqi death toll as around 40,000-60,000.

Pffft, even the Iraqi Health Ministry recently raised their death toll estimate to 100,000-150,000 and this figure is only based on tallies at morgues and hospitals. Muslims try to bury the deceased as soon as possible, "When a Muslim dies, he or she is washed, usually by a family member, wrapped in a clean white cloth, and buried with a simple prayer preferably the same day." "Muslims try to bury the dead person as fast as possible, within 24 hours.". Since they base their reports on tallies at hospitals and morgues, a step in the burial process that's likely to get skipped, rather than actual death certificates they're bound to underestimate the casualty figure. I'd also like you to elaborate on your statement of the Lancet study's estimate being "overexaggerated". Are your sources seriously criticising the study's methodology or are they discarding the results simply because they find them unpleasant? Because from what I've read the level of oversampling of violence-ridden regions appears to be pretty minimal, and estimates that are actually based on the amount of counted surplus deaths are a lot more credible than estimates which only take deaths that were registered at certain institutions or reported by the media into account.

eh... when did i say i support Hezbollah or claiming an Hezbollah loving ass?did or did you not watch the Dooms day code?

Remember the pastor or evangelist or who ever he is in the movie/documentary, did say that the Israel came back and try to restore a Jewish nation? I certainly didn’t say it but this prove Israel wasn’t there before way back to the time of Romans I think, This only mean they come and “occupy” I think the correct word not actually conquer right? Remember I didn’t say this not just that it’s written in the book of revelation saying the Jews will come and take their land back? So there’s no problem there.

As for the Hezbollah thingy if I remember they will keep attacking Israel until Jerusalem becomes Palestine capital city? Hm… why is that huh? Oh wait didn’t the pastor tell that the Israel come back to their homeland? So this is where the move got stalemate The Arabs I think wants the owner of the land to its rightful owner then the Israel to want their land? Until any one gave up their precious land or die I think and since the Muslim say they are only allow harm/attack other people means war if they are force out of their homeland and people who support it? Rings a bell? Not just that they can kill any one who cause unrest among them (I think living in fear, constant treat and humiliation would be best describe unrest) don’t you think? So now it becomes a holy war? What do you think? Don’t take my word for it go check it. One more thing finds non bias resource if you can’t find one does like me check both party stories.

Please, I have no problem with Jews, Christian or even Buddha or what ever your religion is as long as it says that stealing is wrong, killing people is wrong and there’s a heaven and a hell, Once I have a friend said to me I can go kill any one I want and not go to hell and he laugh to me then he continue but I’ll get prison jail here.

I don’t take sides, if you are wrong for stealing then you are wrong I wont say you are not ,even if you’re the Hezbollah(what’s with them? any way) I don’t remember them after the Lebanese and Israel settle their problem, the new story only involved Israel and Palestine, for me the only way they can live in peace is to respect each other, to treat each other as human being not as animal and saying it’s a technical error when you killed a human being is not right, Just say its human error we missed shot or something don’t blame it on the weapon it would make people mad.

Believe in Justice and Freedom and In GOD and everything will be safe. So sorry if I did offend you or any Jews on the Israel nation It just my opinion.

P.S before I watched the Documentary I really don’t understand what is it with Israel and Palestine, all I think was it’s a typical holy war thingy, but after I watched it and did some light reading then I decide this.

At 11/12/06 06:09 PM, reojionline wrote: As for the Hezbollah thingy if I remember they will keep attacking Israel until Jerusalem becomes Palestine capital city?

I think they attacked Israel because their internal position in Lebanon was deteriorating and they needed a popularity boost. I don't think they care that much about the Palestinians, relations weren't all that great between the PLO and the local Shi'ites during the Lebanese civil war. The Hezbollah needs the Palestinians to justify their aggression, that's about as far as their compassion goes, methinks.

Not just that they can kill any one who cause unrest among them (I think living in fear, constant treat and humiliation would be best describe unrest) don’t you think?

Well, that's debatable. 5:32 says that killing someone who spreads unrest or mischief is not as bad as killing an innocent but the Qur'an doesn't ordain the killing per se. I'd say violence is only permitted when the other party attacks you or drives you from your home, not simply because he's causing "unrest", which is a pretty relative term altogether.

At 11/12/06 05:13 PM, Draik50th wrote: Goddamnit I guess I'm going to have to rip your Hezbollah loving ass to shreds ain't I?

Hezbollah is an armed political party in Lebanon. It does not use any form of suicide attacks, it only hates Zionism, not judaism. Hezbollah recognizes and promotes women’s rights (in the mold of the Western liberal tradition) (Source)
Hezbollah currently operates at least four hospitals, 12 clinics, 12 schools and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental department and an extensive social assistance programme. Medical care is also cheaper than in most of the country's private hospitals and free for Hezbollah members.

According to CNN: "Hezbollah did everything that a government should do, from collecting the garbage to running hospitals and repairing schools." In July 2006, during the war with Israel, when there was no running water in Beirut, Hezbollah was arranging supplies around the city. "People here [in South Beirut] see Hezbollah as a political movement and a social service provider as much as it is a militia, in this traditionally poor and dispossessed Shiite community."(Source)

My question is.. How can you condemn Hezbollah, only looking at the bad, when you did not condemn the IRA and infact many Americans financially supported the IRA.

-There were WMD's in Iraq but they were moved by a Russian truck convoy as seen by US intelligence obtained prior to the invasion.

What the...? This is just propoganda.. you have no proof what-so-ever.

Good for Hezbollah, too bad that's not what this shitty topic is even about.

At 11/12/06 07:39 PM, MrBibz wrote: Good for Hezbollah, too bad that's not what this shitty topic is even about.

Yeah, i know.. It's just where people took the topic.

Yeah the media will never again talk about the convoy of Russian trucks. An official statement was made by a senior military officer of the United States, (covered by the media as that's their job but they didn't talk about it too much after that). I'm surprised that you missed it possibly being a nearly 24/7 media watcher or at least very observant of the media.

Why would this be a conspiracy? If it could be used to back Bush up during his administration wouldn't it be made obvious, upfront and not hidden? Why wouldn't they prop up this bad boy right up before the mid-term elections?

Of course you know that they didn't even try to pull any facts close to this to help them. They were to over confident that they wouldn't be voted out.

-Please don't believe everything the media tells you, they are just like everyone else, except with an assload more money and an elitist style mentality. They believe what they think is good for America is what everyone else thinks is good for America.

Historically the idea of conspiracies in government within the minds of Americans has been around forever, as far back as in the thoughts of the American subjects under the rule of Britain prior to the American Revolution who thought that there were conspiracies in Parliament.

-Lastly you believe what you want to believe and I will go on believing mine. People follow things that they believe are right and not things that are wrong.

I am glad people are exploring how this pertains to other issues that are in Iraq. For the record I am over 18 and an adult for the idiot who asked. I draw my own opinions and conclusions unlike little 13-14 year old idiots. Nothing personal, but you will soon grow out of this phase of stupidity, but right now you are pretty much sheep who will follow the majority.

The Hezbollah are a terrorist organization. They have never targeted Americans, though they are against Israel. They should not be lumped in with anti American organizations. Though Israel is an ally of America, and as such, this makes them an enemy of the United States, even if they couldn't care less.

The U.N is not the end all be all for peace. In fact it's more like a decoration of countries who say they won't fight, but a lot of help that does. The U.N that we have today really has no real power. It really serves no purpose other then to reassure idiotic North Americans that we can have peace. If that were true, we would trust each other enough to band together into a giant state aka globalization.

I caution everyone in this forum to make their own ideas and to think exactly why you have the opinions you have. Always think twice, and understand; other countries in the world would just love to destroy us and our way of life, just as we would love to give them democracy. Diplomacy is the idealist’s true facade, meaning it is purely esthetic. Take mine and everyone else's words you hear with a grain of salt, and never forget that.

At 11/12/06 05:59 PM, lapis wrote: I'd also like you to elaborate on your statement of the Lancet study's estimate being "overexaggerated".

I see you've completely skipped over my post about MSN, CNN, Yahoo, and pretty much every other sites saying it's very highly overexaggerative. So who am I going to believe? 1 death toll statistic that everyone else says is bullshit? Or am I going to go by what everyone else says?

Seems logicalical enough to me to go by the people who can get the most credible information, like, oh say... the Iraqi government?

It's funny how you idiots will believe 1 source over another just because... you like it.

As if anyone can get an accurate representation.

At 11/12/06 11:47 PM, Techware wrote: I see you've completely skipped over my post about MSN, CNN, Yahoo, and pretty much every other sites saying it's very highly overexaggerative.

If they apparently use a figure that's 2.5 times as low as the Iraqi government's estimate then how credible are they? Besides, I remember CNN saying: "Professionals familiar with such research told CNN that the survey's methodology is sound."

For the serious criticism, go here: the general majority in the international statistical comunity agrees that the methodology is sound, "there has been a lot of support for the report's methods among the statistical community", but some called the results unreal (which anyone can do) and a few physicists have said that the more urban areas are oversampled. The IBC said that it would imply massive incompetence at hospitals, even though this result became a lot less grave when the Iraqi government raised their death toll estimate with a factor 2.5 and like I said, Iraq is a Muslim country were the dead are buried as soon as possible. One of the authors of the report also replied, it's in the bottom of the article.

So who am I going to believe? 1 death toll statistic that everyone else says is bullshit? Or am I going to go by what everyone else says?

I believe that's called sheep mentality.

Seems logicalical enough to me to go by the people who can get the most credible information, like, oh say... the Iraqi government?

Heh, and you accuse me of "skipping over parts of your post". Reread my other post again and reconsider your reply. The Iraqi government just raised their death toll estimate and the way they count is bound to underestimate the total death toll.

As if anyone can get an accurate representation.

Well, at least not by only taking morgues and hospitals into account. When bodies are hard to track down statistical methods are used, they used them in Sudan, Congo, in many epidemiological studies such as deaths related to smoking and these methods have proven their merit. This report is being villified simply because there are a lot of interests at stake, not because of the actual validity.

At 11/11/06 02:56 PM, neoptolemus wrote:

At 11/11/06 02:20 PM, peroo wrote: According to the casualty rate by CNN, only 21 thousand people have died in the whole history of the war.

Well, according to my sources over 600,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of the war.. and to be honest, i'd trust my sources more than CNN.

Again that source gives a range between 350,000-900,000 and you have to look at what is a direct result of the war. Combat related deaths attributable to US forces are around 30,000 (source: Nov/Dec 06 issue of Foreign Affairs). But then again how many would have died under Hussein's continued reign? Furthermore, what does this study say is a death that is directly related to the war? Chances are Iraq was going to experience this regardless of US intervention. Anytime you have an oppressive minority exerting control over the majority you have a situation in which when the minority regime falls (which is unavoidable) there is going to be violence and most probably a genocide (something that the US intervention probably stopped; even a civil war is preferable to genocide). The fact remains that the US war in Iraq has been one of the most humane wars in history. The US military trains us to be professional in the field and disciplined. When servicemen and women violate LOAC (Law Of Armed Conflict) then they are dealt with. Often times this is too slow for the witch hunters, but in the end we investigate and punish our own when they fail to meet our standards of fighting a war. Something the insurgents do not.

At 11/12/06 06:52 PM, neoptolemus wrote:

At 11/12/06 05:13 PM, Draik50th wrote: Goddamnit I guess I'm going to have to rip your Hezbollah loving ass to shreds ain't I?

Hezbollah is an armed political party in Lebanon. It does not use any form of suicide attacks, it only hates Zionism, not judaism. Hezbollah recognizes and promotes women’s rights (in the mold of the Western liberal tradition) (Source)
Hezbollah currently operates at least four hospitals, 12 clinics, 12 schools and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental department and an extensive social assistance programme. Medical care is also cheaper than in most of the country's private hospitals and free for Hezbollah members.

According to CNN: "Hezbollah did everything that a government should do, from collecting the garbage to running hospitals and repairing schools." In July 2006, during the war with Israel, when there was no running water in Beirut, Hezbollah was arranging supplies around the city. "People here [in South Beirut] see Hezbollah as a political movement and a social service provider as much as it is a militia, in this traditionally poor and dispossessed Shiite community."(Source)

My question is.. How can you condemn Hezbollah, only looking at the bad, when you did not condemn the IRA and infact many Americans financially supported the IRA.

I couldn't agree with you more. US officials must learn that they have to deal with Hezbollah and HAMAS if we can ever realistically think of resolving that conflict.

-There were WMD's in Iraq but they were moved by a Russian truck convoy as seen by US intelligence obtained prior to the invasion.

What the...? This is just propoganda.. you have no proof what-so-ever.

The problem is that the proof is classified and anyone who has access cannot talk about it. However, there is some "open source" evidence for this. There was a blurb on CNN.com in 2004 where a White House spokesman said he thought it went to Russia or France.

Now we're not talking about nukes here; we're talking about biological (maybe chemical) weapons. We know that France and Russia both provided Saddam with facilities and scientists who were skilled in research of a military type nature. For good reading I suggest Biohazard by Ken Abilek who ran the USSR's Biopreperate and specializied in weapons grade Anthrax. There is also another book Plague Wars by Tim (I can't remember his last name, sorry!) that details the bio programs from rogue regimes across the world.

In short I believe there were WMDs of a non-nuclear variety that Saddam managed to get out of Iraq because it would have embarrassed the French, Russians and possibly the Germans.

At 11/13/06 03:35 PM, TheMason wrote:

The problem is that the proof is classified and anyone who has access cannot talk about it. However, there is some "open source" evidence for this. There was a blurb on CNN.com in 2004 where a White House spokesman said he thought it went to Russia or France.

If it is classified how do you know about it? As for the blurb on CNN.com in 2004 the White House spokesman said he thought it went to Russia or France.. This could just simply be a spokesman trying to cover up bad intelligence on the part that Iraq didn't have any active WMD's at the time prior to the invasion.

Now we're not talking about nukes here; we're talking about biological (maybe chemical) weapons. We know that France and Russia both provided Saddam with facilities and scientists who were skilled in research of a military type nature.

I hope you know that during the Iraq-Iran war (prior to Gulf War) both Britain and the USA supplied Iraq with weaponry including WMDs.

In short I believe there were WMDs of a non-nuclear variety that Saddam managed to get out of Iraq because it would have embarrassed the French, Russians and possibly the Germans.

Yuo believe yet hold no actual proof... Technically speaking there were WMDs in Iraq, however, they were degraded and thus could not be used as weapony.

At 11/13/06 04:11 PM, neoptolemus wrote:

At 11/13/06 03:35 PM, TheMason wrote:

The problem is that the proof is classified and anyone who has access cannot talk about it. However, there is some "open source" evidence for this. There was a blurb on CNN.com in 2004 where a White House spokesman said he thought it went to Russia or France.

If it is classified how do you know about it?

Because I have a clearance...

I hope you know that during the Iraq-Iran war (prior to Gulf War) both Britain and the USA supplied Iraq with weaponry including WMDs.

I am well aware of the support the US provided to Saddam in the 1980s, in fact he underwent some training at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. This factoid was made to several of us Airmen who went through Tech School (and Basic) there. Furthermore, I once ate lunch in the chow hall where he had dined...

But since the close of the 1991 war we have not supplied him with anything (furthermore we provided him with very little. Last time I looked AK-47s, T-72s, SCUDs, MiGs and Sukhois were Soviet weapons systems. And the Mirage is French). However, the French and the Russians during the 1990s provided facilities and expertise in trade for favorable oil deals and consessions. Hell, even Clinton thought about going to war with Saddam because he was going to start selling oil in Euros instead of dollars...

Yuo believe yet hold no actual proof... Technically speaking there were WMDs in Iraq, however, they were degraded and thus could not be used as weapony.

Look at the sources I cited. Furthermore, any proof that I may or may not have I cannot/could not disclose to you.

At 11/13/06 04:43 PM, TheMason wrote:

Look at the sources I cited. Furthermore, any proof that I may or may not have I cannot/could not disclose to you.

Then sadly i cannot take your responses as being accurate due to my scientific upbringing. If you are under some obligation to not disclose certain information then logically speaking you should not form arguments based upon it when other people cannot verify this information.

Also, you're profile say's you're in the military, i'm quite intrigued as my family has a long history of service for the British Armed Forces and my brother is currently in the 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment. Even though you're part of the US Army i'm still intrigued as for your rank/parent regiment.

At 11/13/06 04:50 PM, neoptolemus wrote:

At 11/13/06 04:43 PM, TheMason wrote:

Look at the sources I cited. Furthermore, any proof that I may or may not have I cannot/could not disclose to you.

Then sadly i cannot take your responses as being accurate due to my scientific upbringing. If you are under some obligation to not disclose certain information then logically speaking you should not form arguments based upon it when other people cannot verify this information.

I wouldn't say that's a scientific upbringing, but more of a closed-minded/logically false position. It is still information and therefore I would be a fool not to form an opinion on this information. Furthermore, I backed up my argument with two sources that are available to the public.

Also, you're profile say's you're in the military, i'm quite intrigued as my family has a long history of service for the British Armed Forces and my brother is currently in the 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment. Even though you're part of the US Army i'm still intrigued as for your rank/parent regiment.

Then since you have some background (although second hand family) you should know that you should not assume I'm in the Army and that saying US Army as a general term for an American serviceman is inaccurate (and that I mentioned I'm an Airman and did training at an Air Force Base).

Senior Airman
157 AOG
Missouri Air National Guard (The ANG is a reserve component of the Air Force in which I did six years on active duty.)

My old AFSC (specialty code) was F-16 Avionics, my new AFSC is Command & Control.

As for academic background:
I have a BA in Government & International Relations from the U of South Carolina.
I have a MS in International Relations, Specializing in Natl. Security from Troy University; Troy, AL

My turn-ons include: hot dark haired brunettes who can pull off the hot librarian look and intellectual conversation.

My turn-offs include: close minded people and ignorance.

Unfortunately I can see where both of you are correct in this debate:

Mason:

Neo has a point in that she can't readily believe something that cannot be provided. Although you provided info pertaining to the proof of your identity, this is still only an internet forum, and NG has had fakers and charlatans (one of which I know was a researcher gathering evidence for a paper/ dissertation) here before.

Neo:

Mason has a point in that just because you cannot see something does not mean it doesn't exist. Even scientists need to have a little imagination, otherwise nothing would ever be invented.

I think people (Americans especially) are overzealous in their wording of the Iraq War. They also choose to attribute the deaths to Bush, instead of evaluating the situation as a whole (scapegoat).

I even think one guy was bold enough to say the majority of Iraqis wish Saddam was back in power......

Actually, it's more the intrinsic financial cost that pisses people off. We're spending a billions on a war that achieves nothing.

Just cause you can't see the light at the end of the tunnel doesn't mean there isn't one. I think the removal of Saddam Hussein was a fantastic goal, I wish we could do the same for Cuba, North Korea, and a few other places.

It amazes me that people see this war as a "mistake". This is America people! We know how to fight, win, and keep the peace (well...USED to....). I think the only mistake we made was going in under Bush's reasons. I think if we had just said, "Saddam is a dick, and we're gonna go kick his ass!", we'd have 240% approval of the war.......

Since the original post is tittled "stop complaining about Iraq" I'll leave it at that.

And to all you idiots who have NO FUCKING idea who your buddies are or even which side you ARE on. Here are the sides as that can be most easily defined.

The Left Wing:
-Democrats, the usually assosiated group with the left.

The Mainstream Media (includes ALL tv media, yes FOX too because they are populists anyway (going with whats popular because it gets ratings even though it can be bull).
Lefties, the lefty radicals and the lefty bloggers
Anti-gun people
Environmentalists
Conspiracy theorists
Revolutionists
Elitists
Rich people
Hippies

Terrorists- they are more assosiated with supporting everything "ALLAH," though prefer this group because they can show the most kindness to their terror bombings. Islam- "The Religion of Peace (TM)"

Dictators
Communists
Anti-war people
PETA
Worker's Unions
Socialists

---- And so on..

-Obviously it's much easier to be stupid, just like human nature. All these people have a lot in common with each other and many are attached to usually more than 1 group.

The media likes doing this all the time and so does everyone else in the left too, it's a favorite pastime to them:

A. Say how they much hate Bush.
B. Show why they hate Bush.
C. Complaing about not hating Bush enough.
D. Leak all sensitive information from the Bush Administration so he looks bad. Which also undermines national security but hey it's for hating Bush.
E. And for a change of pace, hate Bush some more.

(you can replace Bush with anyone in the Right also)

Usually this group will stick to not sticking with anything or even humans for that matter for some of them.

Moderates (aka the Grey Area)

Could include a sizeable portion of people who don't care/have an opinion (I suspect doubtful)

-Tend to stick to neither side claiming neutrality (kind of like the UN).
-Or can attack both sides
-Will get torn to shreds in debates and when it comes down to it and end up supporting 1 side or the other.

There are a bunch of moderates in every group in either side.

The Right Wing:
-Republicans, but not RINO's (republicans in name only)

Conservatives and the Conservative Bloggers
Constitutionalists
Gun owners
The majority of US middle income people (aka Hard Working Americans)
US Soldiers
Veterans

- I know there are more but since they don't complain AS much they are less well known but definetly deserve no less respect on this side either.

What the right usually does: not bitch as much, that's guaranteed, because unlike the left they actually gotta work. Usually will stick to moral standards and traditional American stuff.

--- All in all this mostly applies to America. In other countries who knows if there are even distinct differences between groups. Usually the ethnic and religious differences tear those countries long before individual groups can form.---

At 11/13/06 06:55 PM, Imperator wrote: Unfortunately I can see where both of you are correct in this debate:

Mason:

Neo has a point in that she can't readily believe something that cannot be provided.

She? What the...? haha

Neo:

Mason has a point in that just because you cannot see something does not mean it doesn't exist. Even scientists need to have a little imagination, otherwise nothing would ever be invented.

Ah yes, i do agree that there is a ton of information i don't have access to as i am just a civilian..

I even think one guy was bold enough to say the majority of Iraqis wish Saddam was back in power......

Well, i think that's the case to an extent.. It's like in Afghanistan, the people, under the oppressive regimes of Saddam (and Taliban for Afghanistan) wish that the had the security that was offered under the regimes but not the actual people in power again.

Actually, it's more the intrinsic financial cost that pisses people off. We're spending a billions on a war that achieves nothing.

Just cause you can't see the light at the end of the tunnel doesn't mean there isn't one. I think the removal of Saddam Hussein was a fantastic goal, I wish we could do the same for Cuba, North Korea, and a few other places.

The removal of Saddam was a good goal.. However, i wouldn't want Castro to be taken down as Cuba is itself a much better place for the people (and tourists) than Iraq was... As for Kim Jong Ill i'm for him being removed from power aslong as it doesn't harm the Korean people.

It amazes me that people see this war as a "mistake". This is America people! We know how to fight, win, and keep the peace (well...USED to....). I think the only mistake we made was going in under Bush's reasons. I think if we had just said, "Saddam is a dick, and we're gonna go kick his ass!", we'd have 240% approval of the war.......

Well, i as a Brit, would have happily supported the war if we didn't go into it under the premise of WMDs and for America, i'd have rather it being to stop oppression and then leave shortly afterwards with the help of the Iranian government.

It's interesting where this is going. I feel that even though this is a pointless war, I beleive that it should not be treated as the worse war, and bush as the worst president. Bush is the first president who really doesn't care about approval ratings. Infact Nixon when he was discovered about the water gate scandel, resigned from office. Bush could have done that right after we figured out that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We are just using this as a way to disassosiate from the violence. The fact is people in our own country are murdered, tourtered and starved. The difference is the political stability.

All I know is they attack us; we attack back. You just want to sit back after that well, you're just as bad as them, how would you fell if your folks died! Well their laughing in our misery! We shouldn't be protesting, what good would that do to an M-60 and a few M249's? We got to hit them hard, and fast. Preferblly at night, what ever happened to the (Stealth Bomber) from back then with the undetectable armor plating and all the rockets?! We should use that and blow up them, leave no survivors, we're going to prove as Darwin once said (The fittest of the fit will survive). or something like that. I should join the debate team.

At 11/13/06 10:41 PM, Agentfortyseven wrote: All I know is they attack us; we attack back. You just want to sit back after that well, you're just as bad as them, how would you fell if your folks died! Well their laughing in our misery! We shouldn't be protesting, what good would that do to an M-60 and a few M249's? We got to hit them hard, and fast. Preferblly at night, what ever happened to the (Stealth Bomber) from back then with the undetectable armor plating and all the rockets?! We should use that and blow up them, leave no survivors, we're going to prove as Darwin once said (The fittest of the fit will survive). or something like that. I should join the debate team.

Darwin talked about survival of the fittest and it was about how we adapted. It was later taken very well out of context by racists that seeked justification for their rational. When you bomb one area, you enrage more people and create more enemies. Does this mean we should keep going until everyone is dead?

Dear God No!

By killing and bombing the hell out of everything in sight, it is the quickest way to ruin the entire situation. The situation is alreadly well in a difficult situation, but you can't pull a "Dirty Harry" here, you'll create more chaos.