Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 8, 2003 Author Share Posted February 8, 2003 1) And good, nice, caring US have never supported terrorist groups? Osama bin Laden is one example. U trained him for God's sake! Not as a terrorist. The USA might have trained Osama, I won't dis-believe that, but not for him to destroy the WTC. They did a mistake and went "whoops" afterwards. They never knew OBL would go against them. Saddam, on the other hand, knew perfectly well what the money he sent to Al-Queda was for. I don't think he's sitting in his bunker going "oh, crap, they were going to use those hijacked planes in terrorist attacks?":rolleyes: 2) North Korea will not attack China. China are thier allies. Just like US wouldn't attack Britain. China said in a statement that he will support USA should it come to a war against North Korea. So no, we won't have to fight them. Also, China is trading with South Korea (and practically ever other country in the world ), so an invasion of the South by the North would hurt them. Drop that "all commies support each other" bull please. 3) A lot of Muslims in the Middle East thout America got what it deserved. I think u should kill all the Muslims. I'm not even going to answer that one 4) Prove that Al-Queda was involded in the tragedy. He admitted it himself. 3+ tapes that have been proven to be genuine where he says he was behind the attacks should be enough. BTW, thank you for taking this back on topic from a big off-topic debate on wheter or not the USA is evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 I'm just saying they won't attack China, that's all. I'm not implying they will not attack anyone else (although that's what I think. I am 99.999% sure they won't attack China) . America irrisponsible- This arguement is way out of date but wasn't it the Americans who shamelessly sluaghtered the Native Americans? Why is it silly to use the bin Laden arguement? Also read my last few posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 This arguement is way out of date but wasn't it the Americans who shamelessly sluaghtered the Native Americans? The first 7 words of that sentence summarize my answer. And why do you say "shamelessly." Atleast half the population of THAT time, and an easy majority of today's population feels sorry for what happened to them...but things wouldn't have been the same without what happened. Why is it silly to use the bin Laden arguement? For the very same reason that Eagle mentioned. [We did] Not [train him] as a terrorist. The USA might have trained Osama, I won't dis-believe that, but not for him to destroy the WTC. There was a "moralistic" reason behind that. They wanted to help afghanistan get rid of the invading Russians. If I remember right, the British were in on the Afghan training too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 *sigh*... Its almost sad to see you all buying into the propaganda... I'm still waiting for the proof. Those pictures could be from anywhere in the WORLD... there is no evidence to show they are from IRAQ... the conversation.... I could make that convo by changing my voice and recording it with my crap mic... could be done in about 10 minutes... Now I want you all to pay close attention to this: Say I gave you a picture of a hand. The picture was not the best quality and slightly blurred and from a distance... about 60km away. Now, is that my hand? How the hell would you be able to tell? The point is, that you wouldnt. For all you know I may have given you a picture of your own hand. Just because Powell showed a bunch of pictures doesnt mean they are real... or they are showing what he says they are showing... I could give 10000000 different explanations and definitions of what are in those pics. Those "war head casings" look like barrels of gasoline to me... ITS CALLED PROPAGADA MY FRIENDS... its a wonderful thing, because it brainwashes the citizens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Luke, i can't believe you just said that the President and the Secretary of the United States lied deliberately to entire world. Sorry, but i'm curious how stupid do you have to be to believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy Luke, i can't believe you just said that the President and the Secretary of the United States lied deliberately to entire world. Sorry, but i'm curious how stupid do you have to be to believe that. Firstly, calling other people stupid in a debate is extremely little mature (just so you know). Secondly, I don't actually belive he lied, because I don't know if he did (and neither do you), but I must admit that I wouldn't be too suprised if he did. I would also ask you to read this: http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/index.php And don't make the list worse than it already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 I would also ask you to read this: With a statement like "Osama Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people" exist on really credible sites. Looks like anti-war propaganda. Looks like anti-Bush. Even if it is credible, none of us here can make that list any worse or any better. Talk to the brass if you wanna make any changes. What would you say if the next things on the list were, "Oil prices rising causes starvation in third world countries. Millions die." or "Terrorist attack on said place. so and so thousand people die."?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn Firstly, calling other people stupid in a debate is extremely little mature (just so you know). Secondly, I don't actually belive he lied, because I don't know if he did (and neither do you), but I must admit that I wouldn't be too suprised if he did. No, what's "extremely little mature" is saying that the President of the US is lying to millions of people with absolutely not proof whatsoever. If your going to accuse the President of something that serious then you should at least have something a lot better than faulty logic. Like Kode said, that is the propaganda. And what does that list prove, exceot that you and others don't like the United States? So, mistakes are made, bad decision are made, it happens everywhere, not just the US. And that list mentions nothing of all the great things America has done, or all the bad things Iraq has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Rhett Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Please don't start throwing names again guys. Originally posted by Luke Skywalker *sigh*... Its almost sad to see you all buying into the propaganda... I'm still waiting for the proof. Those pictures could be from anywhere in the WORLD... there is no evidence to show they are from IRAQ. Propoganda? They're pictures of what is actually happening. What proof do you want? An autographed picture and video cassette from Saddam himself detailing his plans? Will you then be happy or will you believe that our president had someone get plastic surgery to look like Saddam and make a fake tape? I can't believe you would sooner choose to believe that our president and government would sooner lie to us and forge pictures than to believe the pictures are real. That's what's, "almost sad". *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy ... i can't believe you just said that the President and the Secretary of the United States lied deliberately to entire world. I hate to say it, (I really do, ) but, unfortunately, there is plenty or precident for this. Our own government has been known to tell plenty of lies, half-truths, and using misinformation, total surpression of information, lies of omission, spin-control, and exaggeration of facts in order to advance an agenda. All governments employ these tactics, our's is really no different. We have discovered a few of these in the past (scandals such as Watergate, Iran/Contra, Clinton's Oval Office liasons, etc...) but 10 times more must lay undiscovered, at the very least. I'm not making the claim that this is the case in this instance,.. but the administration has recently made a few claims about Iraq's nuclear capabilites that have been found to be less than accurate in the end by folks outside the administration. Somewhat related: A report on the TV news show "Now With Bill Moyers" last night had a great report on a new bill trying to be passed by the Administration and Justice Department that could give American Law Enforcement agencies all the powers that the KGB was known to have, all in the name of protecting us from terrorism. (Secret arrests, unlimited ways to monitor American citizens, and power to deport citizens suspected in anti-American activities, or even just connections to groups with suspected possible Terrorist ties.) Scary stuff. At least it scares the hell out of me! "Sometimes the medicine is worse than the disease..." A line from a song I was listening to while I typed this out. This report was never intended to be seen by the American public. Why not? For our own protection? Or is this just an unfortunate omission by our Government,.. perhaps by accident? You can read more at: http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0 and: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/lewis.html If you value your freedom as an American I urge you to inspect this document and consider the implications it raises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 9, 2003 Author Share Posted February 9, 2003 I'm still waiting for the proof. By all the gods overlooking Midgard... What's your definition of proof? One of the chemical missiles delivered to your door? Nah, wait, you'd probably say the USA made it and made it "look Iraqi".. Those pictures could be from anywhere in the WORLD... If it was to be zoomed out far enough for you to tell it's Iraq, you wouldn't be able to see the facilities. Believe me, that's Iraq. the conversation.... I could make that convo by changing my voice and recording it with my crap mic... could be done in about 10 minutes... By all the gods and deities and prostitutes of the churches and temples and world religions of the world (okay, I'll stop)... Just out of curiousity, how do you think the Agencies do this whole voice thing? With a "crap mic" and GoldWave? These are people who spend millions of dollars a year on equipment based on recon. If they say a voice on a tape is Bin Laden, it is Bin Laden. Why? Because a state-of-the-art program poweful enough to find ways to make a dog talk and a bird a bird paint the girl I love's girlfriend's picture matches it to another tape or broadcast that they are sure belongs to Osama Bin Laden. Then, this box filled with ones and zeros finds that the voices are identical and voilá: They know that's not the girl next door but Bin Laden on that tape ! Say I gave you a picture of a hand. The picture was not the best quality and slightly blurred and from a distance... about 60km away. Now, is that my hand? How the hell would you be able to tell? Believe me, with the equipment the CIA and US Army and FBI and the others have I'd so be able to tell. They'd even be able to count the number of warts and blisters. I'd magnify it a couple of houndred or thousand times and run it trough a program to remove the noise. Then, I'd check the fingerprints on it . Hey, seriously, the US Sats can read the headlines of a 30cm paper from orbit, so I don't think recognizing a 50m truck is a big problem. Believe me, they can probably even make out the tiny "Made in China" inscription on those numberplates. Just because Powell showed a bunch of pictures doesnt mean they are real... or they are showing what he says they are showing... I could give 10000000 different explanations and definitions of what are in those pics. Those "war head casings" look like barrels of gasoline to me... They may. But remember these people have been educated in this. It's like the difference between a 1st grade student and a 10th grade student when it comes to math problems. A 10th-grader would look at a math equation and go "okay, so x= this and y= this, so the V of this container has to be z..." A 1st grader could look at the same equation and go "hey, these aren't even numbers. How does this help me find the volume of this container. PROPAGANDA!!!" ITS CALLED PROPAGADA MY FRIENDS... its a wonderful thing, because it brainwashes the citizens... You sound like TIE Guy.. except he's a person I respect, and he is mostly right, while you, sadly, are all wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Ok, sorry i called you stupid, Luke, but i think everyone can see my frustration. Like everyone's said, what proof do you want? You're just as bad as Germany or France as far as this. I mean, i'm beginning to think people want a bomb to go off in NYC or Chicago before they are ready go to war. Everyone's yelling about wanting a smoking gun or what not, but a smoking gun may cost us the lives of thousands, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. edlib, the Nixon or Cinton scandals are nothing like this. Clinton lied so his scandal wouldn't be found out, he was in personal danger of losing his position and his entire career. What would be Bush's reason for lying to the entire world, he really, really wants to go to war? He's said it himself, we'll go to war by ourselves, UN support is a bonus. It just doesn't make sense for them to lie on a scale this big when that would mean possibly losing everything to gain little. I'm not saying that the Bush administration is perfect (there are several things i wish he did differently earlier), they are going to make mistakes. They have gotten bad recon reports or a little flase information from an unreliable source. But i simply cannot believe that he totally and deliberately falsify information and present it on the world stage, especially when he doesn't have an enormous amount to gain and so much to lose. And do you think the entire government is in on this? You think Powell and Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and everyone else is with this too? There is absolutely no precident for George W. Bush doing anything like this. Whatever Clinton or any other previous Presidents did is completely unrelated and irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwing guy Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Eagle, I believe we finally agree on something. I'm not going to add anything, Tie, Eagle, and some of you others are doing a good enough job. One thing I will say though, I don't like the smoking gun analogy, a gun only smokes AFTER you fire it, I think a LOADED gun would be a better analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Guys read my [long] posts in this thread. Tie Guy- Why couldn't they be all in on this? The majority of people will, of course, trust the President so why not? On the whole bin Laden tape thing- Wasn't it bin Laden and a lot of his relatives who said they saluted the *******s who blew up the WTC? Of course. But they also said they were not involved more than several times, though they envied the attakers. krkode- I would say every country has it's moments. The things on that list were USA specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3 Tie Guy- Why couldn't they be all in on this? The majority of people will, of course, trust the President so why not? The real question is why would they? As i said, there is very little to gain here for taking such a big risk. They could never pull off a scam that big without someone finding out, and then they'd be comitting political suicide. There is no precident, there is no reason, there is no purpose, it just doesn't make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy edlib, the Nixon or Cinton scandals are nothing like this. Clinton lied so his scandal wouldn't be found out, he was in personal danger of losing his position and his entire career. What would be Bush's reason for lying to the entire world, he really, really wants to go to war? He's said it himself, we'll go to war by ourselves, UN support is a bonus. It just doesn't make sense for them to lie on a scale this big when that would mean possibly losing everything to gain little. I'm not saying that the Bush administration is perfect (there are several things i wish he did differently earlier), they are going to make mistakes. They have gotten bad recon reports or a little flase information from an unreliable source. But i simply cannot believe that he totally and deliberately falsify information and present it on the world stage, especially when he doesn't have an enormous amount to gain and so much to lose. And do you think the entire government is in on this? You think Powell and Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and everyone else is with this too? There is absolutely no precident for George W. Bush doing anything like this. Whatever Clinton or any other previous Presidents did is completely unrelated and irrelevant. Like I said, this probably isn't the case in this instance. But blindly believing our Government or this administration isn't completely capable of using these tactics is naive and dangerous. There have been forces, who now have access to the ears of the conservative politicians who now control every branch of the Government, who have wanted Saddam Hussein out of power even before the first Gulf War. There are far more reasons for moving into Iraq than just disarmnament that the administration has been noticably silent on. The question about what is to happen after the last bullet flies, and Saddam is removed (or dead) have yet to be fully addressed. I know for a fact there are some groups that insist that the ONLY way we could leave things is with an American-approved Democratic and capitalist government in place. Then there is the question of the massive Iraq oil reserves: What is to become of them? I have my strong suspicions as to what the American oil concerns would like to happen,.. and the fact that a few of our top officials in the administration have VERY close ties to these concerns seems too close for coincidence. Maybe I'm too suspicious and cynical... but I understand human nature, and I don't put anything beyond the realm of possibility when it comes to politics, which is, by definition, human nature played out on a global scale. I will say this: If our armed forces move in and do nothing but remove Iraq's supply of chemical and biological weapons, and leave Saddam in power then I will be the most surprised person on earth. What I suspect will happen: We will go in, remove Saddam, set up our idea of what an Iraqi government should be like, and turn the control and distribution of thier oil reserves over to American oil companies, who will then flood the U.S. with billions of barrels of cheap oil, but not so cheap as not to make a healthy profit. In five years there will be as many Starbucks, Gaps, and McDonalds in Baghdad as there are in any American city. Iraq will be at that point a defacto U.S. territory for all intents and purposes. But that's just me... although I know I'm not the only one who sees this possibility. EDIT: P.S. -- I notice you didn't include Iran/Contra in your examples. Hmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 9, 2003 Author Share Posted February 9, 2003 edlib, the Nixon or Cinton scandals are nothing like this. Clinton lied so his scandal wouldn't be found out, he was in personal danger of losing his position and his entire career. What would be Bush's reason for lying to the entire world, he really, really wants to go to war? He's said it himself, we'll go to war by ourselves, UN support is a bonus. It just doesn't make sense for them to lie on a scale this big when that would mean possibly losing everything to gain little. Thank you, TIE Guy. Bush does not need to lie to go to war. He already has Congress approval, which means he can declare war if he wants to. It's not like he'll have to lie in order to attack Iraq. Oh, and the pictures were presented by Blix, not by Bush. Also, yes, a terrorist attack could kill a good deal of people. Look, if 9/11 took place later on the day, more than <3000 people would have been killed (30 000+ people worked in the WTC). And if the president was not away, he would probably have been dead by now. 10 000+ dead, president dead, WTC destroyed, Pentagon damaged, 4 airliners lost. That's how bad it could have gotten. Now, I'm still a bit unsure on this whole war down there. Yes, we have evidence he has weapons, but still, we have no way of knowing he'll go to war. But I know, that's what we said before 9/11 too... Our my main suggestion: Assasinate Saddam Hussein . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 I won't disagree with anyone who wants Saddam removed or killed. He's worthlest sadistic killer. Nevertheless, a war is too much just to remove someone from power. If it was me, I would send a bunch of commandoes and kill Saddam. No innocents hurt. Of course if you wanted to control a place from A to Z, you have to invade it. Control it for what? Oil is one reason. Another one less mentionned is the lack of US allies in the middle east. Israel has its own troubles, Egypt's government is a US ally but the people is totally against, Saudi Arabia is home to hundreds is not thoushands of terrorists. They need a US controlled place so the middle will not completely go up against the US. And why would the middle east go up against the US? Because they tried to control the place and take the oil all for themselves. We should think about the reasons of this anti-american movement before jumping to conclusions and blindly listen to Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 If it was me, I would send a bunch of commandoes and kill Saddam. No innocents hurt. I really don't think it's that easy. Besides, somebody worse than him might take over. It's not like Saddam's the only "bad guy" in Iraq at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 It is internationally illegal to assassinate someone (under the Geneva Convention i think, but i'm not sure). Could we do it? Absolutely. Will we? No. Plus, it wouldn't help just to take out Saddam because then some just-as-radical general might take over and fire on everything in sight in retaliation. No, we are going to invade to disarm Iraq, not just remove Saddam. And oil has very little, if anything, to do with it. By contract, most of the oil in the area belongs to countries in Eurasia. America, and any of it's people or businesses, would not get much at all. And they aren't doing it for a region in the middle east to control. I mean, several places in that region are our allies even now and having a US controlled Iraq isn't going to change how people in the region feel, so it helps nothing. Besides, the US isn't going to make Iraq a territory, we'll just disarm it, install a democratic government, and aid it against radical attacks after it is free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Just to burst some peoples bubbles, a US democratic government in Irak... if it's the kind of democracy that Irak already has( you can vote for Saddam or...Saddam) then it won't change anything. Many south-american contries are under US control. Only the people who live there know it. If that's democracy then it's crap. Why not trying to instore a democratic government in Saudi Arabia. It's still ruled by a King who tortures his prisonners and everone opposed to the government, just like Irak. Bush fears that the people of Saudi Arabia overthrows the actual governement(which might happen) and instead they are gonna put a bunch of radicalist anti-american at the head of the country. They won't be able to use their base over there anymore and won't have access to the Saudi Arabian Oil. What is the country who has the most oil after Saudi Arabia? Irak. If that's a coincidence then...well it can't be a coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 HAS NO-ONE READ MY 3 LONG POSTS?! READ THEM NOW!!!!! lukeiamurdad- Firstly, WTF are u doing here? Secondly, this is why the Middle East is against USA: a) USA is backing Israel. Israel has taken up Palestine's land. Palestine is Muslim country b) Oil, but u have already meantioned it. c) A lot of the countries there are very tired of US "world policeman" stuff. d) US has been backing, financing and acting against factions in the Middle East. Iraq, bin Laden, Iran, etc. This leaves a confused situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 No, all militant Muslims (which is basically the entire Middle East right now), consider Israel the worst country and number one enemy in the world with the US a close second. They hate us simply because we are Amercian, because we are capitalists, because we are Christian (from their perspective), and because they are, sadly, brainwashed. We didn't need to do anything to make them not like us, they already didn't. Oh, and CD, i guess since others are tired of us being "policemen", we should just sit back and wait for Saddam and others to attack us, right? We only "police" people that directly threaten us, and Iraq does. If you knew a terrorist group that possibly had weapons of mass destruction had YOU in their crosshairs then i doubt you would hesitate to do something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by edlib What I suspect will happen: We will go in, remove Saddam, set up our idea of what an Iraqi government should be like, and turn the control and distribution of thier oil reserves over to American oil companies, who will then flood the U.S. with billions of barrels of cheap oil, but not so cheap as not to make a healthy profit. In five years there will be as many Starbucks, Gaps, and McDonalds in Baghdad as there are in any American city. Iraq will be at that point a defacto U.S. territory for all intents and purposes. Isn't going to happen even though it should. We SHOULD rebuild it just like we did with Japan and make it into a decent country. We SHOULD have rebuilt Afganistan the same way, but the Bush administration desires to use a laizze-fair postition for these countries to decide for themselves so we'll be seen as perfectly unguilty of tampering and soon be seen once again as an evil county by Iraq and Afganistan. Just look at Afganistan. Sure there are a few changes, but worse than reconstruction after the Civil War. I mean we put in place a corrupt government. Sure women have rights, but so did black people before the 60s. Doesn't mean anybody cared in the South. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy They hate us simply because we are Amercian, because we are capitalists, because we are Christian (from their perspective), and because they are, sadly, brainwashed. We didn't need to do anything to make them not like us, they already didn't. No, they hate you because you helped Israel into stealing their land, plus the other reasons Crazy_dog mentioned. and because they are, sadly, brainwashed. They feel the excact way against you. Ack, both sides think that the other side is brainwashed...who to trust? Who are brainwashed and who are not? I'm afraid no one can answer that question. We only "police" people that directly threaten us, and Iraq does. But right now, you are a direct threat to Iraq, right? Does this mean that Saddam should attack you? No, all militant Muslims (which is basically the entire Middle East right now), Far from all muslims in the Middle East are militant. Say what you want, but most muslims hate what Bin Laden did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.