| Author |
 Topic  |
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
 Posted - 26 March 2003 : 07:53:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heynow777
But you haven't seen any other facts?
I see facts that the US said there were a factory in Iraq that produces bio weapons but now it's not proved, I see there were reports about Iraq using forbidden scud but no evidence. I see American's fighting in cities they already captured.
I won't be suprised if Iraq really have those weapons, but do you have solid proving of it?
If this is not the facts you want would you please name one or two please? |
 |
|
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 07:57:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heynow777
I believe our involvment in that war was wrong, but now we are in 2003.
I don't know, hopefully someone won't say that again 10 years later.
I'm not against a war neccesary, but I really don't think this one is neccesary at this time, in this way, nor I think it can bring what the US (government) want. |
|
|
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 08:03:56
|
for the past 11 years there was not 911, and I do see the international community is working on the Iraq issue. If the organization chose hasn't draw the conclusion I see no reason for a war now. I do see the bad effects of such a war that the the US is breaking a system not perfect but functioning and is acting as a supremacy. If you are supporting the war to avoid terrorists actions mainly against the US I don't see such a war will help.
Sadam maybe a evil but this war now is not really the best/last choice. |
|
|
|
Heynow
Junior Member
374 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 08:06:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by bjlt
quote:
Originally posted by Heynow777
But you haven't seen any other facts?
I see facts that the US said there were a factory in Iraq that produces bio weapons but now it's not proved, I see there were reports about Iraq using forbidden scud but no evidence. I see American's fighting in cities they already captured.
I won't be suprised if Iraq really have those weapons, but do you have solid proving of it?
If this is not the facts you want would you please name one or two please?
I see in 1991 that Iraq invaded Kuwait and just about destroyed that country - I see there was a cease fire and Iraq was suppose to for the guidelines set by the UN - I see that for the past twelve years Iraq has not lived up to these guidelines and in fact kicked the inspectors out of Iraq and only allowing them back when the US and Allies threaten to use force - I see the Iraqi people who live in poverty and yet live in a country that has lots of recourses that Saddam only uses to build WMD. Please correct me where I am wrong. |
Political Forums:::Stay n Chat
 |
|
|
|
Heynow
Junior Member
374 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 08:17:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by bjlt
for the past 11 years there was not 911, and I do see the international community is working on the Iraq issue. If the organization chose hasn't draw the conclusion I see no reason for a war now. I do see the bad effects of such a war that the the US is breaking a system not perfect but functioning and is acting as a supremacy. If you are supporting the war to avoid terrorists actions mainly against the US I don't see such a war will help.
Sadam maybe a evil but this war now is not really the best/last choice.
bjlt, although we disagree, I am happy to see ones point of view...Finally!
I respect your choice, but we feel we are in danger as long as this man has these weapons and remains in power. |
Political Forums:::Stay n Chat
|
|
|
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 08:21:50
|
they may hav WMD but where is it? I see Mr Rumsfeld supported the sale of bio to Iraq does it mean he's selling it now? That might be true but do you have solid proof?
What you said is true but I failed to see the importance to have a war now. not only me, billions of people out there.
Here's one suggests that they may have some, but not enough.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,922158,00.html |
|
|
|
Heynow
Junior Member
374 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 08:27:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by bjlt
they may hav WMD but where is it? I see Mr Rumsfeld supported the sale of bio to Iraq does it mean he's selling it now? That might be true but do you have solid proof?
What you said is true but I failed to see the importance to have a war now. not only me, billions of people out there.
Here's one suggests that they may have some, but not enough.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,922158,00.html
Why are we finding chemical suits in the hands of Iraqi soldiers?
I don't think we're willing to wait and have thousands killed before we find the smoking gun. |
Political Forums:::Stay n Chat
|
|
|
|
Doug G
Support Moderator
USA
6493 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 11:27:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by seahorse
quote:
Originally posted by Doug G
quote:
Originally posted by seahorse
Doug,
LOL  Since when have you started reading Twain?
Not to claim I'm older than dirt or anything, I read and re-read most of Mark Twain probably before most members here were born (i.e., >40 years ago) 
You're closer to my Dad's age I suspect. When were you in the service? Dad didn't serve in Vietnam, he was in during the Cuban missle crisis. 
1966-1972
Our ship moved to it's new homeport in Yokosuka Japan shortly after the TET offensive began. We spent about every other month on duty in the Gulf of Tonkin for the next two years, then I transferred to another ship based in Pearl Harbor and made two more Wespac trips.
|
======
Doug G
======
Computer history and help at www.dougscode.com |
|
|
|
Alfred
Senior Member
USA
1527 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 11:51:37
|
quote:
It will be lot easier to understand if you write what you mean. Each of my remark were in response to what you wrote.
Unfortunately, your responses are often a reflection of what you think others mean, and a result of the language barrier.
My English is clear enough for anyone in command of the language, and the only way to make you grasp the finer nuances of my arguments is to speak your tongue, for which there is no time to learn now. |
Alfred
The Battle Group
CREDO
|
|
|
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 12:14:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by snerdley
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bjlt
What's your idea on the US support to Sadam and Mr Rumfeld's position on chemical weapons in the 80s? You can see the article in Guardian which link is in the previous page by bozden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't need to read it. Any decisions or actions taken earlier in life can come back to haunt you and bite you in the ass. Was it a stupid thing to do? Most likely, although it was probably a choice of the lesser of two evils. Now we'll rectify it and make it right, and hopefully not make such boners again in the future(hope of all hope, politics ya know!).
But as usual, the past is brought up as what? Reason that we shouldn't be doing this? I don't know, I thought we were all looking for solutions here, not to throw around I-Told-You-So's. What's your idea for a solution, other than the U.N.? They proved that they cannot follow through on their own resolutions.
I take this one seriously.
Would you please explain what is evil and who is evil? I see chemical weapons can only kill soldiers and civilians massively, and these soldiers and civilians, no matter Iraqi or Iranian, are not evil at all and are as invaluable as any others in the world. If Mr Rumsfeld and the US administration then sold chemical weapons biological agentsto take the invaluable lives of soldiers and civilians AS they are thought to be evil or neglectable, I then can understand if someone thinks people dead in 911 were evil o r neglectable. And if this is what in the Americans' heads, you can bet your ass I'm afraid you'll see more 911.
It's acceptable if it's normal weapons but I can only think one sells bio agents to others who's in war as they nelect the lives to be lost.
edited (added) words in green
footnotes about the amendment of "you bet your ass"
I used this word as a joke, for it's the phrase used by Mr Bush. I'm afraid it's not proper to make joke on 911 so I edited it. As a foreign language usually you don't know the connotation of the words, sorry if you found that offensive but I was definately not. |
Edited by - bjlt on 26 March 2003 14:36:15 |
|
|
|
Heynow
Junior Member
374 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 12:28:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by bjlt
I take this one seriously.
If Mr Rumsfeld and the US administration then sold chemical weapons to take the valuable lives of soldiers and civilians as they are thought to be evil
The US did not sell chemical weapons to Saddam.
quote:
I can understand if someone thinks people dead in 911 were evil. And if this is what in the Americans' heads, you can bet your ass you'll see more 911.
How could you see the people dead in 9/11 were evil? Are you showing your true colors?
And you can bet your ass you'll see more invasions. |
Political Forums:::Stay n Chat
|
|
|
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 13:17:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heynow777
......
There might be a language barrier, I edited it to be more accurate. In case of the bio agent sold by the US, it's in the previous quoted link.
quote:
The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.
|
|
|
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 13:39:57
|
I still failed to see the urgent call for a war now like this.
It's ok theoratically if they thought it's possible to have Sadam killed in the first bombs or it's easier to win the war than what it seems to be now, but isn't it too risky?
I failed to see the war is to give freedom to Iraqi poeple. Sadam is the same Sadam and Rumsfeld is the same Rumsfeld, 15 years before it's the US and UK who supported Sadam even with chemical weapons but now they cares about the freedom of Iraqi people suddenly. Frankly speaking, I was thinking if I don't have the high spirit myself that I misjudged the Ameircan's action which is actually to free Iraqi poeple? Well it may be but after looking into the history of the US, the recent history but not that of 250 years ago, I really can't make sure of it and I really think it would be naive of me to believe it. Again I might be wrong but like what I've said before, it's not me who have such doubts, and it is a big trouble even if you are really tring to do the good thing if many people do doubt it no matter it's a result of prejudice or propaganda.
I failed to see it's needed such a war now
Not to say yet there are no solid evidence of WMD Iraq have. Yes I know they have a model of missile that can fly a bit longer than the allowed range, but the Iraq's explaination, thought might be an exceuse only, is somewhat acceptable. What's more important is the missile is not WMD actually and definately not worth a war to destroy.
Not to say yet there are no solid evidence of Iraq's association with Bin Laden. Won't it be more effective and cost lest if use just a bit of the money input in the war to investigate and find a solid proof first? Again I won't be suprise if Iraq have some but what do you think Sadam will do then? At least we will have the support of all nations even if we have to fight a war then, and in that case the war itself will be different and it's possible that Sadam will resign and we can still press to let the people have freedom there, won't it for you, or us in a better position then? Even if we still have to fight a tought war like this (I doubt it will be) you'll have all nations cover the expenditure just like what it was in and after the Gulf War. I can't understand the urgent of the war.
I failed to see it will be safer after such a war.
Even if they have WMD, will such a war really make the US safer? Let's assume Iraq does have NBC, and the war is the last choice and gone with Sadam and those WMD, is it harder for a dedicated terrorists to get any? esp the B & C? Is the reasons vanished why some people, though they are extreme, to attack the US? Though 911 was related to religion do you really think if poeple are happy or feel fair they will do it? Why they are not happy and why they feel unfair? Why some even smile when they see Ameircans in suffer, Do you think these people are evil? Won't it be better if you invest the money spent on the war to see what the problems are and to solve them instead? Besides the extreme people, there would be uncertainties and disorder in the international community. Our world has just developed to the stage that the value of human rights goes beyond the national border, yet the system of enforcment of it has just started to be developed. What will other nations think if they see the only super power takes actions on his sole discretion? Arms Race I'd say, do you think the world will be safer?
minor amendment |
Edited by - bjlt on 26 March 2003 13:51:47 |
|
|
|
Alfred
Senior Member
USA
1527 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 13:44:04
|
Yesterday, in response to one of my arguments I was asked these three questions:
quote:
1) Do you think youngsters' ideas are not worth to hear?
2) Do you think people on this world are equal? Or, are US citizens are more equal than the others?
3) Do you believe that people from 3rd World are less valuable?
After the initial shock I was optimistic enough to consider it a misunderstanding, and somehow was able to exercise the discipline to respond in good will:quote:
On your questions, I will give you the benefit of doubt, and put them down to difficulty of communication.
In that positive spirit I will try to explain something to you - in very basic terms.
Try to read the words and understand what they say, not what you think they say.
quote:
1) Do you think youngsters' ideas are not worth to hear?
The reference to the brainwashed youngster in a third world country has no correlation to your insinuation of discounting a young person's ability to think for himself.
As a matter of fact I will always listen before making that judgment, because in my many years I have run into plenty of idiots of all ages.
Which means that maturity is not necessarily a matter of age, but one of intellect.
The reference was simply made on the basis that a young mind can be influenced easier than an old one.quote:
2) Do you think people on this world are equal? Or, are US citizens are more equal than the others?
This probably is part of the misunderstanding caused by a foreign language.
But I will try:
No. How long have you been around?
Surely you must have noticed that not all people are equal.
For whatever reasons, like everything else in nature, there are differences, and some people have less human values than others.
And some of those are an outright curse to mankind.
But at birth all human beings are equally deserving of the right to a decent life, wherever that may be.
The fact that I consider someone lucky to live in this country is not any reflection on that persons deserving, only on his good fortune.
There are many people in the world, living under miserable conditions (Iraqis under Saddam?), who may be much more deserving to live here than some of those who do. quote:
3) Do you believe that people from 3rd World are less valuable?
This kind of question is called "impertinence" - kind of like "putting words into my mouth".
I will overlook it again and excuse it with the language barrier.
Hopefully, after reading my response above you don't really need an answer to this question.
However, the response
quote:
No, I read and did understand them (I read all three posts to try to understand why there are so much). I'm just using my right "not to comment" on them...
should have shown me their true intent.
After clarifying plainly that these questions were totally unjustified, the writer chose to "just using my right not to comment on them...".
Today I see this in a much clearer light.
- I see it as the conscious effort to insult my sense of justice and fair thinking.
- I see it as the pure agitation they were meant to be.
- I feel disgusted and insulted.
Shame on the writer.
|
Alfred
The Battle Group
CREDO
|
|
|
|
Alfred
Senior Member
USA
1527 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 13:54:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by seahorse
quote:
Actually, I was under the impression that our views were much closer than they are to a couple or three others in here...
We do and we don't.
I would not have chosen invading Iraq, if given the choice.
Now that we're committed, I cannot help but support our troops.
Yes, we do agree on several points regarding Saddam and his regeime.
Regardless of if we completely agree or not, I would hope that we retain a positive opinion of each other despite any differences in opinions.
It is something that I hope all the participants of this thread can agree on.
Whether you realize it or not, the points you make right here show again that we agree on the vital principles.
I trust my experience and judgment in evaluating another persons attitudes, and I could see throughout this discussion that you had the integrity that I value above all other character traits.
I can conduct a discussion with a person like you, who seems to understand the true purpose of discussion - which is to find solutions, and to clear up misunderstanding, but not to badger each other with arguments to convince the other side of one's own views.
|
Alfred
The Battle Group
CREDO
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
