| Author |
 Topic  |
|
padawan
Junior Member
200 Posts |
 Posted - 02 March 2003 : 16:36:18
|
Here's an interesting argument about the "No blood for Oil" overtures that we've been saturated with by all of the anti-war rallies globally.
|
"...be mindful of the SnitzForce..." |
 |
|
|
golfmann
Junior Member
United States
450 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2003 : 18:36:12
|
I really don't think this all belongs on a snitz open source forum...
SHOULD be on a forum like mine.
 |
|
|
|
RichardKinser
Snitz Forums Admin
USA
16655 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2003 : 19:45:55
|
thought this was pretty funny: Some British 'Human Shields' Flee Iraq
quote:
"Some of the peace activists who went to Iraq to serve as human shields in the event of war returned home, fearing for their safety, a spokesman said Sunday."
|
|
|
|
dayve
Forum Moderator
USA
5820 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2003 : 19:56:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by RichardKinser
thought this was pretty funny: Some British 'Human Shields' Flee Iraq
quote:
"Some of the peace activists who went to Iraq to serve as human shields in the event of war returned home, fearing for their safety, a spokesman said Sunday."
so much for standing up for "their" priciples.  .... |
 |
|
|
|
padawan
Junior Member
200 Posts |
Posted - 02 March 2003 : 21:46:14
|
Here's another interesting reading material regarding the cost of doing nothing in Iraq. |
"...be mindful of the SnitzForce..." |
|
|
|
Deleted
deleted
4116 Posts |
Posted - 03 March 2003 : 00:45:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by dayve
so much for standing up for "their" priciples. ....
I'm not quite sure on this:
From (www.guardian.co.uk): Human shield cracks on Baghdad's cynicism Monday March 3, 2003
quote:
The activists accused the Iraqi authorities of trying to use them as pawns in the war with America.
...
"Basically, they said we are not going to feed you any longer," said John Ross,...
...
He said that the Iraqi authorities ordered the activists to deploy at some 60 sites across the country: electricity plants, water treatment centres, communications facilities. None of the potential targets deemed worthy of protection were hospitals or schools - a decision activists said compromised their mission.
...
From (news.independent.co.uk): 'Human shield' shows cracks after volunteers reconsider whether they want to risk death 03 March 2003
quote:
Ms Empson, 52, from Shropshire, said: "Some of the Americans went back because they had read that Bush may charge them with treason. That at least is what we were told. Most of the British are staying, but I think we shall each have our own decision to make in the future about what we do."
From (www.nzherald.co.nz): Napier 'human shield' staying put in Baghdad, for now 03.03.2003 12.59 pm
quote:
But Mr Briggs said the Iraqi authorities had begun limiting the sites human shields could "protect". They had originally planned to base themselves at schools and hospitals.
"Now we are being told we cannot go to certain sites, such as hospitals, so we are reassessing our strategy," he said.
|
 Stop the WAR! |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20604 Posts |
Posted - 03 March 2003 : 04:05:49
|
as a person who avoided being a human shield by about 12 hours during the last Gulf war, I am amazed at peoples stupidity. What did they think they were going to achieve in a country where they build there military bunkers under schools and hospitals ?
And as for Iraq disarming, I find it incredible that people are happy that Iraq has destroyed 10 long range missiles since the 1st of March, hang on a minute, less than a month ago, they were catagorically saying they did not have any ?
so how can anyone take what they say as the truth. |
|
|
|
VodkaFish
Average Member
USA
654 Posts |
Posted - 03 March 2003 : 17:09:44
|
| Huwr - some will wait and feed off of the latest "truths" to stand up for their own principles, which are grand and admirable, even if the ones they are defending don't have them. |
v ø d k â f ï § h |
|
|
|
Kent
Junior Member
United States
193 Posts |
Posted - 03 March 2003 : 17:47:28
|
The problem with looking for a "smoking gun" is that it has to be fired before it smokes....
I hope we don't have to wait until we see...
 |
|
|
|
jimlord
New Member
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 03 March 2003 : 18:08:57
|
Romee, you still are using the term "unilateralism" to try to show that the US is acting alone, and is somehow the big mean bully (I could be wrong in percieving your post this way). My problem with this use is that it is simply wrong. There is more than one country involved in this on both sides. People say the US is acting unilaterally to make it seem like we're the bully, and ignore that there are other countries, and also ignore that we could have gone in 6 months ago on our own, but didn't. Many in the world community asked for UN resolution, and it was made. The resolution called for "serious consequences" if Irag did not submit a true listing of it's weapons. Apparently, some in the EU thought that meant that we would get really mad at him and tell him to really, really tell the truth this time. At some point, inaction on Saddam's part means action must be taken on the part of the UN. Should that time be when there is unanimous consent? I don't think so.
And I did not mean that other countries are not acting out of fear. I tried to simplify the story to show that unilateralism itself is not de facto a bad thing. I know that there are other motivations; principle, fear, economic, sociologic, religious, etc.
Kyoto was another of those "nice in theory, stupid in details" accords.
quote:
This is all acting from selfintrest
Sorry, but you want me to act in another way? Am I to look out for your self-interest at the expense of my own? This is what governments are in place for, to act in the self-interest of its citizens. Interestingly enough, the other "government" we're talking about is acting in it's own self-interest, not that of its citizens. |
"That button did what?" |
|
|
|
golfmann
Junior Member
United States
450 Posts |
Posted - 04 March 2003 : 20:06:24
|
quote:
There is more than one country involved in this on both sides
I believe the number is up to 90 with us...
It's now a matter of days is the latest I've heard |
|
|
|
seven
Senior Member
USA
1037 Posts |
Posted - 04 March 2003 : 20:49:41
|
Huw, you summed up my thoughts here... I think they are destroying the missles to distract the inspectors while they are up to something else...
They said it may take months for them to destroy the missles the way they are doing it.
quote:
Originally posted by HuwR
as a person who avoided being a human shield by about 12 hours during the last Gulf war, I am amazed at peoples stupidity. What did they think they were going to achieve in a country where they build there military bunkers under schools and hospitals ?
And as for Iraq disarming, I find it incredible that people are happy that Iraq has destroyed 10 long range missiles since the 1st of March, hang on a minute, less than a month ago, they were catagorically saying they did not have any ?
so how can anyone take what they say as the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Impulsivity
Starting Member
USA
3 Posts |
Posted - 05 March 2003 : 20:39:22
|
OK, I'm new here. Kris knows me from another forum and knows that I tend to be firm in my political convictions. I apologize in advance if they seem to be presented in an overbearing manner. I only intend to make my points.
Iraq is headed by a power hungry man intent on being the leader of the Arab world. However unrealistic this may be, he might do alot of damage in his attempts to acheive this goal. It is true that he is not really an immediate threat to the United States or Europe. It is also highly unlikely that he is in bed with Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden is a religious zealot. The last thing he wants is an infidel like Hussein to have any mor einfluence in the Arab world than can be helped. You can dissmiss the Hussein-Bin Laden connection. It is propaganda to garnish US domestic support for the war. There are several countries which are many times more likely to attack western interests than Iraq.
We have our reasons for going to war with Iraq. They just aren't the ones the government presents us. Appealing to the redneck mentality is much more efficient. "We're Amaerica Goddammit! Mess with the best and die with the rest!". We are a cowboy nation and George W. is our cowboy. The fact is, the risk of terrorist action against Western interests will most likely INCREASE after an attack on Iraq
So, am I speaking out against the war? Not necessarily. Saddam as a great Arab power would be a disadvantage to most of us. Oil IS a factor. I don't care WHERE our oil originates. I believe Saudi Arabia is the number one supplier to the US. The fact is, we wouldn't have anything to do with the region if it wereen't for oil. The repressive regimes in this world are numerous. Why aren't we in Zimbabwe, Belarus or Rwanda? It's because we don't give a stuff.
This war might just be necessary, but don't make it out to be a simple thing. We might be igniting a powder keg that we will all regret. If we make our decisions without taking this into consideration, we are fools.
Also, don't forget that George's father took alot of heat over failing to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. This is motivation. So is the fact that beating the war drum is making George very popular among his constituents.
God help us all if we do the wrong thing. |
Nothing human is alien to me. |
|
|
|
Kent
Junior Member
United States
193 Posts |
Posted - 05 March 2003 : 22:00:30
|
A few questions to those who support more sanctions and inspections...
1. Do you think that Saddam would have let the UN inspectors go back in, if President Bush had not taken such an agressive stance on the last resolution, threatening war if he did not...
2. Do you think Saddam would have destroyed a single missile if it weren't for 200,000 US troops poised outside his borders?
3. Don't you think that other nations that either harbor or ignore the terrorists inside their countries just might be a bit more cooperative if we take firm action against Saddam? Some want to say that North Korea's posturing is just because they've been named as part of the Axis of Evil...
4. Even if Saddam Hussein has no ties to Al Quaeda (and I believe he has -- as indicated by reports coming out of the Philipines now), he has clear, documented ties to other terrorist groups (Hamas, etc), and has paid $25,000 each to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers... How can you defend that? |
|
|
|
jimlord
New Member
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - 06 March 2003 : 00:28:37
|
Impulsivity, some good points to consider, and God help us all if we don't do the right thing as well. :)
(and snaayk, if you're back in this topic, can you take a look at this? http://forum.snitz.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=42147 ) |
"That button did what?" |
Edited by - jimlord on 06 March 2003 00:32:45 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
