Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > What A Hoot!


Posted by: barddas 13-Feb-2004, 03:57 PM
I thought this might be a joke.. but sadly....it's not

Read more-


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=NW_1-T&oldflok=FF-APO-1103&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040213%2F1327364311.htm&sc=1103&photoid=20040212ROM119

Posted by: Aon_Daonna 13-Feb-2004, 04:03 PM
protecting world peace?!?!?!?! *swears*

this is bloody ridicolous... I mean.. who will ever again going to have faith into the nobel peace prize???

Posted by: MDF3530 13-Feb-2004, 04:05 PM
Look at it this way. They've covered the entire spectrum: from a man of God to Lucifer himself biggrin.gif .

Posted by: oldraven 13-Feb-2004, 04:18 PM
huh.gif



Lord help us all. I think the Pope should kick G man's arse. "Git off my world, you warpig foo."

Posted by: Aon_Daonna 13-Feb-2004, 04:25 PM
just that he probably needs 2 hours to say that.... wink.gif

Posted by: MDF3530 13-Feb-2004, 04:34 PM
If Dubya, by some kind of miracle, is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, two things:

1. I hope Pope John Paul II uses his connection to God and gets Him to torment Bush by making him hear "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath all the time, even after he dies.

2. Oldraven, make room for me, because I'm moving to Canada.

Posted by: maisky 13-Feb-2004, 06:14 PM
This might fit better in the "Pub Humor" thread, if it weren't so sick... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: peckery 14-Feb-2004, 12:40 PM
Peace through superior fire power. tongue.gif

Posted by: Aon_Daonna 14-Feb-2004, 05:34 PM
yeah as if that would help... I mean all that does probably is add to the terrorism.. thanks no.

Posted by: gaberlunzie 14-Feb-2004, 08:40 PM
Where does this world go? This is perverse, sick...

Posted by: Richard Bercot 14-Feb-2004, 11:06 PM
What is everyone going to say, if the War in Iraq and the War against Terrorism does create peace?

Posted by: scottish2 15-Feb-2004, 08:35 AM
Humm they probably said that 15-20 years ago when we the USA was helping Bin Laden. Now look where that got us. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Richard Bercot 15-Feb-2004, 09:35 AM
QUOTE (scottish2 @ Feb 15 2004, 09:35 AM)
Humm they probably said that 15-20 years ago when we the USA was helping Bin Laden. Now look where that got us. rolleyes.gif

If memory serves me right, We were helping Bin Laden to stop the Russian take over of Afghanistan. It is not the fault of the US that Bin Laden turned rogue. wink.gif

Posted by: Aon_Daonna 15-Feb-2004, 09:55 AM
funny that the same happened with Saddam...

QUOTE
What is everyone going to say, if the War in Iraq and the War against Terrorism does create peace?


I do not believe that the war in iraq and the war against terrorism will "create" peace. Whatever it does it makes it easier for arab demagogues to persuade ppl to believe it's another attack on the arab world...

Posted by: maisky 15-Feb-2004, 02:18 PM
QUOTE (Richard Bercot @ Feb 15 2004, 12:06 AM)
What is everyone going to say, if the War in Iraq and the War against Terrorism does create peace?

The war in Iraq and the war against terrorism are separate issues. Indeed, the war in Iraq is working directly AGAINST the war on terrorism. It has generated tremendous anti-US feelings in the muslim world, generating LOTS of new voluteer suicide bombers. sad.gif

Besides, there is no evidence that war can create peace.

jester.gif

Posted by: Aon_Daonna 15-Feb-2004, 02:35 PM
i think peace forced at gunpoint is.. well.. not really peace nor very fair

Posted by: scottish2 15-Feb-2004, 03:03 PM
QUOTE (Richard Bercot @ Feb 15 2004, 10:35 AM)
If memory serves me right, We were helping Bin Laden to stop the Russian take over of Afghanistan. It is not the fault of the US that Bin Laden turned rogue. wink.gif

But seeings how there seems to be a track record growing will be interesting to see who are new enemy is in 10-20 years. If it's Iraq this will just lead to this growing track record.

Posted by: MDF3530 15-Feb-2004, 03:09 PM
In the movie The Scorpion King, there is this line:

"Rivers of blood can never bring peace."

Posted by: Richard Bercot 15-Feb-2004, 03:29 PM
No one can ever predict the future, and yes, some of our now Friends may turn out to be our enemies and our enemies our Friends. But if you bury your head in the sand, then nothing can or will be resolved.

Posted by: scottish2 15-Feb-2004, 06:21 PM
But as mike pointed out swimming in blood doesn't bring peace either.

Posted by: Richard Bercot 15-Feb-2004, 06:33 PM
QUOTE (scottish2 @ Feb 15 2004, 07:21 PM)
But as mike pointed out swimming in blood doesn't bring peace either.

Then tell me, what is the solution? unsure.gif

Posted by: maisky 15-Feb-2004, 07:41 PM
QUOTE (Richard Bercot @ Feb 15 2004, 07:33 PM)
Then tell me, what is the solution? unsure.gif

The first step is a change of leadership in the US. Kerry may not be perfect, but he HAS to be better than Bush. King GeorgeII has the WORST record, on all fronts, of ANY US President. He is a failure at yet another profession. This time his failure resulted in many thousands of deaths. It is a national disgrace. At least Clinton only got hooters in the hallway.


Posted by: MDF3530 15-Feb-2004, 07:56 PM
QUOTE (Richard Bercot @ Feb 15 2004, 06:33 PM)
Then tell me, what is the solution? unsure.gif

Tolerance.

Posted by: Richard Bercot 15-Feb-2004, 07:59 PM
I am not asking what leadership we should have or have not. All I am hearing is how it is all being done wrongly.

So I will ask again, What is the solution.

Posted by: Richard Bercot 15-Feb-2004, 08:01 PM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ Feb 15 2004, 08:56 PM)
Tolerance.

OK, I can agree with that, but isn't tolerance required from both sides?

Posted by: scottish2 15-Feb-2004, 08:34 PM
my solution is to withcall all the troops. Playing world police gets us in half this trouble. How would you feel if Iraq had bases here and was running around north america getting in everyones business you'd be just as ticked off (being polite here) off as some middle eastern folk are that we're there doing this very thing.

Posted by: Richard Bercot 15-Feb-2004, 09:08 PM
QUOTE (scottish2 @ Feb 15 2004, 09:34 PM)
my solution is to withcall all the troops. Playing world police gets us in half this trouble. How would you feel if Iraq had bases here and was running around north america getting in everyones business you'd be just as ticked off (being polite here) off as some middle eastern folk are that we're there doing this very thing.

Fair enough. I just wish that it was that easy.

As far as the Iraqis being here, I think every Country in the World is already doing that, the only difference is that they do not have their Military Bases here. It seems to me that every Country in the World is telling us how we are to view their point of views. The same thing had happened in both World Wars and we were always the last to join in and now when they cry foul to someone else and we jump in to help, the foul is changed and then pointed at us. Can they not make up their minds or are we suppose to be mind reader and only react after the fact?

Are you willing to sit around and wait for another to assult some other people with weapons of mass destruction. Is that worth waiting for?

I, myself, am a firm believer in preventive maintenance. If something looks like it going to break down I would much rather fix it while I can before it happens then to wait until it breaks and possible effecting other parts it is related to.

Just My Opinion.

Posted by: scottish2 15-Feb-2004, 09:17 PM
QUOTE (Richard Bercot @ Feb 15 2004, 10:08 PM)
Fair enough. I just wish that it was that easy.

As far as the Iraqis being here, I think every Country in the World is already doing that, the only difference is that they do not have their Military Bases here. It seems to me that every Country in the World is telling us how we are to view their point of views. The same thing had happened in both World Wars and we were always the last to join in and now when they cry foul to someone else and we jump in to help, the foul is changed and then pointed at us. Can they not make up their minds or are we suppose to be mind reader and only react after the fact?

Are you willing to sit around and wait for another to assult some other people with weapons of mass destruction. Is that worth waiting for?

I, myself, am a firm believer in preventive maintenance. If something looks like it going to break down I would much rather fix it while I can before it happens then to wait until it breaks and possible effecting other parts it is related to.

Just My Opinion.

Well the problem with preventitive maintanance is in the case of war it's wrong and the court at Nuremberg threw out the Nazis us of this explaination. We can't have countries charging around the world starting wars over what maybe because it also maybe not. Besides the same trial stated that starting a war is a crime against peace.

Posted by: Richard Bercot 15-Feb-2004, 09:23 PM
QUOTE (scottish2 @ Feb 15 2004, 10:17 PM)
Besides the same trial stated that starting a war is a crime against peace.

So is attacking other Countries, harboring Terrorists and Killing their own People.

Posted by: scottish2 15-Feb-2004, 09:28 PM
a crime is still a crime though. Not saying other countries are innocent but a crime to combat a crime is not the way. I mean if someone say killed a family member or someone close to you and then you turned around and killed them would you not also be guilty of the crime of murder?

Posted by: Richard Bercot 15-Feb-2004, 09:42 PM
QUOTE (scottish2 @ Feb 15 2004, 10:28 PM)
a crime is still a crime though. Not saying other countries are innocent but a crime to combat a crime is not the way. I mean if someone say killed a family member or someone close to you and then you turned around and killed them would you not also be guilty of the crime of murder?

I am not going into this Death Penalty again.

You already know my views on that. wink.gif

Posted by: scottish2 15-Feb-2004, 11:21 PM
I'm not even talking the DP here. I am talking about you specifically. If you killed someone who killed a member of your family or a close friend would you not also be guilty of murder? Well no different for a country. If you're attacked there are both legal ways and illegal ways to deal with justice. On the war on terrorism I might agree action was needed cause justice can't be served on a coward hiding out in caves. But Saddam wasn't hiding in some caves when the war started. He was there and except for Kuwait back on 90 as far as I know he had not attacked anyone outside his own country. Now inside is another matter and is a matter for the Iraqie people to deal with not any other country. And Bush is failing on his case of WMD so this is starting to prove he had no case even for a preemptive strike. And even thern a preemptive strike would be a crime against peace.

Posted by: Richard Bercot 16-Feb-2004, 12:15 AM
QUOTE (scottish2 @ Feb 16 2004, 12:21 AM)
I'm not even talking the DP here. I am talking about you specifically. If you killed someone who killed a member of your family or a close friend would you not also be guilty of murder? Well no different for a country. If you're attacked there are both legal ways and illegal ways to deal with justice. On the war on terrorism I might agree action was needed cause justice can't be served on a coward hiding out in caves. But Saddam wasn't hiding in some caves when the war started. He was there and except for Kuwait back on 90 as far as I know he had not attacked anyone outside his own country. Now inside is another matter and is a matter for the Iraqie people to deal with not any other country. And Bush is failing on his case of WMD so this is starting to prove he had no case even for a preemptive strike. And even thern a preemptive strike would be a crime against peace.

Since this is not on the DP subject, I will respond. wink.gif

If someone was to intentionally kill my Wife while I was there, my answer would be easy. YES, in a heartbeat.

If someone was to intentionally kill my Wife while I was not there, I really couldn't answer that but probably.

If someone was to intentionally kill anyone while I was there, my answer would be easy. YES.

If someone was to intentionally kill anyone while I was not there, Probably not, but if I could catch them personally and was able to turn them over to the law, I would turn them over. If they even try to kill me in the process, then Yes I would kill them.

I cannot believe that you would think that the people of Iraq would be capable of stopping Saddam by themselves when every time they tried to rebel, they were massacred. Who is going to help them then?

As far as President Bush failing in not finding the WMDs, I really don't know and neither does anyone else. All anyone has to base their information is their own opinion and my opinion is as good as anyone else's.

Posted by: Aon_Daonna 16-Feb-2004, 11:59 AM
Well on the question of the solution: tolerance on both sides, yes. But how on earth is it going to work if the rich/grand west always looks down on everyone else? No wonder we are used as the Enemy by everyone who wants something... I mean we can't go on like that because in the end it's going to lead to the disaster.
Secondly, fight terrorism with counter-terrorism rather than a military, oppressive force.
Third: start helping other states to create equal opportunities and education. An educated mind is less easy to sway to favour terrorism than an uneducated mind.

And I think with a little bit of help the iraqi people would have been able to overthrow saddam. Look at what happened in Georgia just last year? If they have endured enough and if there is a figure to unite behind no army in the world can stop the people forever. Peaceful revolution? Look at the example DDR (German Democratic Republic). You might argue that the state was crumbling already but they still had an army at hand and Russia could have stopped the whole thing if they really would have set their mind to it. For an army it is hard to actually open fire on their own people. Even terror often can't change that.
In all other counts I have to say I favour the sniper solution. Nice, clean, less people endangered on both sides and the chance (particularly in iraq) was/is that the next person will not be able to hold the country/government together.

Posted by: RavenWing 16-Feb-2004, 02:10 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ Feb 15 2004, 08:18 PM)
Besides, there is no evidence that war can create peace.

jester.gif

Have you forgotten about WWII? If it wasn't for that war, there wouldn't be peace in Europe.

Posted by: scottish2 16-Feb-2004, 03:00 PM
Well there's a difference though. germany started it and lost and were tried. Here the US started it and their case has not been proven yet they'll get away with it unlike Germany who used the same excuses Bush did.

Posted by: Richard Bercot 16-Feb-2004, 04:04 PM
QUOTE (scottish2 @ Feb 16 2004, 04:00 PM)
Well there's a difference though. germany started it and lost and were tried. Here the US started it and their case has not been proven yet they'll get away with it unlike Germany who used the same excuses Bush did.

So I am to assume the you are comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler? unsure.gif

Posted by: scottish2 16-Feb-2004, 04:07 PM
Yeap. Hitler charged in claiming Premptive strikes to supposedly save germany and Bushler did it as well. Nuremberg Trials threw out this Nazi Doctrine and Bushlers same argument should also be thrown out and Bushler tried for war crimes.

Posted by: Aon_Daonna 16-Feb-2004, 04:59 PM
I don't know.. GWB doesn't seem to be intelligent enough to be actually be able to be compared with Hitler. Yes, Hitler wanted war, but for expansion, not some weird pretense to fight terrorism.

Posted by: scottish2 16-Feb-2004, 05:02 PM
Maybe not terrorism but there was a preemptive strike argument during teh Nuremberg trials cause I was reading a book on the trials not to long ago and they raise this issue that the Nazi's tried to use the argument of preemptive strikes as an excuse for some of their actions and the court rejected this philosopy.

Posted by: Aon_Daonna 16-Feb-2004, 05:06 PM
the pre-emptive strike issue probably comes from the attack on France. Yes, I guess that is definitly classified as a pre-emptive strike over here to keep others from Interfering.
Still, I don't want to compare the war on terror with a war done for expansion and enslaving the slavic people.

Posted by: maisky 16-Feb-2004, 05:25 PM
The biggest difference that I see here is that Hitler was following his own ideas. Georgie does what the major energy companies tell him. The Iraq invasion is not about terrorism or about Sadam's excesses. It is about oil. Bush is scrambling like a cat trying to cover a turd on a linoleum floor. The only surprise is that ANYBODY still believes his lies. sad.gif

Posted by: maisky 16-Feb-2004, 05:26 PM
The WORST that might happen in this forum is if GW were to join. Then I would have to be NICE to him. sad.gif

Posted by: scottish2 16-Feb-2004, 05:30 PM
Well lets see if Bushler frees the Iraqie people any time soon. So far he's not doing to much to get the troops out. Seems I remember him saying it would be weeks right after the war supposedly ended and what it's been like 7-8 months at least now.

Posted by: scottish2 16-Feb-2004, 05:33 PM
If Bushler joins I say we take away his 1st amendment right just as he's doing to our rights give him a taste of his own medicine. tongue.gif

Posted by: Aon_Daonna 16-Feb-2004, 05:38 PM
ooooooh I would love to talk to him in person to determine if he is as du..ll as he seems!

Posted by: Richard Bercot 16-Feb-2004, 06:20 PM
Since everyone is concerned about how the World feels. How does the UN feel and not your opinion but what they are saying about all of this. unsure.gif

Posted by: shamalama 17-Feb-2004, 02:25 PM
(buttoning up Kevlar vest)

Saddam was a ruthless dictator that saw himself as the ruler of all things Arab. Even the other Arab states knew this (ask Kuwait).

I am fully convinced that Saddam harbored, protected, and funded those that would do harm to (1) any American, and (2) any Christian.

Al Qaeda is now reduced to a fraction of it's ability to do harm. The next most powerful force of terrorism was the regime of Saddam. With him still in place Islamic radicals would train and plan for their next attack against the Great Satan.

Saddam, for years, told the UN to "stuff it", and they did, proving once again just how irrevalent the UN actually is.

I am glad he has been removed from power. The majority of Iraqis are glad he has been removed from power.

The "make love not war" mantra is a wonderful idea. It's just that it doesn't work in the real world (much like the often heralded Socialism). There really are "bad people" in this world, people that, if given the chance, would do great harm to innocent others. We almost let one just like him get too powerful in the 1930-1940's.

Posted by: Richard Bercot 17-Feb-2004, 02:40 PM
Thank you Shamalama,

I don't feel like the Lone Stranger here anymore. wink.gif

Posted by: shamalama 17-Feb-2004, 02:53 PM

Makes you wonder about the company you keep.

user posted image


Posted by: Richard Bercot 17-Feb-2004, 03:27 PM
I think President Bush is doing something that should have been done a long time ago. And I think it has some people scared, which doesn't make any sense to me because unless you are trying to hide, you shouldn't have to worry. And I have nothing to hide.

I am not paranoid enough to think that someone is out to get me. If that were the case, I surely wouldn't use my real name in here now would I?

I for one Applaud what President Bush is doing. And I would support anyone who has the guts enough to stand up to people like Saddam. He was nothing but a big bully and someone had to knock him down a few pegs. President Reagan did this to Momar Khadafi in Lybia.

I do not put down any of our Presidents whether I like them or not. If anyone think that they could do a better job then why are they not in Office? And the Last thing that I want to hear is because it's all about Money, because it is not.

Posted by: Aon_Daonna 17-Feb-2004, 04:37 PM
well... on the matter UN, I think they should have acted ages ago which has nothing to do with the current administration of the US.

Arabs out to get Christians? what a bs.. if they want to get one religion/ppl out it's the Jews... That's evident from the propaganda used.

If the US feel so greatly miffed by what is happening they should please think of how they treat those nations. Do they want them to be free people or just buying american products or just following the "great" example. Yes, the US are a good example in general but in the last time they seem to develop the same problem as many European Nations had in the late 19th century/early 20th. At least for me some of the parallels are quite evident.
But by going into Iraq (I'm not even disputing Saddam was bad for the country.. that's actually quite evident) the Arab/Muslim part world (especially the uneducated parts) will see this as another attack on their people. And that is not the way to solve the problem. We won't go anywhere if we just keep on doing as we are.
It is not only the US but they are the most prominent of the Western World and therefor easier to attack. It is easier to get people behind something when ONE enemy is standing out proud.

Whatever is going to happen, I don't want to adopt the raised indexfinger and rant on à la "I told you so" but I wasn't surprised at 9/11 and I won't be surprised at anything else much either.

What annoys me about the whole issue is that the Iraq campaign was started under the pretence of urgent threat and now all that is emphasized is saddam's capture. They told us the WMD were the imminent and most important thing to do...

Posted by: Richard Bercot 17-Feb-2004, 05:14 PM
I am all for education all people. But what are you going to do if the, what we call, Third World Countries, (A term that I do not like), will not allow education for its people?

Again I say that we, as all people, do not know the truth either way. We can only trust our elected leaders to do the right thing. I do not like this game of politics pitting one side against another just because of these so called Party lines.

I do know that people has different views and beliefs, which is all fine. I, myself, would hurt anyone just because the believe differently than me. But with this Media that we have trying to change the World to someone's Point of View is not what I consider right.

I have one question to ask in here. Does anyone here believe that Saddam did not have WMDs so much that they are willing to ruin their reputation or even their life. I do not have proof positive either way.

So is there anyone in here in the know of the exact truth?

Posted by: maisky 17-Feb-2004, 05:19 PM
QUOTE (Richard Bercot @ Feb 17 2004, 06:14 PM)
I am all for education all people. But what are you going to do if the, what we call, Third World Countries, (A term that I do not like), will not allow education for its people?

Again I say that we, as all people, do not know the truth either way. We can only trust our elected leaders to do the right thing. I do not like this game of politics pitting one side against another just because of these so called Party lines.

I do know that people has different views and beliefs, which is all fine. I, myself, would hurt anyone just because the believe differently than me. But with this Media that we have trying to change the World to someone's Point of View is not what I consider right.

I have one question to ask in here. Does anyone here believe that Saddam did not have WMDs so much that they are willing to ruin their reputation or even their life. I do not have proof positive either way.

So is there anyone in here in the know of the exact truth?

We DO know that at one time Iraq had WMD. We know this because the Reagan Administration GAVE them to them. The US built the gas production factory for them so they could use them on Iran. Reagan, what a peice of work. angel_not.gif
The best I can say is that he didn't screw things up QUITE as badly as George II is. king.gif

Posted by: Richard Bercot 17-Feb-2004, 05:35 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ Feb 17 2004, 06:19 PM)
We DO know that at one time Iraq had WMD. We know this because the Reagan Administration GAVE them to them. The US built the gas production factory for them so they could use them on Iran. Reagan, what a peice of work. angel_not.gif
The best I can say is that he didn't screw things up QUITE as badly as George II is. king.gif

How sure are we that President Bush, as you put it "screwed things up", actually did?

I cannot read the Future. Can you? unsure.gif

Posted by: Aon_Daonna 17-Feb-2004, 06:44 PM
well I believe saddam did have WMD. Yes. But I also believe that at the time he was at no point ready to use them because of the state of his country.

But for the Future not only today's views count and not only the views of one man. And for the reputation of the US in the world the current american administration did more bad than good.

Posted by: shamalama 18-Feb-2004, 07:15 AM
Saddam did, at one time, have WMD's. He showed a willingness to use them against (1) his enemy [Iran], and (2) his own people [Kurds].

The UN said he had them. Bush 1 said he had them. Clinton said he had them. Bush 2 said he had them. Kerry (during the Clinton admin.) said he had them.

America sold him parts to manufacture WMD's. So did Germany, France, and Russia.

And in the post-9/11 atmosphere in the US there was great worry that (1) Saddam would use them against the Great Satan, or (2) he would sell them to someone that would. The fatwa to kill any American had already been issued.

My worry today is "Where are the WMD's now"? They were there, and now they're gone. I certainly doubt they have been destroyed. Who has them?

I don't think "Arabs want to kill Americans". But I do think there are Islamic radicals that would love to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. Much like some Baptists that would love to kill as many abortion doctors as they can. "Kill the sinner/infidel to the glory of God/Allah". And these kind of people scare me.

Posted by: maisky 18-Feb-2004, 07:21 AM
QUOTE (Richard Bercot @ Feb 17 2004, 06:35 PM)

How sure are we that President Bush, as you put it "screwed things up", actually did?

I cannot read the Future. Can you? unsure.gif

You don't have to read the future, just the present. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: maisky 18-Feb-2004, 07:23 AM
QUOTE (shamalama @ Feb 18 2004, 08:15 AM)


I don't think "Arabs want to kill Americans". But I do think there are Islamic radicals that would love to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. Much like some Baptists that would love to kill as many abortion doctors as they can. "Kill the sinner/infidel to the glory of God/Allah". And these kind of people scare me.

Muslim terrorists, Christian terrorists, what's to chose? rolleyes.gif biggrin.gif

Posted by: shamalama 18-Feb-2004, 07:25 AM
QUOTE
Muslim terrorists, Christian terrorists, what's to chose?


I think I'll choose another wee dram!

beer_mug.gif


Posted by: maisky 18-Feb-2004, 12:19 PM
QUOTE (shamalama @ Feb 18 2004, 08:25 AM)

I think I'll choose another wee dram!

beer_mug.gif

Excellent choice, my friend. Bring out the Tullamore Dew!! beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 24-Feb-2004, 07:41 AM
(Almost) Everyone is pointing their fingers at Bush and the U.S. but what about Russia, Germany, and France who were aiding and profiting from Saddam and his Iraqi regime????

These countries knew who Saddam was (is) and what he was doing to his own people, but Big Oil Deals were the only thing on their minds. Publicly at the U.N. they denounced Saddam, but behind close doors they were cutting deals and sending weapons. Greed out weighed humanity!! But none of you intellegent people seem to care about this. There seems to be a double standard here.

As for the U.N...they have castrated themselves or maybe they never had Balls to begin with. Look at the Sudan...where muslims are and have been massacreing thousands upon thousands of Christians (yes that's right Christians) for oil. The U.N. has done nothing but talk about the situation. Talk is cheap when your breasts are cut off by the Sudan government and your can't feed your baby. Talk is cheap when your legs have been amputated and you can't work and support your family. Summit meetings are useless when your whole family has been murdered and you are an orphan.

Look at Ruwanda (spelling?) millions murdered...what did the U.N. do? Nothing!

I actually know some Muslims and have studied Islam. Yes there are peaceful Muslims, but there are many radicals who are educated, but have one thing on their minds---World domination!
Reminds me of Hitler, who had a little more on his mind than just expansion. Expansion was his excuse, but his real agenda was to control and rule Europe and eraticate the Jews and people who didn't fit the mold of the Arian Race, and eventually dominate the world. To compare Bush to Hitler is insane!!! Let's say for arguement sake Bush is guilty of killing innocent Iraqis and U.S. military soldiers---can you honestly say 8 million dead Jews that Hitler murdered can be compared to what Bush has done? Your comparing oranges to apples---Your comparing Gawtanamo Bay and removing Evil Saddam from power to Gas Chambers and Smoke Stacks!

As for educating the radical extremist Muslims...What education? Western Education? They reject all of the West! That's right all of the West...even the peaceful, anti-war Western people. And who is going to educate them... the U.N.???

As for WWII...Let me ask this of my fellow Americans...During WWII, if American Ships would not have been bombed by Germany in the Atlantic and Japan had not bomb Pearl Harbor---do you think The United States should have stayed neutral and done nothing? Do you think we should have stayed out of the war and let Hitler and Japan continue their invasions and atrocities? Based on some of the reasoning that has been posted about peace earlier we could have said, "Let the people of those countries rise up and overthrow Hitler and Japan."

Posted by: Randy 24-Feb-2004, 08:03 AM
Great post Roisin-Teagan! I could have never said it better in a million years.

Posted by: maisky 24-Feb-2004, 08:36 AM
What you say is true, but the problem is, the rational for invading Iraq had nothing to do with this. It was lies about WMD's. Pure and simple. However laudable removing Sadam was, our government is STILL guilty of war crimes under the Geneva Convention rules.....

Posted by: shamalama 25-Feb-2004, 10:05 AM
I still don't believe the "lies" conplaint.

I DO believe that early intelligence was incomplete, from the US as well as Britain. EVERYONE has been saying that Saddam had/has WMD's. Bush 1 said it, Clinton said it, Bush 2 said it, the UN said it. Five years ago EVERYONE was saying that Saddam had WMD's. Are they guilty of lying? If so then where is the complaint against them?

If Clinton had had his cajones away from interns and actually protecting his country, would there be a cry of "you liar" against him? No.

And now that Bush 2 actually did something about it, and that the WMD's are now sitting in Syria, everyone wants to say "Bush lied".

This argument has nothing to do with fact or opinion, but purely another anti-Bush raving from the left.

Posted by: tsargent62 25-Feb-2004, 12:09 PM
Ok, I've read it all and are caught up. I'm appalled that anyone would compare GWB with Hitler. Hitler was the greatest evil the world has seen, with Joseph Stalin following in close second (he killed almost as many Jews as Hitler). Like him or not, Bush is not evil.

The argument about all the American goods being sold in the Arab world, is not economically sound. The goods are selling because there is demand for them. If ppl didn't want them, they wouldn't buy them. Besides, is America the only Western country selling their wares there?

QUOTE
But for the Future not only today's views count and not only the views of one man. And for the reputation of the US in the world the current american administration did more bad than good.


More bad than good? We send <u>billions</u> of dollars overseas to aid other countries. We send economic aid to Russia as well as a number Eastern European, South American and African countries. We send food to famine starved African countries. We send teachers to help setup schools. Germany and Japan certainly benefitted from American generosity after WWII. If there is a natural disaster such as the earthquakes that rocked Turkey a couple years ago, American rescue workers were there. Not just Red Cross, but from fire departments and other government funded rescue organizations. Where there is a humanitarian need, Americans are always there willingly.

It is these kinds of things that are easy to overlook when you don't like the policies of the Bush administration. I guess they don't count. Sad.

Like Richard said, I can not say with certainty that the WMD were or were not there. They were in the past and they were used. And they had to go somewhere. Saddam had 13 years to hide the stuff.

Posted by: maisky 25-Feb-2004, 12:31 PM
Tsargent, you spoil the fun when you use balance logic here. sad.gif laugh.gif

Bush not evil? I guess being a war criminal doesn't necessarily make him evil...it could just be ill advised or just stupid.


Posted by: tsargent62 25-Feb-2004, 12:49 PM
If Bush is a war criminal, does that mean Tony Blair and the PMs of Poland, Italy, Australia and the many other countries that participated in the liberation of Iraq are as well?

Mention was made that the Geneva Convention was violated. How? The prisoners in Guantanimo Bay are considered POWs. They are given food, shelter and everything else they need. The war on terrorism is still being waged, ergo they remain POWs. Ask the families of those killed in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania what they would like to see happen to these ppl and you'll see they're being treated with the fairness they deserve.

Posted by: maisky 25-Feb-2004, 01:05 PM
QUOTE (tsargent62 @ Feb 25 2004, 01:49 PM)
If Bush is a war criminal, does that mean Tony Blair and the PMs of Poland, Italy, Australia and the many other countries that participated in the liberation of Iraq are as well?

Mention was made that the Geneva Convention was violated. How? The prisoners in Guantanimo Bay are considered POWs. They are given food, shelter and everything else they need. The war on terrorism is still being waged, ergo they remain POWs. Ask the families of those killed in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania what they would like to see happen to these ppl and you'll see they're being treated with the fairness they deserve.

First part, yes. The Geneva convention carefully spells out the grounds for invading another country. They were not met in the case of Iraq.

The US administration has carefully insisted that the Guantanamo prisoners are NOT prisoners of war. They could not have been kept as they are if they WERE pows. The Supreme court will become involved with the US citizens that are being held in violation of our own constitution.

Part of the grievance that I, and many others have with the current US administration is its callous disregard for both international and US laws.

Posted by: Randy 25-Feb-2004, 02:12 PM
I just heard on the news yesterday that the surpreme court is assigning councel for the prisoners

Posted by: MDF3530 25-Feb-2004, 05:26 PM
Clinton was doing his job.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Clinton got Congress to quadruple the counterterrorism budgets of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency. Using that money, law enforcement officials were able to clean out terrorist cells all around the world. The reason why you didn't hear about it was because the GOP and the far right "media" like Fox News Channel, American Spectator, the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and the Washington Times kept pounding Travelgate/Whitewater/Monica Lewinsky until it crossed over into real news.

And what was the first thing Bush did when he became President? Cut those budgets down even further than they were when his father was President.

Posted by: maisky 26-Feb-2004, 08:09 AM
Which brings us up to the point where we can speculate about how much of 9/11 was the result of the Bush group simply dropping the ball. unsure.gif

Posted by: tsargent62 26-Feb-2004, 09:35 AM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ Feb 25 2004, 06:26 PM)
Using that money, law enforcement officials were able to clean out terrorist cells all around the world.

Clean out terrorist cells? Excuse me, but tell that the the orphans in Israel, Australia, Russia and other countries that have been the targets of terrorists. Anti-terrorism task forces did nothing to eliminate terrorism. You might find his methods distasteful, but GWB has done more to eradicate terrorism than any president in history.

Posted by: maisky 26-Feb-2004, 10:47 AM
QUOTE (tsargent62 @ Feb 26 2004, 10:35 AM)
Clean out terrorist cells? Excuse me, but tell that the the orphans in Israel, Australia, Russia and other countries that have been the targets of terrorists. Anti-terrorism task forces did nothing to eliminate terrorism. You might find his methods distasteful, but GWB has done more to eradicate terrorism than any president in history.

lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

Posted by: tsargent62 26-Feb-2004, 10:52 AM
Laugh all you want, funny boy, but the biggest terrorist training camps in the world are gone and their leaders are either on the run or have been captured. Can Clinton say he struck fear in the hearts of terrorists? Nope.

Posted by: maisky 26-Feb-2004, 11:09 AM
QUOTE (tsargent62 @ Feb 26 2004, 11:52 AM)
Laugh all you want, funny boy, but the biggest terrorist training camps in the world are gone and their leaders are either on the run or have been captured. Can Clinton say he struck fear in the hearts of terrorists? Nope.

The missed missle attack on Bin Laden was a matter of timing, not intent or action.

Posted by: tsargent62 26-Feb-2004, 11:17 AM
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you elaborate?

Posted by: maisky 26-Feb-2004, 11:34 AM
The attempt to decapitate Al Quida in Afganistan using cruise missles.

9/11? I am NOT one of the many who think that Bush and buddies deliberately allowed it to happen. I believe that is less than 50% likely. His wild scramble to cover up what they DID know doesn't help make me their supporter. Maybe they knew all about it, maybe they didn't. Even if they were totally clueless (strong possibility given their overall job performance), they were still culpable.

The invasion of Afganistan was properly done, following 9/11. The steps required to make it a LEGAL war were followed. It was not based on lies, like the Iraq invasion. The Iraq war has generated more terrorists than there were pre-9/11. This is going backward.


Posted by: shamalama 26-Feb-2004, 04:20 PM
QUOTE
maisky:  The Iraq war has generated more terrorists than there were pre-9/11.


I don't know that I believe that. I tend to believe that had Saddam remained unfettered (as all of the Liberal, and most of the Conservative administrations would have done) the terrorists of the world would have gravitated there. Lots of money, lots of open desert, lots of Islamic radicalism, and a hatred of the US (regardless of the administration). We know that al Queda operatives had already been there, both in hiding and in training. Iraq would have become a terrorist's DisneyWorld (and a cold sore on the world).

If a semi-democratic government can ever get established in Iraq, something that never would have happened as long as Saddam was there [re: Cuba], the majority of terrorists (including the Islamic ones) will have to go elsewhere, hopefuly somewhere with less money, less technology. And as long as they're on the run, and not hidden and helped, maybe the Special Forces can quietly "find" them. This is one time I really wished James Bond was real.

Pre-9/11, I don't think Bush "dropped the ball". I think the intelligence agencies worldwide have all been neutered in this post-Cold War world. Without an enemy, who needs spies? No one recognized that a new, boundry-less, government-less enemy had emerged. And this one doesn't play by any rules, including the Geneva ones. Today's governments are going to have to be a bit more aggressive than they were in the last 50 years, or they're going to find themselves being held ransom. We are entering World War 5, the fight of Radicals against Institutions, and this is the wrong time for "law enforcement". If these "cops" had really cleaned out so many terrorist cells, then how did 9/11 happen ("oops, we missed that one")?

Bush a war criminal? Compared to who? Saddam? I have NEVER heard a liberal ask that Saddam be tried as a war criminal, yet they scream about Bush. Doesn't anyone else find that a bit odd?

Posted by: MDF3530 26-Feb-2004, 04:50 PM
QUOTE (tsargent62 @ Feb 26 2004, 09:35 AM)
Clean out terrorist cells? Excuse me, but tell that the the orphans in Israel, Australia, Russia and other countries that have been the targets of terrorists. Anti-terrorism task forces did nothing to eliminate terrorism. You might find his methods distasteful, but GWB has done more to eradicate terrorism than any president in history.

Did you notice when these terrorist attacks started popping up again? I have. During the Bush administration after he cut the counterterrorism budgets of the CIA, NSA and Justice Department.

Posted by: MDF3530 26-Feb-2004, 04:54 PM
QUOTE (shamalama @ Feb 26 2004, 04:20 PM)
Bush a war criminal? Compared to who? Saddam? I have NEVER heard a liberal ask that Saddam be tried as a war criminal, yet they scream about Bush. Doesn't anyone else find that a bit odd?

I think Hussein should be tried as a war criminal, but that won't happen, because the Bush administration refuses to recognize the International War Crimes Court.

Posted by: maisky 26-Feb-2004, 06:12 PM
Here here, Mike!!! Sometimes even TROLLS make sense! laugh.gif

Posted by: tsargent62 27-Feb-2004, 09:38 AM
MDF3530 said:
QUOTE
Did you notice when these terrorist attacks started popping up again? I have. During the Bush administration after he cut the counterterrorism budgets of the CIA, NSA and Justice Department.


I think you're on a bit of a slippery slope, Mike. Terrorism is not new since the Bush administration. It's been going on for many, many years. Terrorism on American soil isn't new, either. Remember who was prez during the first WTC attack? Your boy Bill Clinton. Al Qaeda started planning the fatal WTC attack before Bush even started campaigning for president. So don't pin this on him. If Al Gore had been elected the same thing would have happened. Besides, the CIA only knew that some kind of attack was possibley imminent. They had no idea of the scale and type.

Posted by: shamalama 27-Feb-2004, 10:25 AM
Ach! Did he say, "There be trolls in this forum"?

user posted image


Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 27-Feb-2004, 10:40 AM
Still no one has answered the question I posting on board #7 for Americans only. It was not a retorical question.


Posted by: MDF3530 27-Feb-2004, 04:00 PM
QUOTE (tsargent62 @ Feb 27 2004, 09:38 AM)
Remember who was prez during the first WTC attack? Your boy Bill Clinton. Al Qaeda started planning the fatal WTC attack before Bush even started campaigning for president.

Do your research. When the WTC was bombed in 1993, Clinton had been President for exactly thirty-one days. And, as I said before in an earlier post, that made Clinton realize that something even more catastrophic than that could happen, so he got Congress to quadruple the counterterrorism budgets of the CIA, NSA and Justice Department. His theory was the old plumbers' axiom: Plug it before it leaks. In other words, take care of a little problem before it becomes a big problem.

And what was said about the Bush administration knowing that something was going to happen, but virtually nothing about the specifics of the plan, that was because instead of Operation Shock & Awe, they employed Operation Ignore & Deny. One of Clinton's top national security advisors (I can't remember his name right now) was asked to stay on by the Bush administration. He had numerous meetings with Vice President Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Karl Rove, John Ashcroft and Colin Powell, during which he repeatedly warned them about reports the FBI had gotten about men of Arabic descent taking flying lessons with no apparent desire to learn how to take off or land. No one heeded these warnings, and three thousand human beings paid the price.

Posted by: maisky 27-Feb-2004, 06:51 PM
QUOTE (Roisin-Teagan @ Feb 27 2004, 11:40 AM)
Still no one has answered the question I posting on board #7 for Americans only. It was not a retorical question.

Just because everybody is ignoring you, doesn't mean that your aren't a nice person! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 28-Feb-2004, 07:48 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ Feb 27 2004, 06:51 PM)
Just because everybody is ignoring you, doesn't mean that your aren't a nice person!  biggrin.gif

Ignoring me out of fear because you've met your match?? Nothing intellegent to say have you?? Poor boy can't hang with a real woman...too bad...maybe another day when your not blowing so much hot air? This doesn't mean you aren't a nice person. biggrin.gif

Seems like some of you are real good at debating, but not really good at telling the truth. Why is it so hard to admit sometimes war is necessary and moral? unsure.gif sad.gif

Posted by: MDF3530 28-Feb-2004, 11:22 AM
QUOTE (Roisin-Teagan @ Feb 28 2004, 07:48 AM)
Seems like some of you are real good at debating, but not really good at telling the truth. Why is it so hard to admit sometimes war is necessary and moral? unsure.gif sad.gif

Yes, war is necessary, but only as a last resort after all diplomatic solutions have failed. My father taught me that physical agression is ok, but only when you had no other recourse. He told me that after I, normally one of the most pacifistic people in the room, got into trouble in high school for fighting.

Posted by: maisky 29-Feb-2004, 04:50 PM
QUOTE (Roisin-Teagan @ Feb 28 2004, 08:48 AM)
Ignoring me out of fear because you've met your match?? Nothing intellegent to say have you?? Poor boy can't hang with a real woman...too bad...maybe another day when your not blowing so much hot air? This doesn't mean you aren't a nice person. biggrin.gif  

Seems like some of you are real good at debating, but not really good at telling the truth. Why is it so hard to admit sometimes war is necessary and moral?   unsure.gif  sad.gif


Ma'am, you overestimate yourself. I ignore the rain, too. Also the annoying laugh of a co-worker. I was taught that it is polite to ignore someones words when they are being foolish. I only fight with those who exercise logic. It is no fun to fight with the illogical. biggrin.gif And I ALWAYS tell the truth. Do you? unsure.gif
I respect your desire to enter the fray. It is the RIGHT of any Irish person to join the fight. I was not making a personal attack on YOU. If you perceived it that way, I appologize. I do not appologize on my statements about illegal wars and political lies. thumbs_up.gif

As for war, it is sometimes necessary and rarely moral. It just happens that the "conflict" in Iraq is illegal. Moral does not enter into it.... Deposing Sadam is a laudible goal. Unfortunately it was NOT the goal of the invasion. The invasion was to find WMDs, NOT to depose Sadam.

Posted by: maisky 29-Feb-2004, 04:51 PM
QUOTE (shamalama @ Feb 27 2004, 11:25 AM)
Ach! Did he say, "There be trolls in this forum"?

user posted image

Good troll, sir. laugh.gif

Posted by: shamalama 01-Mar-2004, 02:53 AM
QUOTE
Good troll, sir.


It's a self-portrait

biggrin.gif


Posted by: Roisin-Teagan 01-Mar-2004, 06:30 AM
QUOTE (maisky @ Feb 29 2004, 04:50 PM)
l
QUOTE (Roisin-Teagan @ Feb 28 2004, 08:48 AM)
Ignoring me out of fear because you've met your match?? Nothing intellegent to say have you?? Poor boy can't hang with a real woman...too bad...maybe another day when your not blowing so much hot air? This doesn't mean you aren't a nice person. biggrin.gif  

Seems like some of you are real good at debating, but not really good at telling the truth. Why is it so hard to admit sometimes war is necessary and moral?   unsure.gif  sad.gif


Ma'am, you overestimate yourself. I ignore the rain, too. Also the annoying laugh of a co-worker. I was taught that it is polite to ignore someones words when they are being foolish. I only fight with those who exercise logic. It is no fun to fight with the illogical. biggrin.gif And I ALWAYS tell the truth. Do you? unsure.gif
I respect your desire to enter the fray. It is the RIGHT of any Irish person to join the fight. I was not making a personal attack on YOU. If you perceived it that way, I appologize. I do not appologize on my statements about illegal wars and political lies. thumbs_up.gif

As for war, it is sometimes necessary and rarely moral. It just happens that the "conflict" in Iraq is illegal. Moral does not enter into it.... Deposing Sadam is a laudible goal. Unfortunately it was NOT the goal of the invasion. The invasion was to find WMDs, NOT to depose Sadam.


My, my I was just joking with you, as you've done so many times with me in the past. I must have hit a sore spot.

My temper was not flared nor was I upset. I was just stating the obvious. I wasn't talking about whether war in Iraq was moral or not. My earlier post was soley on the fact that most of you guys were comparing Bush to Hitler and how absurd this is. In addition, I pointed out the hypocrisy of pointing fingers at Bush alone and not seeing the crimes of Russia, Germany, and France.
I did pose the last question about WWII, which was very reasonible to ask. Apparently, not everyone thought my observations were foolish based on some of the posts placed right after my original post. Apparently their point of views are foolish as well---I guess anyone who doesn't agree with you is considered foolish!

It was my understanding that this was a forum where people got together and discussed different ideas---not just preach to the choir.

If you were taught to be polite and just ignore someone with they are supposedly being foolish why did you tell me "we are ignoring you"---You should have just said nothing, if your intention was politness?

By the way...This does not negate the fact that you are a nice person. biggrin.gif

Posted by: maisky 01-Mar-2004, 07:11 AM
I wasn't offended, my friend, but it is MY job to be foolish!! tongue.gif

Your points about WWII were correct, just not relavant to the situation in Iraq, which now has so many of our resources tied up with protecting Halliburton's interests that we don't have the resources to deal with a more urgent need in Haiti, which is our back yard.

As far as Russia, Germany and France go, they are not our problem. The behavior of our own government IS our problem.

Please stick around. I enjoy having you here in the gnosh pit. thumbs_up.gif

Posted by: tsargent62 01-Mar-2004, 12:08 PM
QUOTE (maisky @ Mar 1 2004, 08:11 AM)
we don't have the resources to deal with a more urgent need in Haiti, which is our back yard.

As far as Russia, Germany and France go, they are not our problem.

How come Haiti is our problem? What reason could we possibly have for getting mixed up in a civil war? Especially when the rebels want the same thing that our own Secretary of State has announced that we want, i.e., Aristide out of the office and fair, democratic elections.

Civil wars in our hemisphere would only prove problematic for the US if it involved Canada or Mexico. That would directly affect our national security. Haiti is a minor country whose only impact on the US is an increase of the number of refugees we get and a decrease in the number of Carribean vacation spots.

Posted by: Irish Stepper 01-Mar-2004, 12:40 PM
QUOTE (tsargent62 @ Mar 1 2004, 01:08 PM)
QUOTE (maisky @ Mar 1 2004, 08:11 AM)
we don't have the resources to deal with a more urgent need in Haiti, which is our back yard.

As far as Russia, Germany and France go, they are not our problem.

How come Haiti is our problem? What reason could we possibly have for getting mixed up in a civil war? Especially when the rebels want the same thing that our own Secretary of State has announced that we want, i.e., Aristide out of the office and fair, democratic elections.

Civil wars in our hemisphere would only prove problematic for the US if it involved Canada or Mexico. That would directly affect our national security. Haiti is a minor country whose only impact on the US is an increase of the number of refugees we get and a decrease in the number of Carribean vacation spots.

Gotta have those vacation spots!!! tongue.gif wink.gif

Posted by: maisky 01-Mar-2004, 01:55 PM
Good one, Ms. Stepper!!!

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)