Iraq anyone? or North Korea?

[Sander]

That is a culturally ignorant comment, as the vast majority of islamic women who wear those headdresses prefer to do so. Keep in mind that a country, depending on its culture, has certain dress codes that are enforced by law. I remember a case around my area in which a woman was fighting a fine because she was trying run a hotdog stand near a busy street wearing only a skimpy g-string (she lost the case BTW). Either way, only the most extremist of islamic states (Afghanistan) force their women to wear the headresses that cover their faces.

Hmm, I'm not too sure about that, AO. I remember that a lot of Turkish women were very happy with the abolition of that custom under Ataturk. And a recent survey in Morocco showed that most Muslims think of people wearing those face-covering headdresses as fundamentalist loonies. Seriously. Sorry I can't give you a link, though, perhaps in Dutch if I search hard enough, but that won't do you any good.

And it's funny that several people can bitch and say in an ill-informed manner that the US mowed down 40 demonstrators, ran over a cleric in a tank GTA style, and that the Iraqi's were better off and more free under Saddam's regime, yet leave out facts like demonstrator's never existed in his regime because of the dire consequences to themselves and their friends and families, or that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were executed by him (some with tanks BTW), not to mention the threat that he represented to the countries around him.

YOu SHOULD realise that the liberation of Iraq was a double-edged sword. According to Salam Pax, people were robbed of booze and money by the American soldiers, and mistreated badly because of miscommunication. For instance, soldiers would threaten a man who wouldn't let them into his house because his wife was putting on headdresses. While it may be good for some people, others feel that the liberation of Iraq has its downsides and that it is very doubtful what will happen next.

Don't be so blindly biased. Maybe in a country that is not torn apart by war, it wouldn't be necessary to drive huge fucking tanks around, and accidents do happen. Were you there when that occured.

And YOU don't be so blindly biased. Don't immediately rule out the possibility that it wasn't an accident. You weren't there either.



Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:42 Post subject:
Wooz69 wrote:

Important officials do not get killed "accidentally". Much less run over by tanks. Don't be so naive.


Don't be so blindly biased. Maybe in a country that is not torn apart by war, it wouldn't be necessary to drive huge fucking tanks around, and accidents do happen. Were you there when that occured.

Wooz69 wrote:

And YES, whatever country/society in which police shootouts led to the death of its citizens, and where people are killed in demonstrations, isn't a country where the citizens are free.

Nearly all countries have had violent and deadly demonstrations in their past, therefore, you're suggesting that no citizen is free. If I was to follow that chain of logic, that would make me an anarchist.

True if it weren't for two things:
1) He's not talking about very accidental deaths, but deaths caused by the police using deadly weapons.
2) The past is not the present. Because according to your line of logic there, a country could never change.

However, I disagree with you Wooz. While demonstrations are nice and regular, there have to be limits. For one because demonstrations can become violent or only there to provoke(think the Orange Parade in Ireland). And because it is better when demonstrations are done with the permission of the government, so that there are no unfortunate misunderstandings and accidents, and the police can block the streets so no people suddenly get caught in the demonstrations without knowing what they were getting in.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Hmm, I'm not too sure about that, AO. I remember that a lot of Turkish women were very happy with the abolition of that custom under Ataturk. And a recent survey in Morocco showed that most Muslims think of people wearing those face-covering headdresses as fundamentalist loonies. Seriously. Sorry I can't give you a link, though, perhaps in Dutch if I search hard enough, but that won't do you any good.

Which custom, I remember I read an article that the only law on the headdress in Turkey was that whores couldn't wear them, thereby leading to a rise in the wearing of these garments. Anyways, I do agree with you that if the majority of the citizens don't want to wear them, then they shouldn't be forced to. But keep in mind that most Middle Eastern countries don't force you to wear the face-covering headdresses, and as for the other headdresse, I'm pretty sure as time goes by, those laws will change (maybe with a twist as in the Turkish case) if demand is strong enough.

YOu SHOULD realise that the liberation of Iraq was a double-edged sword. According to Salam Pax, people were robbed of booze and money by the American soldiers, and mistreated badly because of miscommunication. For instance, soldiers would threaten a man who wouldn't let them into his house because his wife was putting on headdresses. While it may be good for some people, others feel that the liberation of Iraq has its downsides and that it is very doubtful what will happen next.

Compare that to the shit that Saddam was doing to the Iraqi's and tell me which is worse and in which are the people more free. A dictatorship was toppled and that under these circumstances, the immediate aftermath is going to be ugly.

Don't be so blindly biased. Maybe in a country that is not torn apart by war, it wouldn't be necessary to drive huge fucking tanks around, and accidents do happen. Were you there when that occured.

And YOU don't be so blindly biased. Don't immediately rule out the possibility that it wasn't an accident. You weren't there either.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that it wasn't an accident, and neither am I calling other people naive for believing that it might have been an accident.

Nearly all countries have had violent and deadly demonstrations in their past, therefore, you're suggesting that no citizen is free. If I was to follow that chain of logic, that would make me an anarchist.

True if it weren't for two things:
1) He's not talking about very accidental deaths, but deaths caused by the police using deadly weapons.
2) The past is not the present. Because according to your line of logic there, a country could never change.

But the recent past is a good indication of what could happen in the present, and I wouldn't be surprised that if this war ever became as unpopular as Vietnam, quite violent demonstrations might occur, and that the police might be forced to use clubs (a deadly weapon IMO) and even firepower, as they have done in the recent past. I'm not as sure about incidents like this in Europe, but I'm pretty sure that they can be found and that they can happen if a similar situation ever arose.

Also, keep the situatuon in Iraq on mind. You don't have people with Ak's sniping at soldiers in most demonstrations, and if you did, I'm pretty sure that the number of innocent deaths would rise drastically, no matter where it happens.

However, I disagree with you Wooz. While demonstrations are nice and regular, there have to be limits. For one because demonstrations can become violent or only there to provoke(think the Orange Parade in Ireland). And because it is better when demonstrations are done with the permission of the government, so that there are no unfortunate misunderstandings and accidents, and the police can block the streets so no people suddenly get caught in the demonstrations without knowing what they were getting in.

I don't think there should be a limit to civil disobediance, even if it's happening just to instigate the wrath of government. In fact, what better way to demonstrate the injustice of the authorities than by having them beat nonviolent people for voicing their opinions. The Civil Rights movement in the US is an excellent example. Also, I don't think demonstrations are better with the permission of the government. IMO, it's just a tool a tool the government employs to curb civil disobediance.

Bu, I do agree that violence should never occur during protests, and that it is hardly effective either. Look at the Israeli-Palestinian situation. I believe that civil disobediance would have furthered the cause of the Palestinians immensily. Instead, suicide bombings and other attacks have only justified to most Israelis that they should take a more violent approach towards the Palestinians, and therefore it leads to the election of extremist figures like Sharon into positions of power. It's a vicious cycle that won't ever end in anything good.

 

[Sander]

Which custom, I remember I read an article that the only law on the headdress in Turkey was that whores couldn't wear them, thereby leading to a rise in the wearing of these garments. Anyways, I do agree with you that if the majority of the citizens don't want to wear them, then they shouldn't be forced to. But keep in mind that most Middle Eastern countries don't force you to wear the face-covering headdresses, and as for the other headdresse, I'm pretty sure as time goes by, those laws will change (maybe with a twist as in the Turkish case) if demand is strong enough.

The custom of wearing Burkas, methinks. But I was merely pointing out that most muslim women aren't necessarily happy with wearing them.

But the recent past is a good indication of what could happen in the present, and I wouldn't be surprised that if this war ever became as unpopular as Vietnam, quite violent demonstrations might occur, and that the police might be forced to use clubs (a deadly weapon IMO) and even firepower, as they have done in the recent past. I'm not as sure about incidents like this in Europe, but I'm pretty sure that they can be found and that they can happen if a similar situation ever arose.

Well, for as far s I know, watercannons and tear gas are used instead of deadly force. And the recent past may be a good indication for the future, but you have to keep in mind that reforms, attitude adjustments and other such things can completely change it all. What's more, if it happened a couple of years back, it's very possible that such things wouldn't happen nowadays.

Also, keep the situatuon in Iraq on mind. You don't have people with Ak's sniping at soldiers in most demonstrations, and if you did, I'm pretty sure that the number of innocent deaths would rise drastically, no matter where it happens.

Yes, the number of innocent deaths would increase dramatically, and I'm not sure what the exact circumstances were, however, there are still several options, such as tear gas, that could be deployed before deadly force is used.

I don't think there should be a limit to civil disobediance, even if it's happening just to instigate the wrath of government. In fact, what better way to demonstrate the injustice of the authorities than by having them beat nonviolent people for voicing their opinions. The Civil Rights movement in the US is an excellent example. Also, I don't think demonstrations are better with the permission of the government. IMO, it's just a tool a tool the government employs to curb civil disobediance.

If there's no limit to civil disobediance, it wouldnt be disobediance, would it?
The reason there are controlled demonstrations is to keep violence and disregulation of traffic and the like in check.
By making uncontrolled demonstrations illegal, you make it easier to do something about skinheads who walk about in mainly Jewish neighborhoods provoking them.
But the fact that a demonstration is legal doesn't detract from it's message. It's more about the number of people that show up, than in what way they show up.

 

[Ozrat]

And Ozrat, since I'm in such an offensive mood, I'm going to call you Bill O'Reilly from now on. :p

You know I'm against Fox News, right?

 

[Darkfox]

Fox news is the right name for it...

ask any of the journalists who work for them and they'll all say the same thing...

What the fox news?

(think about it kiddies 8) )

 

[toresica]

That is a culturally ignorant comment, as the vast majority of islamic women who wear those headdresses prefer to do so. Keep in mind that a country, depending on its culture, has certain dress codes that are enforced by law. I remember a case around my area in which a woman was fighting a fine because she was trying run a hotdog stand near a busy street wearing only a skimpy g-string (she lost the case BTW). Either way, only the most extremist of islamic states (Afghanistan) force their women to wear the headresses that cover their faces.

That might be true about the majority.

I do know that not all of them like wearing such headresses (for example, the relatives (who still live in Iran) of an Iranian friend of mine. The point is that not all women from Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever want to be Islamic.

 

[Wooz]

AO: to set the record straight.

And it's funny that several people can bitch and say in an ill-informed manner that the US mowed down 40 demonstrators, ran over a cleric in a tank GTA style, and that the Iraqi's were better off and more free under Saddam's regime

I never said the Iraquis were more free under Saddam's dictatorship. I said the "We saved the Iraquis and now they are Free" talk is bullshit. Those are two different things.

The object of that post was to point out the abuses of the American/coalition occupation, which is claimed by some to be the avatar of freedom and justice on the planet, and its military actions Righteous Crusades Against Evil.
Not to justify a dictatorship by telling the Iraquis had more individual freedom and civil rights under Saddam...

Funny, isn't that an important part of civil disobediance, or do you not consider tear gas and rubber bullets violent

Only in the eventuality of those protesters truly becoming an immediate threat to the "peacekeeping" forces (self defence), a rubber bullet- teargas response would be less violent than shooting them dead. Besides, exterminating protesters won't lead to anything besides more violence.

One thing is to use teargas and rubber bullets against people armed with clubs and scythes in a dubitous protest during a war, (if the protesters were armed with AK's, it wouldn't be a demonstration, but an urban skirmish) another one is to break up non-violent protests with them. Of course, it's always easy to say a demonstration was getting too violent to justify the use of teargas and police charges.

To sum it up: violence wasn't nescessary, and if the demonstrators posed a real threat, non lethal methods could have been employed.

Nearly all countries have had violent and deadly demonstrations in their past, therefore, you're suggesting that no citizen is free.

I'm talking about a citizen living in a society/country that employs violence to break up protests. What I'm saying is that if you're living in a place where being clubbed/shot/killed by the authorities or other government supported/tolerated groups during a demonstration are standard procedures, you live in a police state and therefore, she is a witch. Uh. You are not free.

If I was to follow that chain of logic, that would make me an anarchist.

Great, there would be two of us in this forum.

Go Saddam go. The pseudo-cynics love you.

No need to be *that* cynical either...

 

[welsh]

Welsh, every move every country makes is in their interests in some form or another. So if you say that doesn't mean we don't look out for others, then in fact, noone looks out for another. We didn't give a hoot about Somalia until Time magazine began printing those articles remember? At least, I think that is when it began.

PS- The issue is a rather simple. What kind of country do you want to be a citizen of?

Historically, the origins of the modern national state was founded, to a large extent, by the recognition of soveriegnty. Sovereignty is basically the legal right and power of a state to do what it wants within it's territory and to bre recognized as the legitimate governming force within that state. Historically, soveriegnty rested with whoever wore the crown of ruler.

But a democratic state is different. In a democratic state, we hold the crown.

The Bush administration (as was discussed elsewhere here on this forum) has a habit of saying "We are a virtuous people, therefore what we do is virtuous."

But who you are is not what your history is. Rather, it is how you are today, how you act, what do you believe in, and to a lesser extent what you will become.

We, Americans, perceive ourselves as virtuous people who support the well-being of others, who are against tyranny and oppression, who are against imperialism and colonialism (which we fought against), and supportive of civil rights (which internationally are seen as human rights).

Yet what if our government acts in ways that contridict our values? What if our government supports tyranny, engages in imperialism and colonialism, supports dictatorships and the violation of human rights. Are we, as the citizens, not responsible? Does our government not work for us?

If not for us, than who? For corporations?

Certainly it was corporations involved in precious metals that benefitted from the Mobutu regime in Zaire, or ALCOA in the overthrow of Pinochet in Chili?

It is no coincidence that the CIA people involved the removal of Mussadegh from Iran got very nice jobs with the American insurance companies that suffered to lose should the oil fields get nationalized.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/iran_history.asp

" In 1951, the National Front movement, headed by Premier Mussadegh , a militant nationalist, forced the parliament to nationalize the oil industry and form the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). Although a British blockade led to the virtual collapse of the oil industry and serious internal economic troubles, Mussadegh continued his nationalization policy. Openly opposed by the shah, Mussadegh was ousted in 1952 but quickly regained power. The shah fled Iran but returned when monarchist elements forced Mussadegh from office in Aug., 1953; covert U.S. activity was largely responsible for Mussadegh's ousting."

Or was it the United Fruit Company that benefitted when a democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala was overthrown by the US.

I have said before, to Sander, that politics is a dirty business, as a statement of how things are, not how things should be. History judges you for what you did and failed to do, as well as your motivations.

We are Americans. We should advocate and support better ideals, live to a higher standard. We shouldn't be the Nazis who used the barrel of a gun for politics, or the Japanese that stroke first. Nor should our politics be driven for the power considerations that brought Europe repeatedly to war. Rather, our country should be about higher ideals, the furtherance of justice and right, of liberty and opportunity for everyone.

I don't want a government that supports dictators that killed civilians, not for the greater glory of United Fruit or the American Aluminum, or G.R. Grace.

You are judged by the quality of your actions.

Honestly, I would rather live in a country that took a risk with a democracy that might have some left wing leanings than in supporting assassination of national politicans, overthrowing regimes, engineering coup de tats and military interventions in governments we just don't like.

PS/King- as a citizen of the US and an adult who can vote- remember this. You are responsible for your government, the government represents you. What kind of person do you want to be, what kind of world do you want to further? Those are the questions you have to ask yourself.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

If there's no limit to civil disobediance, it wouldnt be disobediance, would it? [/quite]

As long as it remains civil, I don't think it could ever be destructive.

The reason there are controlled demonstrations is to keep violence and disregulation of traffic and the like in check.
By making uncontrolled demonstrations illegal, you make it easier to do something about skinheads who walk about in mainly Jewish neighborhoods provoking them.
But the fact that a demonstration is legal doesn't detract from it's message. It's more about the number of people that show up, than in what way they show up.

Good point. I never looked at it from that perspective.

You know I'm against Fox News, right?

I know, that's why I said I was in an offensive mood, Bill (j/k )

O'Reilly is such a bullshit artist, and I can't stand him, but we should go over his little tricks in another thread. Only person that is worse than him is that asshole Hannity.

I never said the Iraquis were more free under Saddam's dictatorship. I said the "We saved the Iraquis and now they are Free" talk is bullshit. Those are two different things.

Could you be a bit more clear, because compared to their previous situation under Saddam, they were definitely saved from a murderous tyrant and are more free than ever before. If you mean that they don't enjoy the same priviledges and necessities (medicine, effective policing, etc) that most in the west have, you need to keep in mind that this is a war ravaged country, and that it's going to take some time before they can enjoy the level of commodities that we in the west have.

The object of that post was to point out the abuses of the American/coalition occupation, which is claimed by some to be the avatar of freedom and justice on the planet, and its military actions Righteous Crusades Against Evil.
Not to justify a dictatorship by telling the Iraquis had more individual freedom and civil rights under Saddam...

The only people that make them out to be the avatar's of Freedom and the Righteous Crusader's of Evil are the detractor's of the US who obviously know that that isn't true.

Them, and people like PS, but who takes PS seriously???

Only in the eventuality of those protesters truly becoming an immediate threat to the "peacekeeping" forces (self defence), a rubber bullet- teargas response would be less violent than shooting them dead. Besides, exterminating protesters won't lead to anything besides more violence.

One thing is to use teargas and rubber bullets against people armed with clubs and scythes in a dubitous protest during a war, (if the protesters were armed with AK's, it wouldn't be a demonstration, but an urban skirmish) another one is to break up non-violent protests with them. Of course, it's always easy to say a demonstration was getting too violent to justify the use of teargas and police charges.

To sum it up: violence wasn't nescessary, and if the demonstrators posed a real threat, non lethal methods could have been employed.

I don't know what world you're living in, or what you think the situation in Iraq is like, but if someone was trying to kill me with an AK, I don't think rubber bullets would scare them, nor would I feel safe sporting said gun to defend myself.

A little bit after the war ended, there was a situation in the south of Iraq in the British controlled area. At the time, the Brits, who were lauded for their previous experience in Ireland, only used rubber bullets and tear gas. That changed when a group of soldiers were hunted down mercilessly by a crowd of Iraqi's sporting automatic rifles. The soldiers tried to defend themselves by holing up in an abandoned building and shooting at the Iraqi's with their rubber bullets, but that didn't stop them, and all were killed. Since then the British carry lethal weapons.

A good friend of mine who has a brother in Iraq, and currently stationed in the Sunni triangle, has said that they do dispurse crowds with tear gas and rubber bullets. But the second that they are fired upon, which does happen in most demonstrations, they they are forced to defend themselves with deadly force. And this happens very often whenever crowds are present, primarily because of the cover that they provide and for the propaganda that could be generated if an innocent civilian was killed.

From what he said, the situation is a lot worse than what the news reports it as. He described one situation in which they were passing through a town and that everyone there opened fire on his convoy. He even said that he was a bit traumatized after the incident because he had to shoot a child who was firing at them.

You need to keep in mind that in many parts of Iraq, it is still an urban warzone because of the guerillas. Although it is horrible that it happens, innocent people will die.

This is not the US, or Europe, or Australia where most protests are violence-free, and if they do occur it is never to the degree that is found in Iraq.

I'm talking about a citizen living in a society/country that employs violence to break up protests. What I'm saying is that if you're living in a place where being clubbed/shot/killed by the authorities or other government supported/tolerated groups during a demonstration are standard procedures, you live in a police state and therefore, she is a witch. Uh. You are not free.

I agree, but if the crowds are shooting back and attacking the authorities, what response could you expect?

Great, there would be two of us in this forum.

No, just you... just you.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Wooz, why did those people get "gunned down"? Was that the actual story, or did the media blow it out of proportion? Do the French media like to say everything we do in Iraq is bad or what? I mean, you got to give me a reason of why that happened, don't just say it's bad just because it happened. If a guy killed a man, you must know why. You can't judge him just for the act without knowing why. Self-defense, pure anger, or an honest mistake?

 

[quietfanatic]

On the subject of the headscarves.

The issue is under hot debate in France in that the Government is considering banning them in civil institutions to maintain a secular state. This is however in opposition to freedom of religion and choice.

I find it amusing and sad when I see two interviews of young women.

Interview 1 :France
We should have a right to wear the headscarf, as it is central to our identity.

Interview 2 : Taliban controlled Afghanistan
We should have the right to wear what we want, as differentiation of sexes and our dress code restricts our freedom.

Although they are very different cases, I think the fact that young Islamic women are taking up the headscarf in the West is basically a cultural and fashion statement and is unfortunate in that it creates division instead of promoting individuality and symbolizes the lack of freedom that religion can dictate.

An additional problem in France which further inflames the issue is that many migrants refuse to become French and form enclaves.

I think school kids should only have religious stuff in religious schools and in government systems people should be free and equal.

There are large demonstrations of women who want to keep the headscarves.

What do you people think of headscarves in your own civil institutions?

 

[Wooz]

PS wrote

Wooz, why did those people get "gunned down"? Was that the actual story, or did the media blow it out of proportion? Do the French media like to say everything we do in Iraq is bad or what?

I wrote

There you go with your nationalist ramblings again, with the evil frenchies conspiring to sabotage news. AFP is a serious news source, not a government-led propaganda agency.

AO wrote

I don't know what world you're living in, or what you think the situation in Iraq is like, but if someone was trying to kill me with an AK, I don't think rubber bullets would scare them, nor would I feel safe sporting said gun to defend myself.

Say, one thing is to have angry protesters and another thing is to face a mob holding AK rifles, in which case it wouldn t be a protest anymore. I doubt AFP would blow something out of proportion like that (but again, who knows...).


On the headscarf problem, I happened to live in Paris in an Arab/Islamic neighbourhood for a year as a kid, and the school was pretty strict towards religious symbols, you could carry a cross or a Koran verset as long as you kept it under your shirt.
The French want to keep their school out of religion, since it's an institution on a national level and France is pretty multiethnic, they want to make it a place to learn for everybody, to literally keep it out of religion.

In any case, I don't think forbidding or allowing the thing will change anything, since already without the headscarf, some people, ( a minority of the immigrants, mostly uberorthodox religious fanatics and grandpas ) aren't willing to integrate themselves to the community.

 

[Paladin Solo]

There you go with your assumptions and finger pointing again. Wooz, so you're saying they didn't report why it happened? Dude, don't make it seem I'm rambling about nationalist ideas here if you can't show me what they reported. Nothing I said about the French media on this topic is nationalist. In fact, if you recall, I wrote that I was thankful for our allies INCLUDING THE FRENCH in a topic I did awhile back when I was leaving for Italy.

 

[welsh]

Ok so did they lie, did they embellish, did they screw up, or did they just goof?

Or are they there at all?

But where are those WMD?


http://jldf.dk/tegninger/luis_royo_secrets027.

"The absence of these weapons is more than just an embarrassment. It raises the question of whether this war was fought on a false prospectus. Above all, did the president of the United States and the British prime minister lie?

So far, the answer seems to be no. Not a scrap of evidence has emerged since the war to suggest that Mr Bush or Mr Blair doubted the truth of their central claim. Moreover, given the evidence available to them at the time, they were entitled to their pre-war confidence."

Hmmm.....

"So Messrs Bush and Blair seem to have believed, with good reason, that Iraq possessed proscribed weapons. What if, as now seems probable, they were nonetheless wrong? Then, as Mr Kay argues, there must have been a massive failure of intelligence. Though some of the spies continue to insist, like Mr Blair and America's Vice-President Dick Cheney, that the illicit weapons or material will turn up in due time, Mr Bush himself has begun to wax less adamant. Intelligence cannot always be definitive. But Britain and America need to investigate what looks like a comprehensive spying failure that will haunt policymakers next time they are called on to deal with a rogue state believed to be building an atomic bomb."

Hmmmm.......

"Still, the politicians are not off the hook. Did president and prime minister, sincerely believing their central claim against Iraq, allow their conviction to distort the evidence they put before their people? It looks that way. Mr Bush conjured up a link between Iraq, al-Qaeda and September 11th that probably did not exist. He created an impression of a threat to the American homeland that the intelligence does not seem to justify. And when tabloid newspapers read Britain's dossier to mean that Britons themselves could come under chemical attack within 45 minutes, Mr Blair did not trouble to put them right."

I am still feeling a bit deceived.

Remember what Mr. O'Neil said- the first few national security council meetings the only thing on the agenda was taking down Saddam Hussein.



http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2384510

 

[Sander]

If they DID believe that Iraq had WMD, then they had either made one of the worst decisions in their life, or were supremely confident that Saddam would never use them. Seeing as how Saddam had already used WMD before, they probably made the worst decision in their lives. You do not attack an enemy that has extremely deadly weapons, and could actually them!

 

[MrMarcus]

Sander points out the exact reason I believe Iraq doesn't have WMDs. Saddam wasn't afraid to use them on Iraqis. Why would he be reluctant to use them against an invading force?

 

[Paladin Solo]

Probably because he knew he was going to lose so he thought up the situation and decided to make America and the coalition look like fools and liars. I don't know whether he had them or not, but I could care less. If Bush went in front of the world and said "It's all for the oil!" I could care less. Perhaps soon we will know the actual truth instead of assuming and pretending we are right just because either the majority agrees or because it pleases your anti-Bush/America mind, or pro-Bush/America mind. I won't say why we went in there, because I don't know. I can make a guess, but I won't say I am right or you are right. For all we know, Bush may have something even deeper in mind. Personally, I THINK it's to make an example in the region, while enjoying the oil we recieve perhaps as a payment for the war/liberation?

 

[Murdoch]

Probably because he knew he was going to lose so he thought up the situation and decided to make America and the coalition look like fools and liars. I don't know whether he had them or not, but I could care less. If Bush went in front of the world and said "It's all for the oil!" I could care less. Perhaps soon we will know the actual truth instead of assuming and pretending we are right just because either the majority agrees or because it pleases your anti-Bush/America mind, or pro-Bush/America mind. I won't say why we went in there, because I don't know. I can make a guess, but I won't say I am right or you are right. For all we know, Bush may have something even deeper in mind. Personally, I THINK it's to make an example in the region, while enjoying the oil we recieve perhaps as a payment for the war/liberation?

-sigh- I'll get back to you on this nonsense PS, I have things to do now.

 

[Sander]

because it pleases your anti-Bush/America mind, or pro-Bush/America mind.

What, can't you believe that people make up their own minds without thinking "Oh, that's someone from that and taht place, let's be opposed to it." In case you hadn't noticed, people actually DO think without looking at the persons and places things are coming from. Don't insult me or others by implying that we're all a bunch of biased people who don't look at facts.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Sander, I wasn't implying to anyone in specific. And what facts? Is it proven we are/aren't there for WMD's?