Speaking my brains...

[Fab81]

I agree with Buddha, I think I couldn't say it better, don't believe everything you see on TV and read in most of public media...
Maybe you will be able to get some history facts like they really were, not like media said they were... Endoctrinment still exist, the only thing that changed, is how its done....

Try to see a same information from different media...

 

[Hotpoint]

Originally posted by Buddha 3
We're getting to the point where we might as well change the name of these boards into talkingpolitics.com....

Sounds good to me

 

[Mark/Static]

Originally posted by Buddha 3
Am I in favor of a UN endorsed ousting of a mad dictator? Yes. The problem is that the UN lately has been a bit spineless, and will never back the ousting of a regime because they are a bunch of not at all nice. The US government, whatever they're motives may be (none of us can look in their heads), is now trying to sell this war the "used car salesman" way, with BS and by instilling fear in their own population.

You will support a war instigated by a full of **** US government, only if a spineless organization such as the UN endorses it? I feel for Blair.

 

[JoseDominguez]

Well, I agree that terrorists shouldn't be allowed near weapons of mass destruction (duh) ...... but why do they need them? After all september 11th was perpetrated using box cutters available for around 75p in any hardwear/craft shop, not sure how bombing Iraq will stop suicidal terrorists.
I've seen a few mentions of "Saddam has proven that he will invade neighbours without provocation", well I think waging a holy war on behalf of the Arab world (Iran-Iraq), and then being told they wanted their money back was a bit off, plus the whole slant drilling thing......still no excuse for what he did though.

As for bombing Iraq... great, it'll incite lots more terrorist fanatics, if Saddam's the problem start with him, then go for all of the other fanatics/dictators/lunatics in power around the world. Should occupy the UN for the next 250 years.

And it's well worth checking the reasons behind the ten year gap in the Kurd village gassings and the western reaction. Complex politics, but put basically..... Iran was the big evil and Saddam was fighting them, at the time his gas weapons stopped the massive slaughter of Iranian troops using "human shield" tactics to soak up fire and overwhelm Iraqi positions. This ended the war quickly (so a couple of villages and some horrific deaths were small news back then). But read for yourselves, it's all down to interpretation. And yes, America supplied Saddam with weapons..... but I'm not anti-American, he'd have used ours if they worked in the sand/heat/cold/moisture etc.. plus you can only get them fixed in Germany.

And not to worry, Spain has sided with us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whoop de dooo, the world is saved.

 

[P8ntbllr99]

is this the talktrashaboutwar.com because im confused i thought this was a paintball forum????

 

[Gyroscope]

This relates to paintball. War is pertinent to everyone as it has the tendency to affect everything.

What amazes me is the perception that we (American voters) will only be convinced to support war in Iraq if we believe Saddam Hussein supports Al-Qaeda. It is as if the Bush administration is unwilling to credit us with the ability to believe in more than one enemy.

Because Al-Qaeda members were able to find medical treatment in Iraq, we are told Iraq supports Al-Qaeda. John Wilkes Booth (who assassinated A. Lincoln) received medical attention in the U.S. The World Trade Center attackers received flight training in the U.S. This doesn't mean the U.S. supports terror. It reflects the fact the terrorists, like anyone fighting against overwhelming odds, will take help wherever it appears. I do not believe that Iraq attacked America on 9-11, as many gullible Americans believe.

That doesn't mean that he (Saddam Hussein) isn't our enemy. Enemies can take the form of those who are ideologically opposed to oneself. The Iraqi government is autocratic and unconcerned with the personal well being of individual humans (except for one particular human). It is an enemy in the same sense that the Soviet Union was an enemy. Holding opposing viewpoints is fine unless those with those conflict hold weapons that are designed to kill civilians. Our values are so at odds that we are enemies in how we define ourselves.

I wish this conflict didn't lead to an air war. I wish we weren't using depleted uranium munitions. Our approach to fighting wars has addressed the need to preserve the lives of our soldiers. We are far less effective at preserving the lives of civilians. Collateral damage has been thus far accepted. Once, casualties among soldiers was more accepted, too. Our approach to war should be refined further, as war seems to be a historical constant .

I wish I believed that we are going to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure. I wish I believed that we are going to promote democracy in the aftermath of this war. I support Bush in prosecuting war against a brutal dictator who is an enemy of freedom for his country’s citizens and his country‘s neighbors. But I will not vote to re-elect a man who leaves a country in ashes after fighting to achieve "regime change". "Regime change" is a far cry from "regime removal". Iraqis should be given space to find a way to govern themselves. That is a valid reason why we should fight. I hope that is why we are.

 

[fuxup]

The way i look at this is like THIS..If some 1 kicked your arse then at some point in the future you'd want to get some revenge !!!!!.Now can you imagine saddam and what he would LOVE to do to the US or the UK.
JUST my view of things

 

[Gyroscope]

Originally posted by P8ntbllr99
is this the talktrashaboutwar.com because im confused i thought this was a paintball forum????

By posting, you have probably subscribed to this thread.


This discussion is more about politics than war, though. It is unhealthy to proceed as normal when thousands of people are about to die. Maybe we shouldn't talk about it here, but I respoect the opinion of many of the people who post here. It is the only place I regularly communicate with people from the UK, France, and Sweden. As a citizen of a democratic republic, I share some responsibilty for those thousands of deaths that will occur soon. I must solicit opinions and info wherever I can. It is irresponsible not to.

Maybe that is American arrogance... we act like we are used to running this place.

 

[Justin Owen]

Gotta say Mark/Static makes some outstandingly superbly excellent points. I am in 100% agreement.

I don't BELIEVE Saddam was responsible for 9/11 nor do I think he had any hand in it, nor do I really care 'cause it doesn't factor into the equation.

All 9/11 did was WAKE US UP TO REALITY. Pitter pattering around the issue no longer cuts it. The only way to deal with these kinds of people is to take their war to them before they bring it to us. Look at Khadafi (sp?)...man if he wasn't the scum of the Earth then Reagan sent over those cruise missles...damn, we missed him...but I'll be damned if he didn't get the message and totally disappeared off the face of the planet.

People like Saddam, Osama, etc., have gotten used to slaps on the wrist (if that) for forever in response to whatever they've wanted to do. They've enjoyed absolute freedom from accountability. They've realized that though we say we're gonna "respond," that we "always say that, but you never do it" (to quote a line from "Toy Soldiers"). That can no longer be the case.

Whoever made the point about the box cutters is missing the point. Sure, they used box cutters...but imagine what they'd have done if they had NUKES! Or Serin gas. Or smallpox.

When it all boils down to the bones, all these "what abouts" are just cop-outs. I can't believe people can say they're against the possibility of war becuase of these things that are totally removed from the issue at hand. The issue is clear and what must be done is clear. One person brought up Saddam's m.o. as being a very vengeful person...dead-on correct, and you can bet that sooner or later, perhaps on his deathbed, he'd "exact retribution" for the embarrassment he suffered during Desert Storm. To not act in the interests of PREVENTION or SELF-DEFENSE is laughably illogical. We should have gotten rid of Saddam the first time around, but as was pointed out that wasn't the objective...nor did it really cross our minds at the time that 12 years down the road we'd be facing the error of that inaction.

I also don't expect it to end following the removal of Saddam. There are other targets that will need to be "addressed," and I support that in full. I no longer wish to wait and see what they're going to do next before we have to act. When the world gets serious in dealing with these kinds of people, they will start taking seriously the concerns of the world and perhaps then some real progress can be made. Until then, they will sit back and do their thing while laughing at the U.N. and praying to whatever power they hold high that countries such as the U.S. will wait for their approval before acting.

It's all about risk vs. reward. When the risk of acting like these folks act is no longer worth it...well, you get the picture.

Lotsa love,
~Justin Owen~

 

[Mark/Static]

Re:

Originally posted by Justin Owen
Whoever made the point about the box cutters is missing the point.

I've actually began to ignore those kinds of statements as being unworthy of a response. As if box-cutters were actually thrown at the WTC and the Pentagon. I'm sure if an al-Qaeda operative picked up some VX from Saddam and released it in the air-conditioning of some convention center, the $2 screw-driver used to gain access to the duct-work would be focused on as the real culprit, not the VX from Saddam.