Please help a Suffocating American..

[Darth Eggplant]

TBS is playing The Patriot this sunday.

I think the UN should impose the ancient

codes of warfare again.

A nation state can only go to war

against another nation state

'IF' the leaders of that state

go to war on the front lines themselves

like Alexander the Great etc...

and they also must have 2 or more

sons or daughters fighting along side them

on the front lines.

that way as Quark from DS9 says:

If the cost of War is too expensive

it just should not be fought.

also the 'art of war'

says what is good for the troops

is good for the general.

same conditions,

same rations,

same Latrines.

so if G W Bush wants to go to War

then he and missus Bush

better make some babies,

which gives Sadam and the weapon inspectors

all the time they need to clean up

their act.

 

also war in the middle east is going to give Norht Korea an opportunity to do

what so ever they like,

maybe even start a war themselves.

 

war is always about the pretty polly.

follow the gold and you follow the story.

 

G8 nations should start energy effective

non oil and gas solutions

ie solar wind fusion

anything and leave the oil alone.

it was the downfall and extiction

of the dinosaurs.

'hey there mighty brontosaurus,

you ruled the earth

and came before us

and now we're walking in your foot steps.'

 

Police paraphrased.

 

another thing is

if the west is indeed the devil

and we are all just infidels

we should simply do what the middle east

wants. leave them alone.

do not poison or influence their

lives, women and children,

just leave them alone.

so no contact or aid

or commerce or anything.

we go our way and they go there's

and no more immigration from those

places ie: anywhere predominatly Islamic.

it is not the average persons on the streets problem; but they get assistance and they rally, burn flags throw stones and say

get out of our country.

so we should.

if their leaders are going to be corrupt

and torture and attack them.

if their oil rich shieks are going

to take all and give none, well that is

their lot in life. they need to do

something about it themselves.

france had a revolution so did the usa.

we helped the shaw of Iran and now Iran is against the west.

we helped the Kuwaities (begrudgingly)

and now they hate the west too.

and Turkey is a UN country

but they the people want the US devil

folk out and dead. and so does Pakistan

and noe African Islamic countries

and the Philipines etc.

 

one last point.

historically things seem trivial

it is just time and distance

making them seem unreal.

but Christianity

waged 11 or so Crusades

to free Jeruselem,

and I do not think the people living there

at the time thoguth they needed liberating.

plus there was one crusade called something

which had women children old men and ducks

and farm animals marching to free the Holy

Land. now if that is not Fanatical?

I do not know what is.

Judeaism was at it peak during the rise of Rome. the whole Missaih thing was they

wanted god to send them their saviour

who would defeat the romans and lead

the jewish people to freedom. that is one of the reasons a main reason why they did not

accept Christ as their saviour, he was not on their side.

so Christianity and Judeaism have both had their moment of political and radical

accendance. and now millenia later

they are kind and laid back more or less

and the most radical christian

action you are forced to endure

from christianity is having a born again christian come to your door, or be approached on the bus or subway by someone asking you if you know who jessu christ was?

and on the jewish note, well not being jewsih

I do not know but they must have an equivilant situation. mainly jewish comics

do their public exorcisisms for them.

and they can be quite entertaining.

 

it is difficult dealing with todays world Islam is in its Zenith and wnating and need ing to expand. growing pains and adolescence

is a tough time to f\go through,

espescially when the teenager is the size of an entire nation.

 

(also) and this is the last thing.

any time there is or has been

a terrorist attack

there is ALWAYS, ALWAYS

a group claiming responsibility.

911 had no such occurance.

I am not a conspiracy nut case

but you have to think.

who did it?

you bombed out caves in nowhere land.

kind of like kicking 'Rainbow Rock'

in Alice Springs.

what was the point?

and did it make you feel better?

no so now because your daddy

had a beef with the next door neighbour

you have to too.

 

I wanted Sadam dead and out of office

for setting fire to the oil fields and

causing a massive enviromental condition

which affects the entire world.

that is what the UN should work

and worry about the intentional

and mailcious act of affecting

the entire global community.

yet they put out the fires

and nothing was done.

 

that in my opinion

is something worth

fighting and dying for.

[MeddlingMonk]

Is war ever necessary? In a limited sense, sometimes yes. If you are attacked, you have the right (and the need) to defend yourself. That applies equally well to individuals and groups, including nations. That's probably the only time war is necessary, when survival demands it (such as when Germany invaded Russia in 1941). But there is also the notion of the just war: this includes self-defense but also includes defense of an ally. In that sense, while the Gulf War was not necessary to the coalition ranged against Iraq, it was just because it was to liberate Kuwait which had been invaded and annexed by Iraq.

 

In the present case war seems neither necessary nor just. No one is being directly threatened by Iraq; the expressed motive is to rid Iraq of WMDs. It is being justified on the basis of pre-emption. The sticky part is, that while many nations posess weapons of mass destruction few have ever used them. Only two low-yield atomic devices have ever been detonated in warfare; chemical weapons had only general usage in WWI; the use of biological weapons is a little bit iffy. Most countries shun WMDs, even those which have them. One exception has been Iraq. It has used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war (and against its own subjects at other times), may have used biological weapons during the Gulf War, and is known to have been actively pursuing projects to 'improve' on these weapons and pair them with long-range missiles. Does this justify pre-emption? Probably not. Granted, Iraq could if left alone create devices that could create wide-spread death and devestation with ease, but just as it would be unthinkable to execute a man because you think he might commit murder, I don't think you can attack a country because it might be developing WMDs. Containment seems a far saner approach.

[Gexx]

I believe that it is wrong to invade a country on a hunch. But I also believe that the US can't leave Iraq unchecked, to do whatever they please. I think the best action in this case is take up defense. The other day while listening to the radio I heard a reporter talking about a kind of "Great Wall of China", a wall stretching across all borders of the US keeping aliens and "potential terrorists" out of the country. I don't think it's come far enough to put up physical barriers. But her idea was a good one. If we put our powers into developing defenses instead of spending it on sending troops to war, I think it would be possible to develope systems or technology to protect the US.

[RaptorII]

And we shall call it the Berlin wall!

 

Walls do keep people out... but they also keep people IN. Which is not really something I think the USA wants to even be suggesting to its citizens.

 

Sure, many things would make the USA safer... but many of those things would prevent it from truly being the USA.

 

45-60 days, and we go in. Strike command and com centers, and factories. Then lay classical siege of Bagdad. Of course that is only one of the semi-declassified tactics being looked at. But it will probably be some form of that. It won't be a fast skirmish like the Gulf War was. This will take a while longer.

 

There just has to be some better way. Let's just hope it doesn't go urban.

 

It will be interesting if they actually provide anything near proof before they actually strike though.

[Gexx]

Yes, but I wouldn't care if the government would listen to my calls, I would give up some freedoms, if it would actually help save lifes. But as I said I don't think it has come far enough to have to put up barriers.

[Doubleplus GC]

Here:

 

http://www.votetoimpeach.org

 

and

 

http://www.axisofjustice.org

 

The fact that most people (willfully) forget is that during the Iran-Iraq war when Saddam committed all the atrocities that we're allegedly trying to stop him from committing, we did jack fucking shit to stop him. Neither did we attack him afterwards. In fact, he was our ally at the time (since he shelled out the oil), so we patted him on his little dictatorial bottom and let him go right ahead.

 

Interesting that the US has backed dozens of dictators in other countries, denying freedom to thousands and sometimes millions of people simply because it was in our best interest (war on drugs, war on communism, war on other people trying to be peaceful when we had dibs on peace!), and yet here in Iraq where there are many organizations that want nothing more than to get Saddam out and institute a peaceful democracy, we give up the covert ops and coercion and say "no, we're gonna bomb him ourselves!" So, of course, most of the people who want freedom from Saddam will get all blowed up.

 

In other news: this war effort has spawned the fastest and strongest pre-war protest movement in US history. This is still a democracy, and we can stills top this.

[GendoTheGreat]

Originally posted by scabb

I truly fail to see the point behind this war. I don't see how such lengths could be reached in order to obtain a drop of oil.

 

That's because it's not just about oil; it's about the economy, too. The fact is, Bush and his government are desperate for a war. Why else do you think they lash out at anyone who attempts to put into practice their bullshit cover policy of "dimplomacy first"?

 

What's crippling the US economy right now (and thus, the world's) is not the threat of war, but uncertainty as to whether there will be a war or not. Whether it's decided one way or another, the difference is marginal - the economy will stabilise because the investors know where they're putting their money and why. Then you have another problem - a long, drawn-out war is going to drag the economy right back down again. What to do? Does anyone here really believe the US needs the hundreds of thousands of troops they're amassing just to invade a country with no cover, no secure supply lines and military tech thirty years behind theirs? The troops are there because the White House wants the conflict over quickly, (and before the start of the next financial year, I'll warrant.) A quick war will level out the economy, but the promise of a huge oil bonus at the end of it all will send it through the goddamn roof. The value of the US dollar will skyrocket, fuel prices will go down around the world, and the UN will be falling all over itself to get back to kissing Bush's ass. More money and more power for the American government, and the credit for it all goes to everybody's favourite meglomaniacal redneck cretin. Yeehaw.

 

That said, I could give two shits what happens to Iraq; America can turn it into a sheet of glass for all I care. While it is a shame that a lot innocent people will be hurt, if the World Trade Centre incident taught us nothing else it's that innocent people will always be the first to suffer for the arrogance of totalitarian governmental systems. It's like a universal law or something.

[scabb]

Yes, I understand the economic implications, that post just wasn't the most serious. As far as I am aware, the US (and the UK) want to keep their stronghold on the oil market by either strengthening the sanctions so France or Russia can't dig their muddy little paws into the barrels of gold; Or simply by toppling the Iraqi government and sticking a puppet in the place of Saddam to run the country and all of its resources.

 

However, fuck the US, and the UK. Fuck the economy. There are clearly better ways to go about this than by bombing the hell out of a country. For a start, America consists of either fat, overpaid idiots or the poor as hell. Money won't be taken from the pockets of the idiot though, because he and his chums run the place. They deserve to suffer; when it's the choice between yourself suffering and another dying, there should be no choice. There are ways round this problem. Why not legalise these so-called 'evil' drugs, for a start? Cannabis is itself a great deal safer than alchohol; and Ecstacy would be if it could be cleaned up. The American people consider themselves just for donating a couple of their extra dollars to charity, when that just proves that they have far too much green down their trousers.

 

And why do you think shit like the WTC happens when America just stick their nose everywhere looking for dollar signs, and bombing the crap out of countries for no reason whatsoever. Having slaves certainly made the economy better and the lifestyle of the American citizen easier, so is it a good idea to bring them back?

 

Fuck Bush; America needs to find a new way to bring in the bucks. There are other ways to run cars and generate electricity, and other ways to make money.

[Darth Eggplant]

I do not think

the americans realized at the time,

when they changed the slogan

for their military;

how poetically ironic

it was going to become.

Army Of One

[JofaGuht]

lol. I totally agree eggplant "Be all that you can be" was a better slogan.

[SmartDragon]

why can't they just wait, the 2nd resolution is coming out soon (end of month)and then Hans Blix will tell Saddam that he has to destroy the weapons that failed the tests, if he doesn't by the 14th march then the UN will probably agree with Bush and everyone can have the same plan.

War sucks but if war is needed and happens then it may as well be well organised with everyone on board.