Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: cahult on 30 May 2004, 19:05
-
This comes from Denmark:
http://macnyt.dk/gallery/images/picUploads/10858719183068593.jpg (http://macnyt.dk/gallery/images/picUploads/10858719183068593.jpg)
Good one, eh?
-
Looks more professional than the other one.
-
Actually the story behind Iraq's real new flag is quite funny (and sad at the same time). They had a contest where everyone in Iraq could send in a design. Only 30 people out of 5 million made on. The one that got selected had the same colors as Israel's flag, instead of the traditional green color that all the middle eastern countries have since green represents Islam. Whoever designed that flag is a douchebag, but I'm curious about who was in charge of selecting a winner. Was it an Iraqi or was it BushCo?
The second question I have is why did they need a new flag at all? Change of leadership shouldn't mean new flag. I like to think that if we had a revolution in this country and overthrew the Republicrats one day, we'd keep the flag and anthem we have now.
-
This is what it looks like:
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/04/27/iraq.flag.ap/story.iraq.flag.jpg)
-
That's the ugliest flag I've ever seen. They might as well keep the white background and scrap the rest; at least they would be honest about it.
-
It looks like it was made by a kindigarden class.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin9:
It looks like it was made by a kindigarden class.
agree, what the hell is that?? that's one ugly start to anything good i'll tell ya that...
-
It doesn't matter what the new flag looks like. The Iraqies won't accept it!
The fact is the puppet coucil wanted a new flag, so in answering the question. Yes, bush n'co was the ones changing the flag.
But seariously, if they are going to change the Iraqie flag. Why not change the U.S.'es as well since 'america' doesn't follow its own value system anymore.
(http://www.jewishworldreview.com/images/flag_american_nazi.jpg)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin9:
It looks like it was made by a kindigarden class.
Hehe, made by bushie himself
:D
-
quote:
Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
Hehe, made by bushie himself
:D
They probably laid out a big sheet of construction paper and let bush color it with crayola magic markers. :D
-
the old flag was really badass looking.
the new one is alright, but theres no reason to change the flag.
-
Well, this puppet flag will be used for their own coffins.
-
Because I have way too much time on my hands.
(http://erudition.calyptos.com/hosting/laukev7_iraq.gif)
-
I think (and hope) it will just get changed after 30th June.
-
LOL
(http://members.chello.nl/hf.wees/images/iraq_moon.png)
-
I kinda like it better than the old one.
-
Reminds you of something (http://www.theodora.com/flags/new/israel.gif), Quirk? :D
-
It's a countrie's flag, it's not supposed to be flashy or cool. They're meant to identify with the country it belongs to and be distinguishable from other countries, though you'll see trends of similar designs like Aus, US, UK and some European countries and their 3 colour bar sectioned flags.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron-V4.0:
It's a countrie's flag, it's not supposed to be flashy or cool. They're meant to identify with the country it belongs to and be distinguishable from other countries, though you'll see trends of similar designs like Aus, US, UK and some European countries and their 3 colour bar sectioned flags.
Thats correct, so why change it?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
Reminds you of something (http://www.theodora.com/flags/new/israel.gif), Quirk? :D
It reminds me of nothing! What if this funny picture you send me?!
;)
I knew someone was going to make that remark!
-
Why change it?
It's their country and not ours, let them change what they want.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron-V4.0:
Why change it?
It's their country and not ours, let them change what they want.
Accept that its not them that are changing the flag.
But like you said and I quote.
quote:
It's their country and not ours,
So why are you(Meaning the U.S. Bush regime) changing it?
[ June 25, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
[ June 25, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
-
quote:
Posted by nearly everyone else:
Flag this, flag that.
Who cares what the flag is going to be. There are much more important things to worry about over there.
-
Warning for the intelligence impaired!
The text below does not represent my actual feelings, it's intended as humour.
So dont get your panties in a bind.
It's part of the US's "Democracy" package their selling to Iraq.
This country doesnt force democracy on other countries. It kicks a countries boss out of office and offers to sale them freedom and democracy, this usually involves changing the flag to display their "Newfound patriotism" and other things of that ilk.
So technically They (Meaning Iraq) changed the flag, but only because it was part of the Democracy package deal they bought into.
EDIT: Edited so people dont get confused....
Idiots.
[ June 26, 2004: Message edited by: Aaron-V4.0 ]
-
quote:
Aaron-V4.0: It's part of the US's "Democracy" package their selling to Iraq.
This country doesnt force democracy on other countries. It kicks a countries boss out of office and offers to sale them freedom and democracy, this usually involves changing the flag to display their "Newfound patriotism" and other things of that ilk.
So technically They (Meaning Iraq) changed the flag, but only because it was part of the Democracy package deal they bought into.
I think they changed the flag so that foreigners won't see Iraq as the Saddam country. Investors may be scared of if they saw the current Iraq flag.
The United States has every reason for Iraq to become a stable country, because of the oil. Yes, it sounds like a cliche but it's true.
Right now, investors like Chevron-Texaco and Royal Dutch Oil/Shell stay out of Iraq because of the ongoing killings in the region. And that's something that the Bush administration want the less. In a desparate attempt to get the world oil supply higher by "liberating" Iraq, they failed to see the consequences of the occupation of their troops.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Refalm:
I think they changed the flag so that foreigners won't see Iraq as the Saddam country.
Good point. Others should see Iraq as a different country now.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron-V4.0:
It's part of the US's "Democracy" package their selling to Iraq.
Oh yea, that "democracy" package. The same package that has killed innocent people and left the whole country in complete waste.
quote:
This country doesnt force democracy on other countries.
Of course not. To do that you have to know what democracy is, your 'country' does not.
quote:
It kicks a countries boss out of offic
e and offers to sale them freedom and democracy,
Really, then why haven't you kicked out Bush?
and offers to sale them freedom and democracy,
Translation: Give us your oil or else!!!
quote:
this usually involves changing the flag to display their "Newfound patriotism" and other things of that ilk.
The why haven't you A.) Changed the U.S. Flag and B.) Kicked out Bush? Since its America that needs to be 'liberated' more than Iraq.
quote:
So technically They (Meaning Iraq) changed the flag, but only because it was part of the Democracy package deal they bought into.
So Iraq baught this "Democracy package deal."
So when I come over to your house, rape your children, kill your wife I can then take everything you own and call it mine since thats a "Democracy package" you bought into. Of course you bught that 'Democracy Package' when I saw you pull into your driveway with your shinny new car.
In order for democracy to work you first should know what it is. No its NOT invading other peoples countries, killing innocent people, establishing your own goverment and your own ownership and lastly YOU have no right to change the flag since you are the cause not the solution to the problem.
[ June 26, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Refalm:
I think they changed the flag so that foreigners won't see Iraq as the Saddam country.
Thats bull. Thats the same as seeing the american flag as Bush's country. everyone knows that presedents and leaders change.
If you are going to state such then why not change the U.S. flag when Bush is gone?
quote:
Investors may be scared of if they saw the current Iraq flag.
Well, investers ARE scared of america. Not because of the flag but because of your 'leader.'
Guess that means you should change your flag.
quote:
The United States has every reason for Iraq to become a stable country, because of the oil. Yes, it sounds like a cliche but it's true.
I'm not going to argue with that. It makes scense and is true. But, killing innocent people, just for oil?
quote:
Right now, investors like Chevron-Texaco and Royal Dutch Oil/Shell stay out of Iraq because of the ongoing killings in the region. And that's something that the Bush administration want the less. In a desparate attempt to get the world oil supply higher by "liberating" Iraq, they failed to see the consequences of the occupation of their troops.
Well that I agree with. But most of those buisnessess have done dealings with Saddam long before the invasion. Infact Iraq used to pump over 1 Million Barrels of oil into the market and was one of the most active members towards OPEC.
The only difference is that the puppet (saddam) had lost his strings and the U.S didn't like that. They could no longer control that oil. Thus they invaded and istablished a new puppet goverment. This time consisting with one all american and 5 or 6 puppets.
-
Arron:
Besides you stated::
quote:
It's a countrie's flag, it's not supposed to be flashy or cool. They're meant to identify with the country it belongs to and be distinguishable from other countries, though you'll see trends of similar designs like Aus, US, UK and some European countries and their 3 colour bar sectioned flags.
So you ivaded a country, killed millions of people and recked everything that country stood for. So your answer is that because you are now the so called 'leaders' you are the only ones allowed to change the flag. Yet right there in your quote.
quote:
They're meant to identify with the country it belongs to and be
Well, since that country has nothing to do with the U.S. and no just because you invated it does not give you the right eather, why should you change the flag? Are you an Iraqie citizen? Do you live there?
Nope. I rest my case.
-
Why the hell did that need three seperate posts???
I'm inclined to delete them all.
Fix that shit up.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Tux:
Why the hell did that need three seperate posts???
I'm inclined to delete them all.
Fix that shit up.
Because i'm replying to seperate people and one added note.
Sorry if you can't get it.
[ June 26, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
-
My last post was intended as pure humour Solaris, get a grip man.
EDIT: I also added a warning so no other people of Solaris's IQ get confused.
[ June 26, 2004: Message edited by: Aaron-V4.0 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron-V4.0:
My last post was intended as pure humour Solaris, get a grip man.
EDIT: I also added a warning so no other people of Solaris's IQ get confused.
[ June 26, 2004: Message edited by: Aaron-V4.0 ]
Well your first statment was
quote:
It's a countrie's flag, it's not supposed to be flashy or cool. They're meant to identify with the country it belongs to and be distinguishable from other countries, though you'll see trends of similar designs like Aus, US, UK and some European countries and their 3 colour bar sectioned flags.
Which was correct so I asked why change it?
you then responded with ::
quote:
Its their flag. So they can do whatever they want.
I responed that you are correct that it is their flag and they can change it so why are the americans changing it and not leaving it alone?
Then you responed
quote:
It's part of the US's "Democracy" package their selling to Iraq.
This country doesnt force democracy on other countries. It kicks a countries boss out of office and offers to sale them freedom and democracy, this usually involves changing the flag to display their "Newfound patriotism" and other things of that ilk.
So technically They (Meaning Iraq) changed the flag, but only because it was part of the Democracy package deal they bought into.
So I asked you a searious question after your searious statment then you responded with an answer that was meant to be a 'joke' and not a serious answer.
Yea. You really are thick headed if you can't even follow your own conversation that you started with the first statment.
:rolleyes:
[ June 26, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
[ June 26, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
-
Like I said, it was meant as a joke.
Though I understand that most people dont know me enough to understand so I apologise for not making myself clearer.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron-V4.0:
Like I said, it was meant as a joke.
Though I understand that most people dont know me enough to understand so I apologise for not making myself clearer.
Yea, I guess this conversation is getting out of hand. I apologise for gettong over heated
:D
Well in any case, like Paladin9 said. The flag may be important but its not compared to what is happening in the reagon now.
(http://tongue.gif) (http://smile.gif)
-
How about making Bush the new president of Iraq? Then ho could not run for re-election.
-
All this talk about Iraq and so on got me thinking of what somebdoy said to me right after the Soviet Union ended its existence in 1991: Now that the Soviet Union is gone the only communistic country that
-
quote:
Now that the Soviet Union is gone the only communistic country that
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
What does that mean?
THAT COMMIES ARE EVIL AND TEH UNITED STATES IS TEH NEXT EVIL EMPIRE!!!!111111
-
quote:
So you invaded a country, killed millions of people and recked everything that country stood for.
Seriously man, you need to stop saying "killed millions of people." It didn't happen. It was thousands. It's still killing, but using "millions" tends to make people think of Hitler, who did much worse than Bush could ever pull off. Don't mislead.
Also, many of the Iraqis that have been killed were killed by the bombers over there who seek to kill Americans. Makes me think that they don't care any more than we do.
And finally, what you mean by "recked anything they stood for?" Iraq stood for a maniacal dictator who kept everybody scared and poor by killing all opposition and stealing all oil money for himself. Not a great argument. (http://redface.gif)
-
quote:
And finally, what you mean by "recked anything they stood for?" Iraq stood for a maniacal dictator who kept everybody scared and poor by killing all opposition and stealing all oil money for himself. Not a great argument.
Exactly. They didn't wreck any of that - they preserved it all nicely. They even managed to keep the torture and everything.
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
Seriously man, you need to stop saying "killed millions of people." It didn't happen. It was thousands. It's still killing, but using "millions" tends to make people think of Hitler, who did much worse than Bush could ever pull off. Don't mislead.
Whats to mislead? He has killed millions and yes as bush'es goverment goes, he is hitler.Just without the brains But whether it be millions or thousands its still genocide . Its obviuous.
http://civilians.info/iraq/ (http://civilians.info/iraq/)
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)
http://www.occupationwatch.org/ (http://www.occupationwatch.org/)
It does sicken me that you deny this, expecialy when the damage is so brutaly obvious.
quote:
Also, many of the Iraqis that have been killed were killed by the bombers over there who seek to kill Americans. Makes me think that they don't care any more than we do.
Well, no. Most of those civilian casulties were caused by the air raids of Falloojeh by use of those "smart bombs.". Not to mention the continuation of 'raids' into peoples homes by those americans and the distruction they have caused. All those that 'seek to kill americans' are simply defeinding their home.
quote:
And finally, what you mean by "recked anything they stood for?" Iraq stood for a maniacal dictator who kept everybody scared and poor by killing all opposition and stealing all oil money for himself. Not a great argument. (http://redface.gif) [/qb]
They had history, musims, schools, universities, hospitals, shopping marts, peace and even order order. Thats with the 10 year sanctions the U.S impossed on Iraq. Kept every one scared and poor Nope that was the U.S. sanctions and as far as killing all opposition. Well other than the americans he did a great job at keeping Al-Quida out.
stealing oil and money. Well sadam may not be a great guy. Infact he really isn't no better than the other puppets that sit on the concel now. But regardless he ain't no bush!
Your right though its "Not a great argument." expaecialy the ruin of iraq is americas fault.
(http://redface.gif) (http://graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
[ June 29, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
[ June 29, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
[ June 29, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
Edit: Fixed the boldness.
Tux 18:20 GMT
[ June 30, 2004: Message edited by: Tux ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Paladin9:
How about making Bush the new president of Iraq? Then ho could not run for re-election.
great, thats all the Iraqie people need. A hateful dictator that is completly mad!
(http://graemlins/thumbsdown.gif)
-
its just to hard to look at. clutters up your brain.
-
quote:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
quote:
Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min Max
9451 11333
...Yet you continue to say that millions are dead.
quote:
But whether it be millions or thousands its still genocide . Its obviuous.
quote:
gen
-
quote:
quote:http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
quote:Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min Max
9451 11333
...Yet you continue to say that millions are dead.
Yep. I'd say thats an estimate. There are also many that are unaccounted for as well. So yes millions. But even then. Whether it be millions or thousands its still wrong!
quote:
quote:gen
-
quote:
Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
To deny this is far worse. If you deny this then yes you deny the holocost. Because the more exuses you make up the more you could easily take those exuses and put it towards WWII! There is a definnete reason why Hitler has wrong as it is today, there is a definnite reason why bush is wrong.
whats the difference between that statement saying that if you support bush you're a nazi and anyone against the war is a terrorist?
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Stiller:
whats the difference between that statement saying that if you support bush you're a nazi and anyone against the war is a terrorist?
Because bush and hitler are the ones that are actually killing people with the same exuses.
I really don't understand. If a murderer was to kill one person then that is a cause to punnish him/her but if a leader does it, then its fine?
Or to put it this way. If a leader of a nother country kills a few people he is called a facist dictaor but if the U.S. does the same thing then its not?
[ June 30, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
Because bush and hitler are the ones that are actually killing people with the same exuses.
oh so its okay to call people nazis?
here is my impression of what you're saying, "if you support bush you're a nazi"
but then you say its wrong that bush says, "if you dont support the war you're a terrorist"
and by the way, he didn't say you were a terrorist for not supporting the war. new polls are saying more than half the us thinks we shouldn't have been in iraq. if he did he would alienate the half the people here and lose at least half the possible votes.
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Stiller:
oh so its okay to call people nazis?
here is my impression of what you're saying, "if you support bush you're a nazi"
That is what YOU are saying.
That is NOT what I am saying. People who support Hitler are Nazi's people who follow hitlers ideals and value system are Nazi's.
Why because That is what hitler's intention was. To bring up people that believe in Nazism and follow his principles.
We know this because of the course of history. We know what a 'Nazi' is and does. Just by what theuy had done throught history.
Again we have a goverment that is following that principle and value system. Creating that exact attmoshere and we have the same followers. Because all of this has already happend there is now a fundamental definnition to go by. The main reason for the definnition is in fact that they have both created chaos by that of fear using the same techniques.
quote:
but then you say its wrong that bush says, "if you dont support the war you're a terrorist"
Yes. This is because bush, like hitler is the instigator of this war. He is the cause. There is anough evedence on this now.
Do not think for a second I'm just throwing this definition around. It is being used properly! Unlike the word 'terrorism.' Which used to mean any goverment and/or people that puts fear into ordinary people.
5. Definition of Nazism (begginers)
Nazism derives its name from the German initials for the Nazionalsozialist party (National Socialist), and the Nationalsozialismus ideology.
It should be pointed at this stage, that despite it
-
wow you're completely right about everything i guess we can just quite this pointless arguing.
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Stiller:
wow you're completely right about everything i guess we can just quite this pointless arguing.
It is idiotic to 'argue' or 'debate' when evedence already proves what really is there. You cannot deny that.
Its like when we point out stuff about windows. Why is this site here? And why do we make a passionate argument out of it?
Because by the very fact that we have that evedence that contradicts what the 'pro' m$ advocate might feel. This because of our very experiance with m$ and other Os'es and the histry that OS has followed.
And thats to do with a software company! Now we are talking about a goverment that really is causing problems!
-
quote:
Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
It is idiotic to 'argue' or 'debate' when evedence already proves what really is there. You cannot deny that.
Its like when we point out stuff about windows. Why is this site here? And why do we make a passionate argument out of it?
Because by the very fact that we have that evedence that contradicts what the 'pro' m$ advocate might feel. This because of our very experiance with m$ and other Os'es and the histry that OS has followed.
And thats to do with a software company! Now we are talking about a goverment that really is causing problems!
what the fuck i said you win. asshole
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Stiller:
what the fuck i said you win. asshole
ok ok....
-
quote:
Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
Thats bull. Thats the same as seeing the american flag as Bush's country. everyone knows that presedents and leaders change.
It's a bit different in Iraq's case. I don't know if it has been mentioned in this thread yet or not, but the fancy Arabic lettering on the flag is actually "Allah Akbar" in Saddam's handwriting.
So changing a flag was in order. You don't remove a leader with force from a country and then allow his mark to stay on one of the greatest treasures of a country!
Of course, simply removing that text or possibly using generic lettering would have made more sense, but we aren't in Iraq for being rational.
Edit: I just read everything you wrote, Solaris. Jesus Christ.
Edit #2: Solaris, that was a really silly bunch of posts. If you were to post them all in one single post, sans the screwed up formatting, I will gladly reply to all your posts.
[ July 03, 2004: Message edited by: TheQuirk: I Just Want Attention ]
[ July 05, 2004: Message edited by: TheQuirk: I Just Want Attention ]
-
^^^
Edit: or if you don't feel like it, I'll respond to the next thread that's going to have the same discussion in a week or so. (One always pops up...)
[ July 06, 2004: Message edited by: TheQuirk: I Just Want Attention ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by TheQuirk: I Just Want Attention:
[QB]
It's a bit different in Iraq's case.
Yep, one was for oil the other was for ethnic clensing. One defined it the other followed.
quote:
I don't know if it has been mentioned in this thread yet or not, but the fancy Arabic lettering on the flag is actually "Allah Akbar" in Saddam's handwriting.
So why couldn't the people of Iraq choose to change it of it offended them. Obviously the american flag was made to represent the many states joined together under truth and freadom but that flag is everything opposit to what that country holds dear. So I guess america should change its flag as well!
quote:
So changing a flag was in order.
If by following that standard then like I said before, a change in the american flag is in order as well.
quote:
You don't remove a leader with force from a country
No you don't thats one VERY big reason NOT to do it!
quote:
and then allow his mark to stay on one of the greatest treasures of a country!
Or to ruin it by stainning his own adgenda and his own values onto it. The U.S. flag means the deaths of many. So, yep you got to change it!
But seariously. Nobody is going expect america to change its flag simply because Bush has dirtied it. If you the americans want it changed then that is your choice. Its definnatly not Mine or any other countries choice. Likewize its not the choice of americans to choose the Iraqie flag.
quote:
Of course, simply removing that text or possibly using generic lettering would have made more sense,
If the Iraqies wanted it changed in the first place.
quote:
but we aren't in Iraq for being rational.
Nope. your not.
quote:
Edit: I just read everything you wrote, Solaris. Jesus Christ.
ok.
quote:
Edit #2: Solaris, that was a really silly bunch of posts. If you were to post them all in one single post, sans the screwed up formatting, I will gladly reply to all your posts.
Its just easier for me to quote you then right what I think underneath it. Thats all, but maby I'll just use the @ symbol instead or something.
-
Before I address this: what's going on there is not ethical cleansing.
In the same light, the US did not kill millions of people.
If by "millions" you mean 2,000,000 people or more, then you're saying we killed every two people in twenty-five people. That's a 1:12.5 ratio. That's an average of 15.4 kills per soldier, assuming there are 130,000 soldiers, ALL in combact roles. In truth, there are cooks, engineers, drivers, etc. Even if you claim half of those kills are attributed to plane bombings, then that's still 7.7 kills/soldier, which is ridiculous--especially when it's done "silently," with no one knowing about it (except for you, obviously).
Case in point: what the Janjaweed are (well, "were") doing--behind CLOSED COURTAINS, in a country no one actually pays all that much attention to, has been uncovered. You think no one would notice 2,000,000 dying all of a sudden, in a zone that's constantly in the news? Geeze.
-----------
I would reply to your post bit-by-bit if it wasn't that big of a pain, but since it is, I'll just give you my general view (which I think should mostly respond to what you're saying).
The Iraqi people did not ask the US to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. Whether they wanted the US to commit this or not is debatable, but not in this thread.
With this in mind, the next thing that the US did was invade Iraq--under multiple pretexts, including the removal of Saddam (oil isn't an official reason, so I won't include it). Be it (morally) right or wrong, this has already happened, and is irreversible.
Seeing as how the U.S forces are the liberators/invaders/freestyle rappers on tour, and are there to (supposedly, partially, whatever) remove Hussein from his reign of power, it's more than appropriate for them to change the flag to reflect that the state is no longer under Hussein's leadership. It might be morally wrong, but it's warranted for.
I'm not saying what happened is good or bad--all I'm saying is that this was part of the "deal," so to speak. What happened happened, and this is the next logical step. There's no protesting it--this action *has to take place*. Iraq, by itself, is in no shape to do such things. This is the cold, hard truth. The infastructure was destroyed (by the US). There is no census, and as such, an election can not take place. Including an election on a flag. The occupying forces and the UN are trying to fix this, but this will take time. Once a real government rises, they'll be free to change the flag, or whatever else they wish. This isn't the first time this has happened in history, and it won't be the last (Lukashenko and Belarus come to mind. Once he is outta there, it's pretty obvious the flag will revert itself to white-red-whire.)
To recap (I don't know if I made myself clear): What's done is done. The Iraqis (as a whole) are in no shape to do what they wish, but this is being fixed. Your demand of allowing the Iraqis to pick the flag is impossible, but is being worked on.
@@ Obviously the american flag was made to represent the many states joined together under truth and freadom but that flag is everything opposit to what that country holds dear. So I guess america should change its flag as well! @@
Totally different standard. The old Iraq flag represented Iraq and Saddam's rule. The new one represents Iraq. The US flag represents the US, and has no mark of any president. It's politically neutral, you could say.
-
quote:
Originally posted by TheQuirk: I Just Want Attention:
Before I address this: what's going on there is not ethical cleansing.
No its a theft of a natural reasourse that belongs to Iraq and not the U.S.
quote:
In the same light, the US did not kill millions of people.
Millions, thousands it doesn't matter its still wrong! Why are we even debating this. Its always coming up.
quote:
If by "millions" you mean 2,000,000 people or more, then you're saying we killed every two people in twenty-five people. That's a 1:12.5 ratio. That's an average of 15.4 kills per soldier, assuming there are 130,000 soldiers, ALL in combact roles. In truth, there are cooks, engineers, drivers, etc. Even if you claim half of those kills are attributed to plane bombings, then that's still 7.7 kills/soldier, which is ridiculous--especially when it's done "silently," with no one knowing about it (except for you, obviously).
I have posted the information SHOWING the U.S KILLING, HURTING and HUMILIATING Iraqi civilians.
Its not up to me if you ignore that information. The same people here that have that appathy might as well ignore the holocaust. Its the same exuses.
quote:
Case in point: what the Janjaweed are (well, "were") doing--behind CLOSED COURTAINS, in a country no one actually pays all that much attention to, has been uncovered. You think no one would notice 2,000,000 dying all of a sudden, in a zone that's constantly in the news? Geeze.
-----------
Geeze yourslef!
MOST of those 'militas' are made up of fathers and sons defending a country from occupation forces. It is in the news and on the internet, heck Moore has made a film. Lots of people HAVE noticed people dying in Iraq. Heck they knew before the invasion what would happen and because of this its a non argument. Its a non debate.
quote:
I would reply to your post bit-by-bit if it wasn't that big of a pain, but since it is, I'll just give you my general view (which I think should mostly respond to what you're saying).
Its a pain reading some of your replies. But hay i'm still going to respond
quote:
The Iraqi people did not ask the US to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. Whether they wanted the US to commit this or not is debatable, but not in this thread.
Then why even write that?
quote:
With this in mind, the next thing that the US did was invade Iraq--under multiple pretexts, including the removal of Saddam
Thats an exucse along with the WMD's with no proof and was NOT a viable reason.
quote:
(oil isn't an official reason, so I won't include it).
It is now that the information is so blaintently obvious.
quote:
Be it (morally) right or wrong, this has already happened, and is irreversible.
Yes I do agree. So why doesn't the occupation just leave. Ah yes can't leave without 'protecting U.S. interests.'
quote:
Seeing as how the U.S forces are the liberators/invaders/freestyle rappers on tour, and are there to (supposedly, partially, whatever) remove Hussein from his reign of power, it's more than appropriate for them to change the flag to reflect that the state is no longer under Hussein's leadership.
'Its more than appropriate' is it? They invaded. Killed innocent people, raveged the land and humiliated them as well so that makes it OK for them to change the flag.
So when Hitler ivaded, Poland, France and Germant it was ok for him to change the flags of their counrty? Simply because they were now under hitlers rule and the flag no longer represented those countries leaders and beliefs?
Get real! Oppressers and ivaders do not have the right for anything! Expecialy in this war and in this day and age where History and knowledge is abundant!
quote:
It might be morally wrong, but it's warranted for.
Yep, I can see that Nazi flag flying in Europe.
It was not just 'morally' wrong IT IS wrong and no it was not warrented for. Americans are NOT Iraqies.
quote:
I'm not saying what happened is good or bad--all I'm saying is that this was part of the "deal,"
What deal? The deal to have there reasources stolen from them. To replace on tyrant with another but only this time with more force? If thats a 'deal' then I can't wait till the U.S. gets the same 'deal.' Maby you'll finaly learn what others had to go through.
quote:
so to speak. What happened happened, and this is the next logical step.
Were talking about an invasion force that has the same motives as Nazi germany and your stating that this is a 'logical step.'
quote:
There's no protesting it--this action *has to take place*.
Thats right. A pile of sand in a country that can't even defend itself and the U.S. HAD to take 'action.'
Your right though. There is no protesting! This action SHOULD NEVER of taken place!
quote:
Iraq, by itself, is in no shape to do such things. This is the cold, hard truth.
Yep I bet not even the mighty U.S. couldn't turn around and slaughter themselves and pawn off all their natural reasources. It does take a savage to do all the plundering.
quote:
The infastructure was destroyed (by the US). There is no census, and as such, an election can not take place.
Of course not. It can never take place under a puppet council or goverment that is governed by a forren country.
quote:
Including an election on a flag.
Of course it can! Once that puppet council is removed and the occupation forces leave.
quote:
The occupying forces and the UN are trying to fix this,
When Iraq handed over their country to the people, you know what happend? Nothing. All that has happend is a few american heads left. The occupation force is STILL there and the puppet coucil IS STILL taking orders from a forren invader. So much for 'fixing the problem.'
quote:
but this will take time.
A wound will not heal so long as you are always opening it. Remove the occupation and the puppets and then a Iraq can finnaly repair itself!
quote:
Once a real government rises, they'll be free to change the flag, or whatever else they wish.
'Once a real goverment rises.' correct. but ether way its STILL Iraqies that can change the flag not the U.S.
quote:
This isn't the first time this has happened in history, and it won't be the last (Lukashenko and Belarus come to mind. Once he is outta there, it's pretty obvious the flag will revert itself to white-red-whire.)
And even in that instance shows it was not right! So shouldn't we have learn't from history that invasion isn't correct. It is proven that those that do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
quote:
To recap (I don't know if I made myself clear): What's done is done. The Iraqis (as a whole) are in no shape to do what they wish, but this is being fixed.
They were 'in shape' before the invasion. Thats even under saddam andf they will be in shape once the invaders of that country leave. But up untill then its still the Iraqie's decsion on what happens with the flag not the U.S. What the U.S. should do to fix the problem is leave.
quote:
Your demand of allowing the Iraqis to pick the flag is impossible, but is being worked on.
What demand. I simply stated who has rights on changing any flag. That would be the Iraqie people not the U.S.
Its also upto the people to choose their goverment and call their own elections.
All this can be done once the U.S. leaves and takes their mess with them.
quote:
Totally different standard. The old Iraq flag represented Iraq and Saddam's rule.
The new one represents Iraq. The US flag represents the US, and has no mark of any president. It's politically neutral, you could say.
For many Iraqies the old flag represented the country and not just saddam. As you yourself claim that the U.S. flag represents your country and is nutral to you even when bush has now changed the meaning of that flag!
For alot of people the U.S. flag means death and not freedom. So given that should an outside force invade your country and change your flag simply because to the invaders your flag represents bush?
-
Hello old chaps!
My, my, you seem like a very well informed fellow. Being the intelligent scholar that I'm sure you are, I hope you won't mind if I go through this post in your own coveted style of posting (but perhaps with better "grammer").
quote:
Of course not. To do that you have to know what democracy is, your 'country' does not.
What the US is currently "selling" to Iraq is the best thing they can give them. If we were to suddenly make Iraq a clone of the USA in terms of government and liberties, all hell would break loose, as if it hasn't already.
quote:
The why haven't you A.) Changed the U.S. Flag and B.) Kicked out Bush? Since its America that needs to be 'liberated' more than Iraq.
Hmm, while I don't disagree that Bush isn't the greatest President our country has ever known, and while I don't agree that we should've invaded Iraq, there is a rather large difference between Mr. Bush and Mr. Hussein. Mr. Bush hasn't indiscriminately killed Iranian civilians using chemical weapons (and although I don't speak from personal experience, I can't imagine that's a very nice way to die). Mr. Bush didn't control the media and the press. Mr. Bush is the product, albeit an unfortunate product, of a free society.
quote:
Well, investers ARE scared of america. Not because of the flag but because of your 'leader.'
Oh shit! It's America!
quote:
great, thats all the Iraqie people need. A hateful dictator that is completly mad!
Since you seem to be able to delve into the inner mind of our god-fearing President, perhaps you could tell us his favorite breakfast cereal.
quote:
Not when a war was not justified. People are getting killed because of the greed of the U.S.
Uh, whether or not the war was justified is a completely moot point. Shit happens. It's war. 'nuff said.
quote:
Are you an Iraqie?
Are you?
quote:
Yep, one was for oil the other was for ethnic clensing. One defined it the other followed.
How is what we're doing ethnic cleansing?
quote:
No its a theft of a natural reasourse that belongs to Iraq and not the U.S.
So it's first an ethnic cleansing, now it's not? By the way, what's a reasourse?
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: SheedRicolan ]
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: SheedRicolan ]
-
For the love of God, Solaris. Get the hint. Shut up. The reason I posted the first few lines (sans the genocide part) is because you always bring in the entire Iraq issue and anti-Americanism into EVERY SINGLE ONE of your replies, when you really shouldn't--not when debating something specific, like the modification of the flag.
This is basically what you're doing:
"Kittens."
"KITTENS?! YOU MEAN LIKE THE KITTENS THAT THE AMERICANS KILLED BY THE MILLION WHILE RAPING THE IRAQI WOMEN AND DINING WITH THEIR GOOD SILVERWARE?!"
Don't do this.
Your comparison to Nazi Germany is terrible, and makes no sense. The US has not a single trace of fascism in it, including the Nazi version of it (Nazim). Nor is it following Hitler's ideas. If you don't agree with me, read a book or two on the subject of Nazism and read Hitler's writings. You'll find that the US is far from any of that. If you read about WWII, you might also find that the US and Nazi Germany aren't all that similar.
The fact of the matter is, no matter how bad the invasion is, the United States is there under a certain set of pretexts--a set of pretexts it has to at least pretend to address. Get this through your thick skull. Even though the WMDs never existed (at least as far as we now), and even though the US forces probably know this, they are *still searching for them*. Even the US has enough tact to do this. Same with the flag. Although the U.S may have not even cared all that much about Saddam (relatively, of course), they still called him out and pretended they had to take him out. You don't do this and then not change the flag that carries his legacy.
Furthermore, you have to be extremely ignorant, extremely naive, or both, to think that the coalition can just pack up, leave, and let them do whatever. Here is a suprise: the American pigdog Devils (is that good enough?) destroyed the infastructure. A lot of the current Iraqi facilities are inadequate. Basic needs for running a democracy, like a census, are nonexistant. Fixing and setting up this sort of thing is time-consuming and hard. Never in history has such a thing been committed. Google the reconstruction of Japan to see a semi-like example (yes, yes, I know, the Americans didn't invade Japan for its precious rock and poki, but the situation was quite similar in what needs/needed to be accomplished).
quote:
For many Iraqies the old flag represented the country and not just saddam.
And since Saddam has now been removed, he should not (by the coalition's logic, which you really can't argue, because yours really isn't any better) have any mention in a national treasure. From a coalition supposed point-of-view, all he did either involved shooting rifles or gassing his own people. Remember?
quote:
As you yourself claim that the U.S. flag represents your country
The US is not my country.
quote:
and is nutral to you even when bush has now changed the meaning of that flag!
I don't think you understood what I meant. The flag represents no one in particular. It doesn't represent Nixon, it doesn't represent Clinton, nor does it represent Monica Lewinsky. It represents the U.S. If Bush's piss stains were to suddenly become an official part of the US flag, I would fully support changing it. I would do the same if it suddenly included Lincoln's beautiful sewing patterns.
quote:
For alot of people the U.S. flag means death and not freedom. So given that should an outside force invade your country and change your flag simply because to the invaders your flag represents bush?
Yeah, because that makes sense and that's exactly what happened. Remember during the latest presidential address Bush said he just couldn't STAND the Iraqi flag's colors, and that he was TOTALLY going to call the fasion police/Marine Corps?
Yeah, me neither. Alert the CNN.
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: TheQuirk: I Just Want Attention ]
-
quote:
Hello old chaps!
Hi
[/quote]
My, my, you seem like a very well informed fellow. Being the intelligent scholar that I'm sure you are, I hope you won't mind if I go through this post in your own coveted style of posting (but perhaps with better "grammer").
[/quote]
not at all go right ahead.
[quorte]
What the US is currently "selling" to Iraq is the best thing they can give them. If we were to suddenly make Iraq a clone of the USA in terms of government and liberties, all hell would break loose, as if it hasn't already.
[/quote]
Thats the problem here. People think that the U.S. is "selling" or giving them a "deal." Somthing that is completly stupid.
quote:
Hmm, while I don't disagree that Bush isn't the greatest President our country has ever known, and while I don't agree that we should've invaded Iraq, there is a rather large difference between Mr. Bush and Mr. Hussein. Mr. Bush hasn't indiscriminately killed Iranian civilians using chemical weapons (and although I don't speak from personal experience, I can't imagine that's a very nice way to die). Mr. Bush didn't control the media and the press. Mr. Bush is the product, albeit an unfortunate product, of a free society.
He gave the chemical weapons to Mr Hussain during that war. Also Iran had killed many Iraqi civilians during that time. Also during this war. Mr Bush has used such things as cluster bombs and the like that also do great damage!
quote:
quote:Well, investers ARE scared of america. Not because of the flag but because of your 'leader.'
Oh shit! It's America!
A free market cannot be run under a dictatorship.
quote:
quote:great, thats all the Iraqie people need. A hateful dictator that is completly mad!
Since you seem to be able to delve into the inner mind of our god-fearing President, perhaps you could tell us his favorite breakfast cereal.
Its easy to see that Bush hasn't got it all up staires if he made these stupid mistakes.
quote:
Uh, whether or not the war was justified is a completely moot point. Shit happens. It's war. 'nuff said.
I'm not disagreeing with you. That is true. But 'shit happens' is not good enough when someone life is distroied. Like I have said before there is Lots of knowledge and history to have learn't from. They (the U.S.) should of known better.
quote:
quote:Are you an Iraqie?
Are you?
No. But I have friends that are Iraqi and are living in Iraq. I am also half east indian and like wize have already experianced the predjudice and racism of this current U.S. regime. So yes I have experiance.
quote:
How is what we're doing ethnic cleansing?
MOTOVE! key word here. For hitler it was ethnic clensing. For bush its a resource. Its the motive to commit the crime.
.
quote:
So it's first an ethnic cleansing, now it's not? By the way, what's a reasourse?
I never said anything about ethnic cleansing. I did say he had killed millions of people. But numbers don't matter when murder is involved.
resoucre::
he field of resource economics includes the study of environmental economics, agricultural production and marketing, bioeconomics, community economic development, resource utilization, and environmental policy.
It has evolved as the idea of "natural resources" and "human resources" were challenged by the ideas of "natural capital" and "human capital" and is now hard to characterize as a separate field of its own. It was a major influence on the theory of Natural Capitalism and of eco-villages.
See also: green economists, environmental finance, sustainable development
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Resource_economics (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Resource_economics)
-
I know that numbers don't matter, Solaris, and that Bush has both directly and indirectly caused many deaths, but I doubt that the numbers amount to millions of deliberate murders. If you want to be taken seriously, you should stop exaggerating. Give some conservative estimates.
If you really think that Bush has caused millions of deaths, then you should show where you get your statistics, and how the deaths were caused by the Bush regime, directly or otherwise.
-
quote:
For the love of God, Solaris. Get the hint. Shut up.
Why, so that the U.S. can do all of what Nazis did but its the U.S. so its ok!
Nope!
If people like you can say well, the holocaust was evil but the U.S. has done nothing of the sort I will continue to correct you.
quote:
The reason I posted the first few lines (sans the genocide part) is because you always bring in the entire Iraq issue and anti-Americanism into EVERY SINGLE ONE of your replies, when you really shouldn't--not when debating something specific, like the modification of the flag.
What the hell? There is nothing 'anti-american' about it. If you are stupid enough to repeat history then you whine when people label you. Its VERY peecific! I have not brought this issue in EVRY SINGLE ONE OF MY REPLIES. I have posted already other tpoics as well as I have proven the topics that you have givin the caption of. If this whole bush thing upsets you that much stop posting it then.
How thick are you?
quote:
This is basically what you're doing:
"Kittens."
"KITTENS?! YOU MEAN LIKE THE KITTENS THAT THE AMERICANS KILLED BY THE MILLION WHILE RAPING THE IRAQI WOMEN AND DINING WITH THEIR GOOD SILVERWARE?!"
No you are doing that. Stop twisting things around. Its obvious in what is going on.
quote:
Don't do this.
Your comparison to Nazi Germany is terrible, and makes no sense.
How does it not? Ah yes, its america so its ok then.
quote:
The US has not a single trace of fascism in it, including the Nazi version of it (Nazim).
Bush has proven you wrong. No argument. There is enough knowledge out there.
quote:
Nor is it following Hitler's ideas.
The invasion of Iraq and Afganisitan, the cause of 9/11 and the U.S. patriot Act proves otherwize.
If you don't agree with me, read a book or two on the subject of Nazism and read Hitler's writings.
I have done. Thats why the definition fits. Whether YOU disagree with me or not you cannot change the hard facts of reality.
quote:
You'll find that the US is far from any of that. If you read about WWII, you might also find that the US and Nazi Germany aren't all that similar.
Other than the ethnic cleansing everything else IS the same.
quote:
The fact of the matter is, no matter how bad the invasion is, the United States is there under a certain set of pretexts--a set of pretexts it has to at least pretend to address.
Ah yes. For the U.S. its a set of 'pretext.' For germany it was not. Even though they have DONE THE SAME THING!
quote:
Get this through your thick skull.
Yes read that sentence GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!!!! you ARE guilty of doing the same things!!! Expecialy when you yourself DENY it!
quote:
Even though the WMDs never existed (at least as far as we now),
They DON'T it has been PROVEN ALREADY!!!
quote:
and even though the US forces probably know this,
THEY DO know this.
quote:
they are *still searching for them*.
Sure, if thats what you want to imagine. Hitler
quote:
Even the US has enough tact to do this. Same with the flag.
If they did have enough 'tact' to do this then by you hitler was right. After all he had enough 'tact' to say that poland, England and france etc... were threats to germany.
Nope! America has no rights in Iraq.
[qouote]
Although the U.S may have not even cared all that much about Saddam (relatively, of course),
They cared enouogh to give him power. To make him an exuse for their invasion.
quote:
they still called him out and pretended they had to take him out.
No saddam called the U.S. out. To discuss diplomaticaly and resolve the conflict. Bush said no.
quote:
You don't do this and then not change the flag that carries his legacy.
It does not carry just 'his legacy.' If discussed this already. No you still have no right to change the flag!
quote:
Furthermore, you have to be extremely ignorant, extremely naive, or both, to think that the coalition can just pack up, leave, and let them do whatever.
Furthermore, you have to be extremely ignorant, extremely naive, or both, to think that the occupation forces can continue to stay there and plunder everything insight while giving the exuse that its 'for the good of the people' when everything else proves otherwize! ITS NOT ignorant to say that they should leave. Expecialy when they wern't supposed to be there in the first place.
quote:
Here is a suprise: the American pigdog Devils (is that good enough?) destroyed the infastructure. A lot of the current Iraqi facilities are inadequate.
Maby but even AFTER the sanctions THAT YOU put on them they STILL served their purpose!
quote:
Basic needs for running a democracy, like a census, are nonexistant.
While you are there yes.
quote:
Fixing and setting up this sort of thing is time-consuming and hard.
Of course it is so why doesn' the occupation leave so the prossess can begin.
quote:
Never in history has such a thing been committed.
Yes it has Nazi germany was trying to set up what *it* thought was right. Surprise they failed too.
quote:
Google the reconstruction of Japan to see a semi-like example (yes, yes, I know, the Americans didn't invade Japan for its precious rock and poki, but the situation was quite similar in what needs/needed to be accomplished).
I will look it up when I have time.
quote:
And since Saddam has now been removed, he should not (by the coalition's logic, which you really can't argue, because yours really isn't any better) have any mention in a national treasure.
Yes saddam was removed but its up to THE IRAQIES to decide that. How many times have I repeated this?
And you call me 'thick skulled!'
quote:
From a coalition supposed point-of-view, all he did either involved shooting rifles or gassing his own people. Remember?
From an occupation point of view the opposit is always 'evil'. For Nazi jermany it was the jews that were 'evil.'
As for 'shooting rifles or gassing his own people.'
Do I have to remind you again that it was the U.S. that put him in power in the first place, that gave him those weapons and who told to attack Iran when all of a sudden they changed their mind!
Do I have to remind you that alot of people that were 'gassed' in iraq were related to Alqguida and other terroist organizations. Yes thats right Saddam never got along with alquida and the like. However bush is very buddy buddy with the bin ladins.
How about I remind you about the Iraq and Iran war where BOTH sides lost a number of people!
Seems you need alot to be rememberd of.
quote:
quote:As you yourself claim that the U.S. flag represents your country
The US is not my country.
Could explain your ignorance on the subject and why you are twisting words. A pro bushie would of mentioned the word 'liberal' or 'leftie' by now.
Also even the majotity americans know that all this is wrong. I guess they are all 'anti-american.'
quote:
I don't think you understood what I meant. The flag represents no one in particular.
Ot doesn't have to. It what that flag represents when that country does or has done something.
quote:
It doesn't represent Nixon, it doesn't represent Clinton, nor does it represent Monica Lewinsky.
It does. Maby not to you but it represents all those things. It represents not only the people but the values of the 'leaders' and their thoughts and opinions.
Even then what right does an outside force have on changing your flag. You Think its neutral but to outside forces its not. So does that mean an outside force can invade your country and change your flag?
quote:
It represents the U.S.
...and its leaders.
quote:
If Bush's piss stains were to suddenly become an official part of the US flag, I would fully support changing it.
Great, when are you going to change it?
quote:
I would do the same if it suddenly included Lincoln's beautiful sewing patterns.
Luckly it doesn't but when he rained office the flag represented him as well.
quote:
Yeah, because that makes sense and that's exactly what happened.
yep.
quote:
Remember during the latest presidential address Bush said he just couldn't STAND the Iraqi flag's colors, and that he was TOTALLY going to call the fasion police/Marine Corps?
He didn't have to. He invades a country, calls it his own by changing that flag.
quote:
Yeah, me neither. Alert the CNN.
So we have two things here. Your continuing imagination of me mentioning bush in every post and complain that I'm not spesific. Yet you are clouding this conversation with that assumption which has no grounds.
You think just because its the good ol' U.S of A thats trampling over people its not the same as Nazism.
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: TheQuirk: I Just Want Attention ]
-
Main Entry: fas
-
quote:
Has Bush declared publically that America is superior to everything else in the world? No.
If that includes declaring that the US is "the greatest country on Earth" then yes, of course he has.
-
quote:
Originally posted by SheedRicolan:
Main Entry: fas
-
Since you are not getting it i'll just post it again!
quote:
That is what YOU are saying.
That is NOT what I am saying. People who support Hitler are Nazi's people who follow hitlers ideals and value system are Nazi's.
Why because That is what hitler's intention was. To bring up people that believe in Nazism and follow his principles.
We know this because of the course of history. We know what a 'Nazi' is and does. Just by what theuy had done throught history.
Again we have a goverment that is following that principle and value system. Creating that exact attmoshere and we have the same followers. Because all of this has already happend there is now a fundamental definnition to go by. The main reason for the definnition is in fact that they have both created chaos by that of fear using the same techniques.
quote:
but then you say its wrong that bush says, "if you dont support the war you're a terrorist"
Yes. This is because bush, like hitler is the instigator of this war. He is the cause. There is anough evedence on this now.
Do not think for a second I'm just throwing this definition around. It is being used properly! Unlike the word 'terrorism.' Which used to mean any goverment and/or people that puts fear into ordinary people.
5. Definition of Nazism (begginers)
Nazism derives its name from the German initials for the Nazionalsozialist party (National Socialist), and the Nationalsozialismus ideology.
It should be pointed at this stage, that despite it
-
quote:
Do I have to remind you that alot of people that were 'gassed' in iraq were related to Alqguida and other terroist organizations.
Like the 180,000 Kurds? :confused:
Partial List of Saddam's Crimes (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070104/content/rush_is_right_2.guest.html)
quote:
He didn't have to. He invades a country, calls it his own by changing that flag.
changing flag = declaring country own? :confused:
quote:
nor has he made laws that say anyone who says "America sucks" will go to jail (but they'll probably go to hell anyway for being commies).
That was funny. :D
quote:
Has Bush declared publically that America is superior to everything else in the world? No.
Yes, the term "Bring it on!"
:confused:
quote:
Bush has made no laws saying that Muslims cannot practice in the US,
He has raided mosques and EVEN tried to register them!!!
And that stops them from practicing...how? :confused:
quote:
nor has he made laws that say he controls the television or print media,
He stated that aljazzera was 'causing terroism' yet CNN was not?
:confused:
If you can't see where I'm going here: Most of your counter-arguments are confusing and don't seem to make a real point, yet you attempt to pass them off as "obvious."
-
quote:
Partial List of Saddam's Crimes
I see Rush Limbaugh cites torture as one of the crimes committed under Saddam's regime. It's interesting that when Americans are doing the torture he passes it off as "emotional release" (http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo05082004.html).
-
quote:
Like the 180,000 Kurds?
During the time of the Iraq/Iran war, where BOTH sides lost lives.
quote:
Partial List of Saddam's Crimes
No doubt saddam was not a great guy but he's a puppet that did what the U.S. wanted him to do. The only time the U.S. had a beef with him when he himself stopped listing.
quote:
changing flag = declaring country own?
If your not a resedent or belong to that country then yes.
quote:
Yes, the term "Bring it on!"
[/quote]
Meaning he has stated many times that the U.S. IS better than everyone else. When people were suffering he said those words. Heck if Europ warned bush that this is the wrong direction then he simply ignored them. Calling them 'old europe.'
A 'patriotic pride' of the U.S is the might and strong!
quote:
quote:Bush has made no laws saying that Muslims cannot practice in the US,
He has raided mosques and EVEN tried to register them!!!
And that stops them from practicing...how?
He has raided mosques and EVEN tried to register them!!!
quote:
He stated that aljazzera was 'causing terroism' yet CNN was not?
The above post I was responding to said he did not control the media. He had band aljazeera yet because CNN is more friendly to bush it was fine to what cnn reported.
quote:
If you can't see where I'm going here: Most of your counter-arguments are confusing and don't seem to make a real point,
well I hope that helped a bit.
quote:
yet you attempt to pass them off as "obvious."
'obvious' meaning that I have reposted the definition of a nazi etc... the websites and even videos I have posted in and around this fourm that relates to this topic. I didn't feel the need to post the same links over and over again since it is already there... Also 'obvious' meaning that even some polititians and film makers that ARE american know this is very wrong and there is no exuses for it!
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
I see Rush Limbaugh cites torture as one of the crimes committed under Saddam's regime. It's interesting that when Americans are doing the torture he passes it off as "emotional release" (http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo05082004.html).
<tory>But, but, piling eyerakies into pyramids isn't torture, its just fer fun!!!!!!111</tory>
-
I also should point out that during the first uprising of saddam the U.S. instigated the citizens to go against him. When they did the U.S. didn't do anything but sat and watched all the people that believed in what the U.S. was saying get slaughtered!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
<tory>But, but, piling eyerakies into pyramids isn't torture, its just fer fun!!!!!!111</tory>
<tory> <- :D
-
Solaris, after reading a few of your replies, I have come to the conclusion that you're incapable of seeing things from a different point-of-view, and have an unbreakable (and incorrect) connection between US actions and Nazi Germany. You also lack basic understanding of what it takes to run a country and what it takes to reconstruct a country. Nor do you understand what a country has to do in a complicated position such as this one, and dismiss everything as imperialism. You also don't seem to understand that Iraq is not one big issue, but a large set of them. Being pro one thing doesn't make one pro-invasion, for example, something you obviously miss.
You also seem to be extremely arrogant with your name-calling, but that's a different topic altogether that I have no right or want to discuss.
quote:
Why, so that the U.S. can do all of what Nazis did but its the U.S. so its ok!
Hah. What you're doing is called "propoganda (http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.wg.name.html)." In actuality, the only similar thing between Nazi Germany and the US is that both participated in armed conflict with a different country over something that's not respectable. By your logic, every war is an action compareable to Nazi Germany.
quote:
Nope!
If people like you can say well, the holocaust was evil but the U.S. has done nothing of the sort I will continue to correct you.
Correct me over what? (This is rhetorical, so don't get your panties in a knot.) You seem to be extremely lacking in knowledge of WWII. The "holocaust" describes (in modern days, the phrase has actually been changed since WWII) systematic ethnic cleansing. Are you telling me the US is committing ethnic cleansing? I think we both agreed it was not.
quote:
What the hell? There is nothing 'anti-american' about it. If you are stupid enough to repeat history then you whine when people label you.
I may have been a bit overboard when I said your statements were anti-American. Sorry, I'm used to replying to people who immediately assume Bush's actions represent America's people and ideals. Sorry about that.
Unfortunately, I don't see how I'm (?) repeating history. And what's this about me whining about being labeled? What what what? Try not to be so vague.
quote:
ts VERY peecific! I have not brought this issue in EVRY SINGLE ONE OF MY REPLIES.
I'm talking about the replies in this thread.
quote:
I have posted already other tpoics as well as I have proven the topics that you have givin the caption of. If this whole bush thing upsets you that much stop posting it then.
Don't mix-and-match different topics please. Read the reply in the other thread if you haven't already done so.
quote:
How thick are you?
A cheap troll on your part, Solaris.
quote:
No you are doing that. Stop twisting things around. Its obvious in what is going on.
Ha. I'm not doing that at all! Although, if you look at your replies in this thread (I guess I'm going to have to be extremely specific with you), you'll notice an enormous majority of your sentence responses have to do with Iraq and outrage that doesn't actually have anything to do with the topic at hand, and are responses to things that are out-of-context. Speaking of twisting things around, eh? Once more, this doesn't actually have to do with this, we're just creating more arguments when we're not done with the first one. Save it for another time, all right? Also, what's going on? It's not so obvious to everyone else.
quote:
How does it not? Ah yes, its america so its ok then.
It's cool how you can reply with a snappy comeback like that without even taking into account the arguments. Bravo.
quote:
Bush has proven you wrong. No argument. There is enough knowledge out there.
If anything, Bush has proven me *right*. His stances against socialism or anything that reeks anything other than cut-throat capitalism are wack, so to speak. You need to brush up on the definitions of fascism and Nazism. Take a look at dictionary.com--I believe this isn't the first time I have to correct you on the difference between a word's definition and its stigma. (I believe the word was "dictator," but don't quote me on that. It was a long time ago.) Look at the propaganda link I posted earlier. It often applies to your posts--maybe on purpose, maybe not. I'm waging not, just because.
quote:
The invasion of Iraq and Afganisitan, the cause of 9/11 and the U.S. patriot Act proves otherwize.
The difference is that the cause of 9/11 (assuming you mean it was staged or something along those lines) is currently not a fact, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are under completely different pretexts (Hitler's reasons were sharp "NEED LIVING SPACE FOR THE MASTER ARYAN" sort of things, America's being oil, if you follow the common line of thought). If you'd like to learn more about Hitler's ideas, I suggest you begin reading Mein Kampf. From what I've read so far,it's quite a shocker.
quote:
I have done. Thats why the definition fits. Whether YOU disagree with me or not you cannot change the hard facts of reality.
The problem here is that it doesn't sound like you have. Look up "Nazism" in dictionary.com. Can you honestly tell me the US operates under "racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy?" ("National expansion" does not apply because in the US' case, it's not national, and it's not permanent.)
quote:
Other than the ethnic cleansing everything else IS the same.
Almost everything is different, right down to the causes, economic conditions, interests, operation, military operation, and ideals. One of the few parallels would be blind patriotism (well, in Germany, it was a combination of blind nationalism and blind patriotism)--this is a trait that's common in a large amount of countries, though. Pre-WWI France was full of that sort of thing, for example.
quote:
Ah yes. For the U.S. its a set of 'pretext.' For germany it was not. Even though they have DONE THE SAME THING!
Well, Germany had a set of pretexts as well. Every country does, to justify unjust military action to its population. As I said before, though, Nazi Germany and the US are completely different.
quote:
Yes read that sentence GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!!!! you ARE guilty of doing the same things!!! Expecialy when you yourself DENY it!
Sorry, that makes no sense. At all. This is what I'm saying, and what you're not understanding: I do not agree with the invasion. I think that the whole idea of invading Iraq was stupid, especially for the reasons given. HOWEVER, I understand that because this has happened anyway, the US must at least pretend (PRE-TEND--a key word in this post and my previous one) to be following through with its goals. It's just a dirty fact of live. Understand this: we are in the same camp. Both of us oppose the war--it's just that you are blindly plunging to the conclusion that the US simply must leave immediatly, no questions asked, and must not do a single thing there, and I think that if we're there, the US must at least justify its actions and fix what it has broken (Iraq, that is).
quote:
They DON'T it has been PROVEN ALREADY!!!
And I agree. Did I say I didn't? Stop being so angry. It's just that if WMDs are suddenly found, and are proven to be WMDs, I will say "well, I guess I was wrong and there were WMDs."
It's kinda like how most people didn't belive the earth was round, until one day, it was proven. Except in reverse. Err... Kind of a silly analogy, but it makes enough sense. Understand?
quote:
THEY DO know this.
I'll roll with that, as long as you realize you actually don't know this for a fact. As long as you're not a general and haven't seen a paper that said "no WMDs exist," I will take that as something that's very probable, but not 100% sure.
quote:
Sure, if thats what you want to imagine. Hitler
If that's what "I want to imagine?" Example: the Polish uncovered a dozen of missiles they suspected were WMDs. They were not. Still, they were out looking for them. Even sources like Al-Jazeera confirm this.
Also, don't you ever fucking dare call me that ever again. My entire family has been involved in WWII, an enormous number of people in my family were killed (I'm half Jewish), and my grandfather was one of the first Russians to step into Germany. You are nothing but a troll. Should have realized it earlier.
quote:
If they did have enough 'tact' to do this then by you hitler was right. After all he had enough 'tact' to say that poland, England and france etc... were threats to germany.
Nope! America has no rights in Iraq.
Irrelevant. France and England both declared war on Germany before a single German stepped into either country.
The invasion of Iraq has been purely economic, concealed behind a curtain of liberation, democracy, etc. etc. Helping out Iraq, rebuilding Iraq, and improving the quality of life is an obligation that comes along with our intentions.
On the other hand, the invasion of Poland was a crooked act that is in no way compareable to Iraq. Germany did not invade with the intentions of later pulling out. It invaded to create "living space" for the Germans. Polish life was not improved. Poland had a large amount of population killed (I'm not talking about a number like 3,000, which is also terrible, but not even close to what happened there). The Poles themselves were treated as sub-human.
You could compare the invasion of Iraq to, let's say, the Commodore Matthew Perry and what he did in Japan, on a grander scale. It's pretty bad, but miles away from being as bad as what Nazi Germany did.
quote:
They cared enouogh to give him power. To make him an exuse for their invasion.
That's bull. Up until 1979, the United States was pro-Iran, and anti-Iraq. This was due to the pro-Western dictatorship in Iraq. In 1979, there was a coup, and Islamic fundamentalists took power. The pro-Western view was suddenly turned 180 degrees. Saddam began his journey to the top using the Baath party back in 1963, was then jailed when the government collapsed, and then freed when in 1968, the Baath party took control once more. He was then able to earn himself a seat in the Iraqi Council, or whatever it was called at the time. Coinsidently, in 1979, Iraq's president of twenty-something years stepped down because of his health. Saddam was his "vice president," so to speak, and assumed power. Iran, being a Shite, angered Iraq by trying to instigate a revolution in Sunni Iraq. Thus started the 1980 war between Iraq and Iran. Only at this point did the US decide to be buddy-buddy with Iraq (and partially with Iran--America did some baaaad things during that war), it being more friendly to the Western world, and fighting Iran--something that could, at the time, benefit America and the Western world at large. To understand the logic behind this, you must understand Cold War politics, which is extremely off topic. The point is that you're wrong.
quote:
No saddam called the U.S. out. To discuss diplomaticaly and resolve the conflict. Bush said no.
That's not the only definition of that phrase, but yes, that happened. And I don't think what Bush did was right.
quote:
It does not carry just 'his legacy.' If discussed this already. No you still have no right to change the flag!
Indeed, but it carries some of it. It is not right that the US changed it, but considering the fact that the US went in there saying they were "liberating" the Iraqi people and "removing Saddam from power," it seems like the proper thing to do with the American point of view. Are you with me?
quote:
Furthermore, you have to be extremely ignorant, extremely naive, or both, to think that the occupation forces can continue to stay there and plunder everything insight while giving the exuse that its 'for the good of the people' when everything else proves otherwize! ITS NOT ignorant to say that they should leave. Expecialy when they wern't supposed to be there in the first place.
Yes? All it does is plunder everything in sight? Silly you. If you mean oil, that's nearly impossible. Iraq can't pump as much oil and it could before, and it's not exactly being sold at rock-bottom prices. Gas prices here in the United States haven't dropped sharply by any means. On the contrary...
Also, I think you're forgetting all the improved facilities that are being constructed, the schools being opened, the operational clinics being opened up... Not that what the US did was right, but the US has to fix what the US broke. Indeed, the US wasn't supposed to invade, and as such, must leave. Agreed. But first, Iraq has to be fixed. Remember those bombs you were talking about? Well, they broke some stuff. Like powerplants. You think they'll fix themselves?
quote:
Maby but even AFTER the sanctions THAT YOU put on them they STILL served their purpose!
Heh. Please refrain from saying "YOU" when you mean the US. I don't represent the US, and I'm not a citizen. The sanctions were not decided on by the US, but rather by the UN, due to Iraq's failure to comply with the cease fire declared after the Gulf War. Whether or not the facilities "served their purpose" or not before the war is irrelavant--they're now destroyed, or are in need of repair.
quote:
While you are there yes.
How do you propose taking a census of 25,000,000 people without even having the basic tools to do so? And elections? How do you propse they accomplish that, without having any means of transporting the votes? How about the power plants--do you think that Iraq is in any shape to repair and add powerplants? They certainly can't afford it! And what about the destroyed infastructure? Do you think Iraq has the expertise, money, and equipment to rebuild it?
quote:
Of course it is so why doesn' the occupation leave so the prossess can begin.The process can't happen without the occupation, as you call it. Read my previous paragraph.
Yes it has Nazi germany was trying to set up what *it* thought was right. Surprise they failed too.
That's completely out of context. I was refering to the task or rebuilding a country's basic needs (roads, power, sewage, etc.). As I said, take a look at Japan's reconstruction.
I'm not going to even touch the Nazi comment, because I addressed it a few times already.
quote:
I will look it up when I have time.
Excellent. It's a neat topic and I wish you luck.
quote:
Yes saddam was removed but its up to THE IRAQIES to decide that. How many times have I repeated this?
And you call me 'thick skulled!'
All right, it's up to them. The US changed it because the US thought it was the proper thing to do. Evidently, it was morally not. Fortunately for the Iraqi people, they are able to change it already. If you think the current government is a puppet one (which it semi-is, of course), then they'll be able to change it once a new government is elected. Back to the census and infastructure issue, etc. etc.
quote:
From an occupation point of view the opposit is always 'evil'. For Nazi jermany it was the jews that were 'evil.'
That's a silly example. The US never said Iraq's people were evil, like the Nazis declared the Jews to be subhuman and the reason for all of Germany's problems.
The US decided to declare the leadership as evil, which actually wasn't too far off the mark. Are you saying he wasn't evil? That's objective, I suppose, but all the Iraqis I know (and I know a few), and their families (who are living in Iraq) dislike Saddam a whole lot. By the coalition's logic, Saddam is evil, they "liberated" (in their opinion) Iraq, and now they should remove all traces of him, because he is evil.
quote:
As for 'shooting rifles or gassing his own people.'
Do I have to remind you again that it was the U.S. that put him in power in the first place, that gave him those weapons and who told to attack Iran when all of a sudden they changed their mind!
Do I have to remind you that alot of people that were 'gassed' in iraq were related to Alqguida and other terroist organizations. Yes thats right Saddam never got along with alquida and the like. However bush is very buddy buddy with the bin ladins.
Seems you need alot to be rememberd of.
Seems like you need a history lesson, actually.
The bit about gassing and shooting rifles was a bit of sarcasm. No one in their right mind would assume he was only that. BUT! The US did NOT put him in his place. I explained this already. Also, the US did _not_ tell him to attack Iran. The US was never in a position to do so. Iraq attacked Iran on its own accord, and the US, realizing this, supplemented Iraq with weapons. Once more, Cold War politics. The US has a right to change its mind just as any other country or group of people has the right to. Bangladesh and Pakistan used to be one country and on extremely friendly terms. Now look at the situation! A country's foreign policy is always changing--especially in a democracy, where a new POV emerges every four to eight years.
Yes, you are totally right. Saddam indeed did gas lots of people, including members of Al Queda--but not only. Are you now defending Saddam? Well, post a new thread about that. I'll debate on that as well, but I'll that's all I'm going to say on the matter in this thread. As for the bin Ladins connection: indeed. That is true. What are you saying? Not all Bin Ladins are terrorists, you know.
quote:
How about I remind you about the Iraq and Iran war where BOTH sides lost a number of people!
(Taken from the previous quote.)
This is true. It was, after all, a war.
quote:
Could explain your ignorance on the subject and why you are twisting words. A pro bushie would of mentioned the word 'liberal' or 'leftie' by now.
My "ignorance" on the subject? Ha ha. Pot. Kettle. Black. And I'm not "twisting words." I'm not the one taking quotes out of context and what not.
quote:
Everything concerning the flag.
While it is true that the flag can and does represent the US leadership, it does not do this visually. The Iraqi flag represents Saddam. Visually. Fifty years down the road, one might look at the old Iraqi flag and ask, "who wrote that?" And the response will still be "Saddam Hussein." This is not the case with the US flag.
Also, because the US leadership changes on a regular basis, the connotation which you speak of will soon be gone. This is something that's impossible with the Iraqi flag.
quote:
He didn't have to. He invades a country, calls it his own by changing that flag.
The US and Bush never assumed Iraq to be their property. This is why the US plans on leaving, and this is why the US and the UN are working on implementing the needs for the democracy.
quote:
So we have two things here. Your continuing imagination of me mentioning bush in every post and complain that I'm not spesific. Yet you are clouding this conversation with that assumption which has no grounds.
You think just because its the good ol' U.S of A thats trampling over people its not the same as Nazism.
We have one thing here. This is one topic. The other one I already responded it, with the problem being miscommunication. Don't use your lack of understanding of the English language as an argument, because it's a really bad one. If anyone is clouding anything here, it would be you. You take one issue, then take another, and another, and then another, and assume they all mean the same thing. Everything I say _does_ have grounds. Reread out conversation.
I already explained to you what Nazism is, and how it is totally different from what the US is accomplishing. I will do so once more.
This is the definition of Nazism, taken straight from dictionary.com:
quote:
The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.
Not a single one of those things applies to the United States. You are clueless.
If I did not make myself clear: I oppose what we did to Iraq. This does not mean that I will stand idly and allow you to make silly claims.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
I see Rush Limbaugh cites torture as one of the crimes committed under Saddam's regime. It's interesting that when Americans are doing the torture he passes it off as "emotional release" (http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo05082004.html).
Saddam's torture included cutting off body parts...nowhere near the "torture" of taking pictures of naked dudes piled on each other in a prison. Humiliating, yes, of course. But not to Saddam's level.
-
quote:
Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
I also should point out that during the first uprising of saddam the U.S. instigated the citizens to go against him. When they did the U.S. didn't do anything but sat and watched all the people that believed in what the U.S. was saying get slaughtered!
Right on. Do you know why the first coalition didn't go into Bagdhad? Because all its Middle Eastern allies (not including Israel, of course) demanded that Iraq remains stable, so instability wouldn't occur in the region. This is also why the US was not able to help out the uprising.
-
One more, sorry:
quote:
He gave the chemical weapons to Mr Hussain during that war. Also Iran had killed many Iraqi civilians during that time. Also during this war. Mr Bush has used such things as cluster bombs and the like that also do great damage!
Bush was not a president between 1980 and 1989. Bush Sr. was elected in 1989, the year the conflict ended.
What are you talking about?
quote:
A free market cannot be run under a dictatorship.
Erm? A dictatorship _here_? That's not true.
-
quote:
Originally posted by TheQuirk: I Just Want Attention:
Right on. Do you know why the first coalition didn't go into Bagdhad? Because all its Middle Eastern allies (not including Israel, of course) demanded that Iraq remains stable, so instability wouldn't occur in the region. This is also why the US was not able to help out the uprising.
If that was the case then why on earth did the U.S. egged on the Iraqie people in the first place?
A few things the U.S. could do even now is, help build a goverment that the iraqies themselves can vote in and letting local people run in that election. Instead of putting up a puppet council made up of exsiles, ciminals or anyone that has a hand in the bush regime.
and to let local companies of iraq as well as all countries globaly, help build Iraq. This means also that the U.S. cannot state who can get what contract for what.
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
Saddam's torture included cutting off body parts...nowhere near the "torture" of taking pictures of naked dudes piled on each other in a prison. Humiliating, yes, of course. But not to Saddam's level.
It is when you are doing that humiliation in a sociaty where that is a lot more harmful than any toruture.
-
quote:
Bush was not a president between 1980 and 1989. Bush Sr. was elected in 1989, the year the conflict ended.
What are you talking about?
http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp (http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp)
http://baltimorechronicle.com/060404WarCrimes.shtml (http://baltimorechronicle.com/060404WarCrimes.shtml)
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&q=%22gulf+war%22+%2B%22bush+sr%22&btnG=Search&meta= (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&q=%22gulf+war%22+%2B%22bush+sr%22&btnG=Search&meta=)
quote:
Erm? A dictatorship _here_? That's not true.[/QB]
Your laws, values and attitude of your govement states otherwize
-
quote:
Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
It is when you are doing that humiliation in a sociaty where that is a lot more harmful than any toruture.
I don't understand. Can you re-word that? :confused:
Before I get criticized for that, I know the prison scandal was wrong. I want their (participating soldiers) heads in Futurama-like containers on a shelf in my room. But it wasn't as bad as some things that Saddam's people did.
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]
-
quote:
A few things the U.S. could do even now is, help build a goverment that the iraqies themselves can vote in and letting local people run in that election. Instead of putting up a puppet council made up of exsiles, ciminals or anyone that has a hand in the bush regime.
As reported on the news, there will be elections in 2005. What evidence is there that the current council is a "puppet?" Exiles of Saddam, I bet, but what evidence is there that those guys want to help Bush out with oil? They're mostly Iraqi people on there.
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
As reported on the news, there will be elections in 2005.
They said that Iraq goes to the people on June 30th. Guess what. A couple of american heads leaving doesn't cut it. Expecialy when the occupation is still ongoing.
What evidence is there that the current council is a "puppet?" Exiles of Saddam, I bet, but what evidence is there that those guys want to help Bush out with oil? They're mostly Iraqi people on there.[/b]
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/)
A blog of an iraqi would explain that. Also most are NOT iraqi people on there. Breimer(sp?) which was hand picked by bush had put in power exiles that had been tossed out of Iraq when saddam was in power. Alot them that sit on the council were related to terroist groups such as alquida and the like and like I said before alquida and saddam never got along!
Allot of the new council that is on there don't even stay in Iraq! They always comment from outside and repeat whatever the U.S. says. Expecialy when the cameras are rolling and people see everything that contradicts what they say.
enhlish.aljazeera.com
Its obvious that there helping Bush. They were hand picked by his hench men! In a rich oil country.
Like I said before. If they wanted to help the people then why not let the people choose?
EDIT: found that post....
quote:
have to post this fast. The electrical situation has been hellish today. There's no schedule
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
I don't understand. Can you re-word that? :confused:
Before I get criticized for that, I know the prison scandal was wrong. I want their (participating soldiers) heads in Futurama-like containers on a shelf in my room. But it wasn't as bad as some things that Saddam's people did.
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]
again I quote the Iraqie blog....
quote:
Just Go...
People are seething with anger- the pictures of Abu Ghraib and the Brits in Basrah are everywhere. Every newspaper you pick up in Baghdad has pictures of some American or British atrocity or another. It's like a nightmare that has come to life.
Everyone knew this was happening in Abu Ghraib and other places
-
dude, that was blatant trolling
-
quote:
To them that tourture was the ultimate of the low. It was not saddam that reached it, it was the U.S.
That sounds like blind anti-Americanism to me. How we were worse than Saddam is beyond me.
And to the blog...then what about the American bodies dragged through the streets, burned, and hung from cables with Iraqis cheering all around? How is that justified?
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by WMD:
That sounds like blind anti-Americanism to me. How we were worse than Saddam is beyond me.
And to the blog...then what about the American bodies dragged through the streets, burned, and hung from cables with Iraqis cheering all around? How is that justified?
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]
The fact that the U.S. invaded iraq. killied innocent of people. I don't blame them (the iraqies) that killed those americans since they are the occupiers. The Iraqies were defending their cuontry from a force with the latest in weaponry
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
-
quote:
Saddam's torture included cutting off body parts...nowhere near the "torture" of taking pictures of naked dudes piled on each other in a prison. Humiliating, yes, of course. But not to Saddam's level.
So it's ok to condone torture as long as it doesn't involve dismemberment?
quote:
I know the prison scandal was wrong. I want their (participating soldiers) heads in Futurama-like containers on a shelf in my room.
Just the soldiers? What about the people who ordered the torture in the first place? The torture in Abu Ghraib wasn't an "isolated aberration" perpetrated by a few bored, redneck soldiers. Torture has been part of American foreign policy for decades. Just look at the record of the CIA training the Shah's Iran and the governments of Latin America in torture methods.
quote:
And to the blog...then what about the American bodies dragged through the streets, burned, and hung from cables with Iraqis cheering all around? How is that justified?
They were lucky - they were already dead when they were mutliated.
-
quote:
If that was the case then why on earth did the U.S. egged on the Iraqie people in the first place?
A few things the U.S. could do even now is, help build a goverment that the iraqies themselves can vote in and letting local people run in that election. Instead of putting up a puppet council made up of exsiles, ciminals or anyone that has a hand in the bush regime.
and to let local companies of iraq as well as all countries globaly, help build Iraq. This means also that the U.S. cannot state who can get what contract for what.
- Because the US really isn't perfect, and there was a conflict of decisions at the time. Also, you're now talking about both Bush Sr. and Jr., so it's pretty irrelevant to the argument.
- So now the US needs to help build a government? The last page (or two?) have been filled with argument between us two--you saying the US has to immediatly leave, me saying the US has to say to fix what it has broken. I'm glad we agree on this issue.
- It's not a "puppet council." Yes, it is true that it is made up of exiles, refugees, criminals, and other different people, and there's no question that it's not an ideal set of leaders, but it's a step in the right direct. As I understand it, you're looking for people with leadership skills from INSIDE Iraq--not political refugees. Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but since almost all the citizens of Iraq with proper leadership skills are former (and possibly royal) Baathists, there is a slim chance of them slipping in.
- Glad we agree on this issue as well. The US should not pull out, and help rebuild Iraq. Fantastic. Just one thing: the US already DOES payroll international companies, as well as Iraqis. Unfortunately for Iraq, it doesn't have a very blossoming high-tech industry, so it can't help out in any other way besides construction and the like.
quote:
http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp
http://baltimorechronicle.com/060404WarCrimes.shtml (http://baltimorechronicle.com/060404WarCrimes.shtml)
]http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&q=%22gulf+war%22+%2B%22bush+sr%22&btnG=Search&meta= (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&q=%22gulf+war%22+%2B%22bush+sr%22&btnG=Search&meta=[/QUOTE)
Those links say that the US provided Saddam with dual-use technology[/quote]
The first two links say that the US provided him with dual-use technology (read: war machines), which is really quite bad, but it made sense back when the Soviet Union was the big scary monster, and Iran (and its oil) was becoming its buddy. Chemical weapons were not sold.
As for the third link, we're discussing the 1980-89 Iran-Iraq war--not the Gulf War.
quote:
Your laws, values and attitude of your govement states otherwize
We discussed this already. A dictator is one that dictates with nothing to regulate him. Dictionary.com, look up "dictator." Values of a govt. have nothing to do with a dictator, and our laws are set to prevent having a dictator (no more than two terms, etc. etc.). STOP USING WORDS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!
Edit: fixed UBB code.
[ July 10, 2004: Message edited by: TheQuirk: I Just Want Attention ]
-
quote:
- Because the US really isn't perfect, and there was a conflict of decisions at the time.
We all know no country is perfect but there is a big difference between inperfection and blantent nazism!
quote:
Also, you're now talking about both Bush Sr. and Jr., so it's pretty irrelevant to the argument.
How is it? This war IS a countinuation of the fact! There is A BIG reason bush picked on saddam!
quote:
- So now the US needs to help build a government? The last page (or two?) have been filled with argument between us two--you saying the US has to immediatly leave, me saying the US has to say to fix what it has broken. I'm glad we agree on this issue.
It would help. Meaning that the U.N overseas all construction and all goverments and countries partisipate exept the U.S. Of course they are the occupiers. They must leave.
quote:
- It's not a "puppet council." Yes, it is true that it is made up of exiles, refugees, criminals, and other different people,
Which makes it a puppet council!
quote:
and there's no question that it's not an ideal set of leaders,
They are NOT the leaders of that country if the Iraqi people did not choose them Just like the new flag has NOTHING to do with Iraq.
quote:
but it's a step in the right direct.
So if someone invades the U.S. sets up a goverment completely separate from yours and has no intervetion from your own people then 'that is a step in the right direction'?
quote:
As I understand it, you're looking for people with leadership skills from INSIDE Iraq--not political refugees.
Not just me but all of the Iraqies as well!
quote:
Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but since almost all the citizens of Iraq with proper leadership skills are former (and possibly royal) Baathists, there is a slim chance of them slipping in.
That has to be the most bullshit sentence ever. However since America is the occupiers I guess by your own logic ALL U.S. citizens are Nazis. Get real!
quote:
- Glad we agree on this issue as well. The US should not pull out, and help rebuild Iraq. Fantastic.
They should pull out. Other countries should take over. Like Canada and not the U.S.
quote:
Just one thing: the US already DOES payroll international companies, as well as Iraqis.
Sure, those international companies that have U.S. interests. Canada tried to gain contracts in the U.S. but since we did not join the occupation we were denied. That tells me that you are NOT there to help them. But to help yourselves. Also as far as payrolling the Iraqies that is obviously false since the unemployment rate has sky rocketed after the U.S. invasion!
quote:
Unfortunately for Iraq, it doesn't have a very blossoming high-tech industry,
No wonder because of all the U.S. sanctions put onto the country!
quote:
so it can't help out in any other way besides construction and the like.
It can help out more than you think. If the U.S. left and the international community stepped in then lots could happen!
quote:
The first two links say that the US provided him with dual-use technology (read: war machines), which is really quite bad, but it made sense back when the Soviet Union was the big scary monster, and Iran (and its oil) was becoming its buddy. Chemical weapons were not sold.
Soviate or not the U.S DID provide those weapons! Second they DID provide chemical weapons. Third the U.S. damaged iraq's natural water and enviroment by themselves using chemical weapons!
quote:
As for the third link, we're discussing the 1980-89 Iran-Iraq war--not the Gulf War.
The gulf war plays an important role! So yes we ARE discussing it! Expecially when you deny the fact that this is the U.S'es fault to begin with.
quote:
We discussed this already. A dictator is one that dictates with nothing to regulate him. Dictionary.com, look up "dictator." Values of a govt. have nothing to do with a dictator, and our laws are set to prevent having a dictator (no more than two terms, etc. etc.). STOP USING WORDS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!
I have proven beyond any doubt THAT YOU ARE! Simply by those rules. I have even posted and reposed the definition of a dictator to you! It seems that you are the only one here that continues to ignore that fact! You can call yourself a democracy WHEN you act like it and REMOVE those laws and STOP invading countries for your own gain! Up until then THAT definition DOES fit you.
Since I have repeated myself over and over again I sujest that YOU STOP USING WORDS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND! If you want you can deny it BUT DO NOT tell me that this is for the good of the iraqi people and the U.S. has the right to change the flag (They are NOT Iraqies!) or anything else in that country! Thats plainly idiotic and insulting!
[ July 10, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
[ July 10, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]
-
Edit: fixed word-wrap.
Hahahaha. It's cool how you completely ignore the reply I posted a small while ago (page 3), and started repeating yourself. Okay, I guess I'll have to rewrite some stuff.
Dictionary.com, search for dictator:
quote:
dictator
\Dic*ta"tor\, n. [L.] 1. One who dictates; one who prescribes rules and maxims authoritatively for the direction of others. --Locke.
2. One invested with absolute authority; especially, a magistrate created in times of exigence and distress, and invested with unlimited power.
"One who dictates." Now, let's look at the word "dictate."
quote:
# To prescribe with authority; impose: dictated the rules of the game.
# To control or command: