The France/Syria/China Connection.....

[Gurm]

Spiral,

That's in astonishingly poor taste.

Exploiting children in order to make a political statement is the height of hypocrisy. How crass.

- Gurm

[SpiralDragon]

you are missing the point...... this is not about a political stament... this is about what kind of a world are we bringing children in to..... i am maried and both my whife and i have agreed to not get children for that reason.... we would prefer to adopt a child and care for her/him rather than bring one more in to this miserable world....


and don't lecture me about using children to make a political stament... the US was one of the great pioneers of this field...

[Umfriend]

Spiral,

Thx for the info. I have to admit I am kind of spoiled, being raised in one of the best functioning democracies essentially without any hardships of any kind. I hope things will work out better for you and your country...
Umf

[SpiralDragon]

I hope so too........

[High_Jumbllama]

Originally posted by SpiralDragon
you are missing the point...... this is not about a political stament... this is about what kind of a world are we bringing children in to..... i am maried and both my whife and i have agreed to not get children for that reason.... we would prefer to adopt a child and care for her/him rather than bring one more in to this miserable world....

Admirable.

and don't lecture me about using children to make a political stament... the US was one of the great pioneers of this field...

So, someone else does something wrong so it is OK for you to do it?

[Gurm]

Originally posted by SpiralDragon
you are missing the point......

You're missing MY point. Read on.

this is not about a political stament... this is about what kind of a world are we bringing children in to..... i am maried and both my whife and i have agreed to not get children for that reason.... we would prefer to adopt a child and care for her/him rather than bring one more in to this miserable world....

If I lived where you live, and in the conditions and situation you've described, perhaps my wife and I would feel as you do. Instead, we felt that the best thing we could possibly do for the world was turn our love for each other into another human being who might be better than either of us.

And if his first year and a half is any indicator, he'll not only be better than either of us, but better than most of the rest of the people in the world, too.

and don't lecture me about using children to make a political stament... the US was one of the great pioneers of this field...

Doesn't mean you should do it. My government has not always done things I'm proud of. But just because YOUR government has killed off lots of MY people, do you see me doing morally incorrect things?

- Gurm

[SpiralDragon]

okay.. you got me there... but i did not post it up in the contex that you are puting it in..... i thought it was a very expresive picture wfich is why i posted it... it may have very well been a WV beatle.... its an expresive picture... and i am sory that it offended you... espeialy that now i udersstand why.... i was clearly not thinking straigt...

but i stick to my previous argument... i would prefer to rais a parentless child than to bring one of my own in this world...

[Ant]

This thread is turning into pointless arguing, therefore its lifespan is not looking too great.

[Umfriend]

But at least it was good while it lasted

[Gurm]

LOL.

I was just playing Devil's Advocate, Spiral. Please don't take me too seriously.

I just find it pretty crass. Those of us in FAVOR of the invasion of Iraq don't make posters showing the sad children whose parents were gassed by their own government (in Iraq). I'm not saying you made the poster, either. I realise you just downloaded it somewhere.

My point is simply that the same group of people that made that poster would be HORRIFIED if the other side used kids to make THEIR point.

- Gurm

P.S. On another topic, there have been quite a few investigative reports (tongue-in-cheek) where reporters go on the street to talk to the average anti-war person and try to get them to explain why they're anti-war. You think that some of the opinions on HERE are backed up by shaky facts/reasoning? Oh dear lord you should see some of these people.

[GNEP]

That's the same whenever they do vox-pops on the news. You just end up thinking "My GOD! Is this country really that STUPID!"

[R.Carter]

Originally posted by Byock
IMO The UN can talk until they are blue in the face. Nothing they have done has changed anything. Saddam still follows his same course. Is there another option?

Sheesh. I just don't see what the hurry is myself.

I mean, if Saddam really had these weapons of mass destruction for what... more than 12 years now... whats the rush to attack him now?

The more cynical will say its because 9/11 made if convenient to gain world support for Resolution 1441 and the hunt for bin Laden isn't going all that well. (Have they found him yet?!?)

I just don't understand why we can't we simply wait for the U.N. Weapons Inspectors to finish their jobs properly or to give up since Saddam isn't cooperating enough. I mean the inspectors indicated would only take a couple of months.

Of course fighting a war in the summer in Iraq is bad for the troops...

Instead, the US seems to want to attack them as soon as possible.

Yet the US has yet to provide any real compelling evidence or justification for the attack. A lot of the evidence that has been publically disclosed by US and Britan has been shown to be rather weak or wrong.

Yet the US keeps saying that he has them and yet, for some reason, the UN weapons inspectors can't seem to find any. The US and Britian have shared their info. with the weapons inspectors right?

It's not like Iraq is an immediate threat to anyone in the region or has launched an attack on the US or Britian. If it was then everyone would agree that war is justified.

That's all that those opposed to the war in Iraq want if for the US to make their case. They haven't and so many feel the war isn't justified.

It's not that the rest of the world likes Saddam or doesn't want to see him go or appese him. Rather they just don't feel that other countries should be able to just go around and changing regeims simply because they can.

It's unfortunate, but he just hasn't done anything bad lately!

This kind of think also sets a bad precedent. I mean we have Libya, Cuba, Iran, Syria and North Korean. All of these coutries are on the axis of evil and most likely have weapons of mass destruction or secret weapons of mass destruction programs. All hate America and it's allies.

So is a preemptive stike against these coutries any less warranted then the one planned against Iraq?

What the US is doing is like vigilante justice. They are using "The ends justify the means" argument.

And they are trying hard to link Iraq to 9/11 to gain public support for the unsanctioned attack. This expoltation of 9/11 to gain support for the war seems a tad callous to me but I guess its working.

Of course, the US better find some weapons of mass destruction or they'll look really stupid. I mean, wouldn't it suck if Saddam has actually gotten rid of them!

Hopefully the US has planned for that contingency.

Hey, what ever happened to Dick Cheney?

And remember kids... "War is Peace"!

[Wombat]

Originally posted by R.Carter
Sheesh. I just don't see what the hurry is myself.

I mean, if Saddam really had these weapons of mass destruction for what... more than 12 years now... whats the rush to attack him now?

So just because he's been doing wrong for 12 years, we should never put him on the spot?

The more cynical will say its because 9/11 made if convenient to gain world support for Resolution 1441 and the hunt for bin Laden isn't going all that well. (Have they found him yet?!?)

Newsflash: Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions before 1441 was even written. As for bin Laden, yes, they're looking for him, but you seem to have forgotten the arrest of his #1.

I just don't understand why we can't we simply wait for the U.N. Weapons Inspectors to finish their jobs properly or to give up since Saddam isn't cooperating enough. I mean the inspectors indicated would only take a couple of months.

The inspectors' job would NEVER have been finished. Iraq just kept building better hiding places. The inspectors were spied on and delayed constantly (and the last time there were inspectors they were simply kicked out). The interviewing of scientists who have been issued death certificates, and are bugged, aren't worth a damn. Iraq made sure the inspectors were worthless.

Of course fighting a war in the summer in Iraq is bad for the troops...

No, fighting a war in the summer is good for the troops. The high sun and heat <B>drastically</B> reduces the effectiveness of most chemical and bioagents.

Instead, the US seems to want to attack them as soon as possible.

Iraq's war machine has been in motion. SCUDs have been deployed over the weekend, etc. You're right, we should wait until they have all their defenses up and start firing on Israel.

Yet the US has yet to provide any real compelling evidence or justification for the attack. A lot of the evidence that has been publically disclosed by US and Britan has been shown to be rather weak or wrong.

Like the missiles people keep stumbling across, and the test ranges?

Yet the US keeps saying that he has them and yet, for some reason, the UN weapons inspectors can't seem to find any. The US and Britian have shared their info. with the weapons inspectors right?

Hell no. The inspectors are worthless. Telling the inspectors would just tell Iraq what we knew. The inspectors are completely bugged, and the last time the inspectors were in Iraq, it was proven that the French were feeding the information to Iraq.

It's not like Iraq is an immediate threat to anyone in the region or has launched an attack on the US or Britian. If it was then everyone would agree that war is justified.

So they can just keep building up, and funding other efforts indefinitely?

It's unfortunate, but he just hasn't done anything bad lately!

This kind of think also sets a bad precedent. I mean we have Libya, Cuba, Iran, Syria and North Korean. All of these coutries are on the axis of evil and most likely have weapons of mass destruction or secret weapons of mass destruction programs. All hate America and it's allies.

They do? No, their leaders do. Iran is embracing Western ideas rapidly, and their "secret" weapons plants have been in the news recently.

So is a preemptive stike against these coutries any less warranted then the one planned against Iraq?

Yep. So far, these countries haven't invaded anyone else recently, nor threatened to, nor pissed on the UN.

What the US is doing is like vigilante justice. They are using "The ends justify the means" argument.

No, we're using the same reasoning that got us involved in World War I. You're welcome.

Of course, the US better find some weapons of mass destruction or they'll look really stupid. I mean, wouldn't it suck if Saddam has actually gotten rid of them!

If he'd gotten rid of them, it should be documented in the report. It's not.

Hopefully the US has planned for that contingency.

I doubt it. It's more likely that Santa Claus is a drag queen.

[Wulfman]

Iraq's war machine has been in motion. SCUDs have been deployed over the weekend, etc. You're right, we should wait until they have all their defenses up and start firing on Israel.

erm... other nations were doing this over there for months. what do you expect they should do?

you are mentioning iran again - I invested some time (like you suggested ) and cannot follow you now. are we talking about the same iran? the one who is rumoured to get nuclear weapons ready within months? the one who is part of the "axis of evil"? the one with the "split government" (partly supporting the war, partly being boosted towards confrontation by a general anti-american-mood coming from the shiites)?

mfg
wulfman

[RedRed]

Wombat

You were wrong on French participation - and you are wrong on this. Sorry, but trite one-liners are NOT a valid response to issues with the gravity of the issues we are looking at. At least 10,000 TEN THOUSAND people are going to be killed - and that is civillian estimates - when this starts. Some battlefield mutions (even Chemical or Biologicals) do NOT constitute Weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION, as defined earlier.... That is, at BEST what saddams has left. It STILL doesnt justify killing so many innocents.....

RedRed