Portal   Forum   Members   Market   Gallery   Events

War Protestors Intelligence

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Jedsia, Feb 22, 2003.

  1. kraahl

    kraahl Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    You might be able to see it, but Bush and most other americans does not see that america can do anything wrong.
     
  2. Jedsia

    Jedsia Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Jun1999/s1999062228thdivisionmemorialservice.html

    America has made mistakes, but so has every other country. We get villified for it much more than any other country. We also get asked for help, and we always help however we can. But then when we're done helping, all the sudden we're the bad guy again. You may not see it, but it's very frustrating to me.

    These same countries that stand there and say they are better than us are also the same countries we have sacrificed our own soldiers to defend their countries. We spilt alot of blood in France in defense of that country. And years from now if they need help, we'll most likely be there again, despite their supieror attidtude.

    You may hate America, but if your country ever comes under attack, we'll be there to help. That's the nature of our country. No we are not perfect, but you know what, we admit that. Alot of European countries do not. I've never heard Bush say we are perfect.

    And until you stand on our soil, and see the world from our eyes, you cannot say that America is so evil. You see us as YOU want to see us, or how you've been taught to see us. You have no desire to see us in any other light but negative, and that's just plain prejudice.

    It makes me sick to hear people badmouth America so badly. Let's not forget how many of our citizens have died defending other countries. And now that we want to defend our own country, we're being told we can't. People just do not want to see the threat, not unless it's on their soil.

    Ya, America is not perfect. But I can't imagine living anywhere else. I'm proud to be here, proud of what my country has accomplished. We can always improve, and better ourselves. We're given that opportunity that many others don't have. Yes we've made mistakes, but so has everyone. NO ONE is withoit fault, including every country in the world.

    Don't sit there on your high horse and put us down because you think you're so much better. I've tried being patient, I've tried being reasonable. I'm at the end of my rope, I'm sick of these attacks on America. I'm sick of the European "snobishness" directed at us. Maybe it would be better if we just shut our borders and refuse to help anyone. But even then we would be called selfish. No matter what we do, it wouldn't be the right thing in many eyes.

    If we were so war hungry, we would have bi-passed the UN completely. We don't not need permission to defend ourselves from a threat, and Saddam has been proven to be a threat. There is evidence that links him to terrorism (hm, like the Al Queda training camps in Iraq and his monetary support of suicide bombers) But we're being diplomatic and trying to exhaust all means of diplomacy before declaring war. Saddam has poked his thumb at every attempt at peaceful disarmment. He's played games at every turn.

    He's not going to listen to a resolution that is not backed by a real threat. Right now, all he has are empty threats and he's knows it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2003
  3. Elbereth

    Elbereth MSC Commander and Donator

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2000
    Messages:
    3,356
    Likes Received:
    14
    Market Rating:
    0
    Have you asked President Bush and most other Americans? I thought not.
     
  4. Jedsia

    Jedsia Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    Title: "UN Criticizes Iraqi Cease-Fire Compliance." For the second time in less than a year the UN Security Council and top UN officials met with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz to discuss Iraq's compliance with UN cease-fire demands, saying that Iraq has only selectively and then partially complied with its obligations under the armistice agreement. (921123)

    Translated Title: ONU Censura Cumplimiento Iraqui Cesacion Del Fuego; L'ONU critique le comportement de l'Irak. (921123)
    Author: AITA, JUDY (USIA STAFF WRITER)
    Date: 1992/11/23

    Text:
    U.N. CRITICIZES IRAQI CEASE-FIRE COMPLIANCE

    (Attitude found unconvincing and dangerous) (1,000) By Judy Aita USIA United Nations Correspondent United Nations -- The U.N. Security Council November 23 told Iraq that it has "only selectively and then partially" complied with its obligations under the Persian Gulf war cease-fire.

    For the second time in less than a year the council and top U.N. officials met with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz to discuss Baghdad's compliance with cease-fire demands under Security Council Resolution 687. Council members once again concluded that Baghdad's actions over the past eight months failed to convince them to lift the wide-ranging economic and military sanctions leveled against Iraq.

    In a lengthy statement read by its president, Hungarian Ambassador Andre Erdos, the council said that it hoped the meeting would "impress once again upon Iraq the imperative need for full compliance and to obtain from Iraq undertakings which would constitute an advance in the consideration of this issue as required in the interest of world peace and security, as well as that of the Iraqi people."

    The council said that Iraq: -- is reasserting it's claim on Kuwait and failed to participate in the demarcation of the Iraq-Kuwait boundary;

    -- has not paid its portion of the cost of destroying its weapons or of humanitarian aid for Iraqi Kurds and Shia;

    -- has failed to release all Kuwaiti and third country detainees and prisoners of war or to cooperate with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC);

    -- has failed to export oil under a U.N. plan for the benefit of its own people;

    -- seems unprepared to comply with the plans for long-term monitoring and verification of its weapons programs;

    -- continues to obstruct the work of the weapon's inspectors and refuses to disclose the suppliers of its banned weapons programs;

    -- has failed to return all of Kuwaiti and third country property seized after the invasion;

    -- continues to violate the human rights of and repress its Kurdish and Shia populations.

    "In view of the observations on the record of Iraq's performance...the Security Council has considered itself justified in concluding that Iraq has up to now only selectively and then partially complied with the obligations place upon it by the council," the statement said.

    U.S. Ambassador Edward Perkins said that "due to Iraqi intransigence the council's efforts must continue undiminished," adding that "without full and unconditional Iraqi compliance with all relevant resolutions, my government sees no reason to lift sanctions."

    According to Perkins, the council heard many Iraqi "promises and allegations" last March and "has received many contentious letters from the Iraqi government since then."

    Perkins pointed out, for example, that the embargo of food ended in April 1991. Large quantities of food, over 18 metric tons of medicine and antibiotics, 114,300 metric tons of seed, and 500 agricultural tractors have been shipped to Iraq in the past year, yet Baghdad still complains that the sanctions it agreed to under the cease-fire are responsible for human suffering in Iraq.

    But the Iraqi regime "has callously manipulated food distribution as an instrument of repression," he charged. "If food is not reaching the needy in Iraq, it is because the Iraqi regime has diverted food imports to the military and security forces which allow Saddam to maintain his brutal dictatorship."

    Herve Ladsous, the deputy permanent representative of France said that "the international community must not drop its guard less Iraq return to its aggressive designs."

    British Ambassador David Hannay said that "most serious of all is the reassertion by Iraq of its claim to Kuwait....Even more disturbing is the repeated reassertion of the Iraqi claim to Kuwait by Iraqi officials and in the government-controlled media in Iraq....And Iraqi school text books and maps continue to depict Kuwait as part of Iraq."

    "This all strikes at the very heart of the cease-fire resolution and calls into questions Iraq's commitment" to implementing the cease-fire demands, Hannay said. "How can Iraq expect its protestation of compliance...to be believed so long as this pattern of behavior continues?"

    Russian Ambassador Yuliy Voronstov pointed out that weapons "inspections found there were additional undisclosed aspects of Iraqi programs. Failure to acknowledge its obligations, attempts to evade obligations by having long discussions has made it impossible to deploy long-term weapons monitors."

    "The Security Council cannot, either, overlook the essentially hostile attitude to U.N. inspectors," Voronstov said.

    Ambassador Simbarashe Mumbengegwi of Zimbabwe said that "of great concern to us is the repatriation of and access to Kuwait and third country nationals still unaccounted for in Iraq."

    "Why is Iraq unwilling to grant permission of the ICRC to visit its prisons?" Mumbengegwi said. "Its failure suggests Iraq may well have something to hide."

    Jose Barbos, counselor of the Cape Verde delegation said that references to claims on Kuwait that have appeared in the Iraqi press "is not the kind of behavior which would make it possible for the council to lift sanctions. It is precisely those Iraqi claims that warranted the council's actions in the first place."

    Venezuelan Ambassador Diego Arria said he is concerned with "the level and degree of Iraq's failure to comply with the resolutions....What's more serious, it seems there is some disposition (by Iraq) to drag out this process which obliges the international community to expend more and more resources."

    Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz accused the council passing an "unjust sentence" on the people of Iraq and failing to honor its obligations under pressure from the United States, Britain, and France by keeping the sanctions in place.

    "Iraq, in spite of the striking irony and unjust situation forced upon it, has complied with resolution 687 despite its arbitrary and inequitable nature," Tariq Aziz said. He pointed out that in the past eight months 16 weapons inspections have results in the destruction of 9,983 pieces of weapons.



    WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE: 2001

    The Wall Street Journal Europe, a consistent critic of the administration of U.S. President Bill Clinton, also looks back at the Gulf War's aftermath with disapproval. The newspaper says in an editorial: "American policy toward Iraq lies in tatters and Saddam still thumbs his nose at the civilized world. [Incoming U.S. President] George W. Bush and his team will soon face a difficult choice -- either make sanctions work or find a reasonable, face-saving way to end them. Neither alternative will be easy."

    The editorial argues: "It is not just a question of unfinished business and undoing President Clinton's record of ruin and neglect. It is time for Mr. Bush to think seriously about the endgame. If not, the drift of events will wash away the sanctions, allow Saddam to wave his hunting rifle triumphantly on television and undo one of the greatest accomplishments of the president-elect's father [that is, leading the Gulf War alliance that defeated Saddam militarily]."
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2003
  5. Jedsia

    Jedsia Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
  6. jesse_us10

    jesse_us10 Peasant

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    581
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0

    Kraahl :bonk: :flush:

    get a reallity check dude. You supposed to have some kind of knowledge of what your talking about.

    ignorance is truely blissful for you
     
  7. kraahl

    kraahl Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    I am offended.

    If you want me to give you examples of times the US have ignored international court orders I can get that for you.

    I don´t see myself as ignorant.
     
  8. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    Jesse was a bit harsh, but a fact of the discord on this board I've picked up on is that "our side" has often provided citation to support itself, whereas yours has not. Yet you still cling to your opinions based on very broad generalizations of very complex events, such as "the Vietnam war".
     
  9. kraahl

    kraahl Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    Kraahl stands alone!

    I see your point, Haite. We have a problem about sources and stuff. No source is perfect, they are all twisted in different ways. The sources I could produce would be seeing things differnetly from the sources (mainly Jedsia) has presented.

    We have a problem there.

    Why have I not shown things to support my views?
    The main thing is, I´m lazy. As hell.

    I do generalize, true. But it´s your president that speaks like a religios fanatic (painting the world in black and white). If that is not a generalization that what is?
    My point is, I generalize but Bush is worse.

    If you´re not with us, you are with the terrorists.

    I cling to my opinions because you have not proved my wrong. (In some occasions you have, true, but winning the battle does not win the war) My opinion is that america have done a lot of terrible things and continue to do so to the present day.
    Prove that wrong!
     
  10. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    Not that I usually agree with Jake's logic, but what you suggest is impossible. Per my traditional observations, you have not given example of America's "evildoing". You simply said "America is evil, prove me wrong". There's nothing there to prove... There are already plenty of examples in this thread of what America has done that is not evil, thanks to Jedsia. A fair share of her sources, also, are non-American.
     
  11. kraahl

    kraahl Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    America has done some things right, I do not question that. Perhaps even more right then wrong, but the amount of wrong is still to high.

    There´s also another problem. I might say that dropping atomic bombs on japan was evil, you might say it was good. Both arguments can be supported by valid reasons. I choose to see it as evil, some choose to see it otherwise.

    Some day I shall provide a list for you, but not tonight. It´s way to late for that. I really should go to bed. This will lead nowhere, it´s fruitless. Both sides have made their opinons clear, one side supported them better, both sides will not change opnion.
    We should end this here.

    Unless you insist on me making a list, because if you do, I´ll get you one.
     
  12. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    I won't insist. This isn't the first time you've called a debate fruitless or pointless though.
     
  13. jesse_us10

    jesse_us10 Peasant

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    581
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    Ah Kraahl, you've touched on an important philosophical difference in the way people view matters.

    Yes President Bush sees things in black and white or try good and evil. He sees Hussain and his regime as evil. They gas , torchure, rape and lie to there own people. He "rewards" the families of the suicide bombers in Isreal with thousands of dollars. The list can go on for a while, (view my earlier posts for links to information). There is a lot to back up why the President believes that and I agree with him.

    Then there are other people who view things in shades of grey. Where if the situation changes so might their opinion. You are a good example of this as are many others. Here in lies the conflict in our views on this subject. No matter how much evidence I show you, you will see it in a different manor than I.

    I find it hard not to see why Saddam should be left alive yet alone not go to a war crimes court. I see a "preemptive" strike more than justified ,you view it as wrong because we appear to be starting a war. Yes, appears. This is a continuation of the Gulf war in 1991.

    The President is a man of conviction and determination. He really does mean what he says. He doesn't just say it because he thinks that is what people want to here or that it sounds good. Many people are not used to hearing that kind of talk from politicians and are shocked by it.

    The President is not generalizing in his opinion though. It is driven by his conviction and his beliefs.
     
  14. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
  15. jesse_us10

    jesse_us10 Peasant

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    581
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    ya started hearing/reading about that stuff yesterday.
     
  16. MisterHalleck

    MisterHalleck Peasant

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2000
    Messages:
    2,746
    Likes Received:
    15
    Market Rating:
    0
    :shudder:

    this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. The US wants to declare war on Iraq, when the only times America has actually declared war on another country have been 1812, WW1, WW2, The Revolutionary War, and Gulf War 1991. We do not belong attacking a country for failure to comply with laws, we should be supporting the people who that nation steps on. Then if they attack us, we declare war, no problem. What about 9/11, you say? That was terrorists, and the orders came from bin Laden (who we CAN try to find and kill) not from Saddam.

    And as for using nukes in Japan, I say it was probably for the better, considering that if they had not been used before Russia got them, we might not have known how terrible nuclear war is and we might have attacked each oher with nukes in the cold war. now THAT would have sucked.

    //edit: no, I did not join in the protests because I hate dogmatic peace freaks.
     
  17. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,761
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    we will go to war even if iraq disarms. Bush has stated that he not only wants them to disarm, he also wants regime change.
     
  18. Jedsia

    Jedsia Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    We're starting to get a bit edgy, at least I know I am. And I kinda went off yesterday, so I figured maybe I could lighten things up a bit. One of our friends emailed us this:


    Have you noticed anything fishy about the inspection teams who have
    arrived in Iraq? They're all men! How in the name of the United Nations
    does anyone expect men to find Saddam's stash? We all know that men have
    a blind spot when it comes to finding things. For crying' out loud! Men
    can't find the dirty clothes hamper. Men can't find the jar of jelly
    until it falls out of the cupboard and splatters on the floor....and
    these are the people we have sent into Iraq to search for hidden weapons
    of mass destruction?

    I keep wondering why groups of mothers weren't sent in.
    Mothers can sniff out secrets quicker than a drug dog can find a gram
    of dope. Mothers can find gin bottles that dads have stashed in the attic
    beneath the rafters. They can sniff out a diary two rooms and one floor
    away. They can tell when the lid of a cookie jar has been disturbed and
    notice when a quarter inch slice has been shaved off a chocolate cake. A
    mother can smell alcohol on your breath before you get your key in the
    front door and can smell cigarette smoke from a block away. By examining
    laundry, a mother knows more about their kids than Sherlock Holmes. And
    if a mother wants an answer to question, she can read an offender's eyes
    quicker than a homicide detective.

    So... considering the value a mother could bring to an inspection team,
    why are we sending a bunch of old men who will rely on electronic
    equipment to scout out hidden threats? My mother would walk in with
    a wooden soup spoon in one hand, grab Saddam by the ear, give it a
    good twist and snap, "Young man, do you have any weapons of mass
    destruction?!" And God help him if he tried to lie to her. She'd march
    him down the street to some secret bunker and shove his nose into a
    nuclear bomb and say, "Uh, huh, and what do you call this, mister?"
    Whap! Thump! Whap! Whap! Whap! And she'd lay some stripes across
    his bare bottom with that soup spoon, then march him home in front of the
    whole of Baghdad. He'd not only come clean and apologize for lying about
    it. He'd cut every lawn in Baghdad for free for the whole damn summer.

    Inspectors my ass... You want the job done? Call my mother!
     
  19. Elbereth

    Elbereth MSC Commander and Donator

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2000
    Messages:
    3,356
    Likes Received:
    14
    Market Rating:
    0
  20. Jedsia

    Jedsia Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0

Hitometer: 54,651,181 since 1995