US goes to war

[drslump]

To me it doesn't matter if you kill people with a 200 megatons nuclear warhead or you do it with a knife. If you kill someone in "cold blood" (I don't even know if you say this in english) you are an assassin.

Saddam has violated the terms imposed at the last gulf war, this is a fact.
Many countries are violating the human rights terms, fact.
Many countries are violating the Tokyo convention on CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, fact.
Every single country is violating some kind of terms.

I think that if we destroy the Ozone layer many millions of people are gonna die, but I haven't seen any country attack another one because it's violating the CO2 emissions.

I'm only 23, I've missed all the political revolutions on the 20th century. My generation have not really fight for anything and maybe that's the reason why I feel so sad about war. Maybe this is what my generation is gonna change.

Ivan

[The PIT]

Originally posted by drslump
To me it doesn't matter if you kill people with a 200 megatons nuclear warhead or you do it with a knife. If you kill someone in "cold blood" (I don't even know if you say this in english) you are an assassin.

Saddam has violated the terms imposed at the last gulf war, this is a fact.
Many countries are violating the human rights terms, fact.
Many countries are violating the Tokyo convention on CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, fact.
Every single country is violating some kind of terms.

I think that if we destroy the Ozone layer many millions of people are gonna die, but I haven't seen any country attack another one because it's violating the CO2 emissions.

I'm only 23, I've missed all the political revolutions on the 20th century. My generation have not really fight for anything and maybe that's the reason why I feel so sad about war. Maybe this is what my generation is gonna change.

Ivan

Your generation ain't gonna changed anything because you don't give a shit. Most just want to party. Now if the rest of the world wanted too fine but it doesn't.

[drslump]

I could say that in the 70's all they care about was sex, drugs and rock'n'roll

People masses are like sheeps, they just need a dog to guide them.

[The PIT]

Is that bush or Blair???

[thop]

Tony "The Poodle" Blair is obviously the Dog

[The PIT]

Barks Badly. Never have I've seen a poli whos so uncormfable under the public eye.

[Victorian]

Originally posted by Gurm
Yep. Imagine if Japan at the end of WW2 had, after surrendering, not disarmed and stood down, but had sneakily built up their forces and continued to attack us...

Are we "bullies" for intervening in such a case?

- Gurm

I seem to have missed something here. Just when has Iraq ever attacked the United States?

[High_Jumbllama]

It is not who they attacked but the conditions for an end of hostilities no matter who they were directed against.

[Gurm]

And they HAVE attacked our allies.

Which is the same as attacking us.

BUT... High_Jumbllama is right. My point is that they have FAILED to comply with the conditions of their surrender, which means the surrender is null and void, and the gulf war isn't actually over.

- Gurm

[High_Jumbllama]

Originally posted by drslump
To me it doesn't matter if you kill people with a 200 megatons nuclear warhead or you do it with a knife. If you kill someone in "cold blood" (I don't even know if you say this in english) you are an assassin.

Saddam has violated the terms imposed at the last gulf war, this is a fact.
Many countries are violating the human rights terms, fact.
Many countries are violating the Tokyo convention on CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, fact.
Every single country is violating some kind of terms.

I think that if we destroy the Ozone layer many millions of people are gonna die, but I haven't seen any country attack another one because it's violating the CO2 emissions.

I'm only 23, I've missed all the political revolutions on the 20th century. My generation have not really fight for anything and maybe that's the reason why I feel so sad about war. Maybe this is what my generation is gonna change.

Ivan

Ultimately, most of these countries are making an effort even if it is insufficient at the moment. Iraq is trying to hide it's non compliance and the things it has not gotten rid of are used for the sole purpose of killing mostly in large numbers and they have no advantage to life human or otherwise.

Peace is good. THere is no question of that. Being peaceful and sitting by doing nothing or doing nothing effective while a country/person/group of people threatens the peace will only serve to slowly destroy the peace. Ironically, one has to be willing to fight for peace even after attaining it. Playing the nice guy/gal and saying please don't hurt me might work in the short term but overall will result in more agression being directed against you as they know you are easy and unprepared. Being 26, I have not been through any large wars at least not directly affecting myself, but even I know you have to be willing to do something effective to prevent or lessen larger wars from happening.

Edit:
Definition of Assassin on Dictionary.com I believe your position is a misunderstanding of the word. Though I do agree killing no matter the reason perceived good or bad is a horrible thing as it means the parties involved have failed to resolve the disagreement in a reasonable manner.

[Drizzt]

Only a few notes:


- after the end of Gulf's War, U.S. government had the chance to remove Saddam from his "throne". U.S. didn't, instead they sold weapons to Saddam to help him fight his "enemy" in the population. In exchange, Saddam gave U.S. petrol.



- All the world nations have dangerous weapons. If U.S. attack Iraq just because Bush like to do it, why other nations shouldn't attack U.S. because it's a potential threat? Or, just to do something, why we all not attack...Holland? Mexico? North Pole? The Moon? I'm sure there are/there will be weapons even there...let's attack everything!



- Why Bush can do whatever he want and decide what's good and what's bad? Just because U.S. are stronger? Lol...



- Colin Powell has presented the evidence of Saddam not comply to ONU directives. After he did that, there's been a wave of doubt into the ONU. Why?
Simple, because everyone there was noticing:
1) All the material presented by Colin Powell is, nothing more nothing less...the one compiled from inspectors in the times of Gulf's War!
2) If Colin Powell had this proofs, why don't pass them immediatly to inspectors for verify them?
Number one riflection for the U.S. people: this has been said by lot of people in the ONU, in numerous interview, after Colin's conference.
Have those interviews been showed into U.S? If not, Why? If yes, are you too dumb to notice the strangeness?



- After the Shuttle accident, Europe had a movie (by courtesy of Israel) showing a crack on a part of the shuttle. This has been shown immediately over our TV channels.
We have seen a movie of the Shuttle leaving, with something hitting the wing.
At today, there are even photos of the Shuttle showing the irregular profile of one of its wings. Photos from U.S. source.
So, it's pretty obvious that the accident could be avoided, or that the astronauts' life could be saved.
This hasn't been done.
Number two riflection for the U.S. people: don't you feel like your government is threating all of you like if you were totally dumb?



- Number three riflection for the U.S. people - Bush goes to the White House:
9/11 Tragedy.
The Sniper.
The shuttle disaster.
The Gulf War.
The Korea threat.
Meanwhile, the U.S. economy going dowwwwwwn...but no one feel bad at it, and no one care.
Maybe I'm a bit paranoid but...don't you U.S.' inhabitants feel like something strange? Like...uhmm...don't you feel like your government is threating all of you like if you were totally dumb?
(Side note: at time of Rome Empire, this was called Panem et Circense...)



- Last riflection, for all: did you know that ONU pay a tot of $ to U.S. for each bomb they drop in a conflict?

[KvHagedorn]

Drizzt, I hope you're happy with yourself, you just made Mr. Spock's brain explode with your torrential stream of illogic.

[drslump]

drizzt,

There is a common consensus that this "2nd Gulf's War" is for economic reasons.

However we can't blame only the US, many European countries, among them Italy, UK, Spain, Portugal... do agree in that war is the way to go.

And don't tell me that Silvio Berlusconi is much better than Bush.

Ivan

[GT98]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
Drizzt, I hope you're happy with yourself, you just made Mr. Spock's brain explode with your torrential stream of illogic.

My god you have that right...talk about mixing fact and fiction to fit your needs.

[Gurm]

EDIT: I think Drizzt is high on something when writing this. If everyone in Italy is this deluded, confused, and incomprehensibly mixed-up, can there be much hope for the rest of the world? I'm humoring him with a full response, unlike others who were not foolish enough to get into it.

Originally posted by Drizzt
- after the end of Gulf's War, U.S. government had the chance to remove Saddam from his "throne". U.S. didn't, instead they sold weapons to Saddam to help him fight his "enemy" in the population. In exchange, Saddam gave U.S. petrol.

Incorrect. We didn't march on Baghdad - at the request of the peaceniks, the EU, the UN, etc.

We did NOT sell him weapons. Sorry.

- All the world nations have dangerous weapons. If U.S. attack Iraq just because Bush like to do it, why other nations shouldn't attack U.S. because it's a potential threat? Or, just to do something, why we all not attack...Holland? Mexico? North Pole? The Moon? I'm sure there are/there will be weapons even there...let's attack everything!

*sigh* I'll explain this VERY VERY SLOWLY, so that you're sure to get it. We (the USA) do NOT decide who gets to have weapons. The UN decides. And the UN has decided that there is a VERY limited number of countries allowed to have Nuclear weapons, and NOBODY is allowed to have biological weapons. Iraq is NOT on the list of countries allowed to have nuclear weapons. We're enforcing that... because ironically, having made that decision, the UN doesn't want to enforce it.

- Why Bush can do whatever he want and decide what's good and what's bad? Just because U.S. are stronger? Lol...

Are you high on crack? I just addressed that. We're not deciding what's good and bad. And frankly, if you don't think that a genocidal maniac who uses biological weapons against his own people is "bad" then you need a priority reassessment.

- Colin Powell has presented the evidence of Saddam not comply to ONU directives. After he did that, there's been a wave of doubt into the ONU. Why?
Simple, because everyone there was noticing:
1) All the material presented by Colin Powell is, nothing more nothing less...the one compiled from inspectors in the times of Gulf's War!

Ok, despite me not knowing what the hell an ONU is, I'll address these. This first assertion is bullshit. All the material presented by Powell is current and up-to-date. Phone conversations saying essentially "did you hide all the illegal material? yes? good!" date from last month. Not 10 years ago.

2) If Colin Powell had this proofs, why don't pass them immediatly to inspectors for verify them?

Because there's a security leak in the inspector group. We don't want to accuse them, that would be bad form. But the truth of the matter is that every time they go to do a "surprise" inspection of a site, the Iraqis clean up that site a day or two ahead of time. This indicates that they have advance knowledge of the sites visited. How do they get this knowledge? Either from the inspection team (bugs, leaks, whatever) or from a member of the security council. Not to just blame France for the hell of it, but after the "Gulf's War" as you call it, France was leaking the inspection schedule to Saddam a week in advance. When we clamped down on security of that schedule, Saddam evicted the inspectors.

Number one riflection for the U.S. people: this has been said by lot of people in the ONU, in numerous interview, after Colin's conference.
Have those interviews been showed into U.S? If not, Why? If yes, are you too dumb to notice the strangeness?

1. I have no idea what you just said. I know English isn't your first language so I'm not going to make fun of you. Please just restate it, because it made NO sense.

2. Yes, those interviews (if we're thinking about the same thing) have been shown here. Sadly, they indicate a complete preponderance of misinformation amongst the "ONU" (still not sure what that is), just like you are utterly misinformed.

3. Or is this supposed to go with the shuttle stuff below?

- After the Shuttle accident, Europe had a movie (by courtesy of Israel) showing a crack on a part of the shuttle. This has been shown immediately over our TV channels.

Not a crack. Read the other thread about the shuttle in here. It's not the wing, it's not a crack, and it's HIGHLY insensitive of your TV stations to keep airing it when it has been pretty categorically proven that it isn't what they're saying it is. The shuttle wings don't even LOOK like that. They don't have black protuberances, or round things. Additionally, the lighting is all wrong - that video was doctored or modified. Shame on your TV stations for not checking the integrity of the video before repeatedly airing it. We've seen it - and dismissed it as fake.

We have seen a movie of the Shuttle leaving, with something hitting the wing.

Funny, wasn't aware anyone had caught that on camera. Again, I question the authenticity of your sources, and encourage you to read the other thread here where we debunk a lot of shuttle misinformation. It's not hard to find.

At today, there are even photos of the Shuttle showing the irregular profile of one of its wings. Photos from U.S. source.
So, it's pretty obvious that the accident could be avoided, or that the astronauts' life could be saved.
This hasn't been done.

We're aware of the fact that it seems NASA could have done more. And we've been discussing the reasons. It's all over our TV, newspapers, and media. What exactly is your point here? There's no "coverup", there's no conspiracy, there's no misinformation (except coming from your TV stations, apparently). We're trying to figure out what went wrong, and fix it.

Number two riflection for the U.S. people: don't you feel like your government is threating all of you like if you were totally dumb?

I don't feel like my government is threatening me at all. Again, I wonder if you have been smoking crack before asking this question?

- Number three riflection for the U.S. people - Bush goes to the White House:
9/11 Tragedy.
The Sniper.
The shuttle disaster.
The Gulf War.
The Korea threat.

Yes, because GWB _caused_ all of that. Wow, I had no idea you were a first-order conspiracy theorist. Did you know that the moon landing was faked, too? Perhaps you feel that the Illuminati run the entire world economy, along with the JEWS? That there are Free Masons everywhere, watching you? Maybe you need to go get some professional help. People who believe in conspiracies everywhere are disturbed, and medication often helps.

Meanwhile, the U.S. economy going dowwwwwwn...but no one feel bad at it, and no one care.

We don't care? Let me explain something to you. Economies follow cycles. The economy of 2003 is determined by the economic policies of the mid 90's. If you want to BLAME someone for the economy, blame CLINTON and his horrific economic policies (well, he was kinda "busy" so making sound monetary decisions just wasn't on his plate).

Maybe I'm a bit paranoid

A bit? Try SUPREMELY!

but...don't you U.S.' inhabitants feel like something strange? Like...uhmm...don't you feel like your government is threating all of you like if you were totally dumb?

You asked this above. No, sorry. Either you don't know what "threatening" means, or you're supremely confused. Or, as is increasingly my suspicion, both.

(Side note: at time of Rome Empire, this was called Panem et Circense...)

Mmm... I'm going to resist the urge to correct your spelling in Latin, just like I resisted the urge to mock your utterly incomprehensible English. But comparing current politics in the USA to Rome's "Bread and Circus" period is delusionally stupid.

- Last riflection, for all: did you know that ONU pay a tot of $ to U.S. for each bomb they drop in a conflict?

Ok... last reflection for you... did you know that we don't know what the ONU is? And that we don't know what a tot of $ is? And that even if it means what I _THINK_ it means, that you're incorrect?

- Gurm