Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / when will it stop

when will it stop
11:36:57 May 22nd 07 - Mr. Peaec IS Ard:

when will the killing in iraq stop, when will america and its allies stop killing to get oil, when will the world see that treisom can not be stoped by war, why can people just not except each other, why do we not learn from the past e.g. the nazi's killing the jews was that not terisom, why do the uk and america posisit in attacking countrys that suposedley have wepons of mass destuction why do they not send there troops to a place that needs it were cival war scars the land why can we not take the dictators that rule these countrys down. why is it that we have to use force to get what we want.

see if you can awswer any of thoghs qwestions


13:38:29 May 22nd 07 - Dark Lord Osiris:

the simple answer is because we can and no one is going to stop us... you might not like it but thats the way it is.


13:49:17 May 22nd 07 - Mr. Dakarius:

I feel sorry for our next prez, he (possibly she) will have to deal with this mess called Iraq.


17:36:12 May 22nd 07 - Lord Oya:

you can ask the question "Why" to any subject, why is osiris so emo....why is dak a crazy person who should be back in his padded cell.


its all well and good questioning things, but if your not going to act upon these questions there is no real reason to ask them no? There will always be wars history has proven that....peace on a global scale seems very unlikely.....and even if we reach an age in which that is possible....we will probably have wars between worlds (if we haven't sluaghtered each other by then that is) :P

18:03:03 May 22nd 07 - Mr. Acelnorst Dezhelian:

So you're basicly saying we should just sit and wait to get slaughtered?

I'd rather ask, and maybe by just asking other people might think about it too and then maybe something could be done.

However I agree on teh US assaulting irak to defeat terrorism, as they claim. But them taking control of the oild fields i can't seem to understand how that helps anyone but the US. Is it supoosed to be like a pay for his work of uninterested good will for global security?


19:45:55 May 22nd 07 - Mr. Haywood Jablowme:

wai kent wi ol ispel praperli?


20:15:57 May 22nd 07 - Mr. Avionaro:

USA only creates terrorism, perhaps we should invite bush to this game, so he canplay his  war here, instead of the real world. I'm not supprised if the CIA caused 9/11. that Al qaida or somethng is just a splintercelll of the cia or something like that. such agencies have to secure their funds, no war, no funds.


20:32:01 May 22nd 07 - Mr. Morgan:

Well Al Qaeda was not an organised faction before 9/11. Im not even sure it is today.


00:17:13 May 23rd 07 - Lady Tantulii:

Lol, how quickly is this going to be turned into an anti-America hate thread?

"when will the killing in iraq stop"

--not likely anytime soon, whether the US is in it or not

"when will america and its allies stop killing to get oil"

--when oil is no longer a valuable resource

"when will the world see that treisom can not be stoped by war"

--but if you kill the man who commits it, then you have in effect stopped terrorism.  The idea itself cannot be stopped.  That same idea alone with no one to use it is harmless.

"do we not learn from the past e.g. the nazi's killing the jews was that not terisom"

--who said it wasn't?

"why do the uk and america posisit in attacking countrys that suposedley have wepons of mass destuction why do they not send there troops to a place that needs it were cival war scars the land why can we not take the dictators that rule these countrys down"

--strange you should mention countries ruled by a dictator... Iraq was one.  Furthermore, neither Americans nor most of the world would prefer it if we rushed to some country in Africa and tried to make a mini-America before leaving the land in half-built unorganized shambles.

"why is it that we have to use force to get what we want"

--because we will use force to defend what we have.

Aviosnar, life isn't actually like 1984, or the Manchurian Candidate, or half those other conspiracy movies...


04:43:39 May 23rd 07 - Mr. Deadly Doughnut:

wow those were good answers.  very short and simple.  :)


09:28:19 May 23rd 07 - Mr. Peace N War:

lol i have to say i like them ansewers


09:43:35 May 23rd 07 - Mr. Saint Just:

"--not likely anytime soon, whether the US is in it or not"
It can begin to end as soon america leaves, we know for sure it wont aslong the us is still in Iraq.

"--but if you kill the man who commits it, then you have in effect stopped terrorism.  The idea itself cannot be stopped.  That same idea alone with no one to use it is harmless. "
Well, I suppose you mean like suicide bobmbers since America is the largest terrorist arround. And most suicide bobmers are areas where the people are victims of terrorism by either US soldiers Israeli soldiers or soldiers from a US friendly goverment (ie, Egypt or Saudi Arabia). Get people a decent life down there and they wont feel the need to try and kill themself.

"--strange you should mention countries ruled by a dictator... Iraq was one.  Furthermore, neither Americans nor most of the world would prefer it if we rushed to some country in Africa and tried to make a mini-America before leaving the land in half-built unorganized shambles."

I think most of the world would apreciate if someone tried to save Darfur.

"--because we will use force to defend what we have."
When you are forced to defend what you have stolen? (ie: natural resources in south america)


13:15:45 Jun 3rd 07 - Mr. Sayian:

Iraq is *beep*ed anyways.
If the US leaves, the terrorists take over the power.
And they are not exactly good... Killing their own people everyday with car bombs n *beep*. They say to the people: Fight the US soldiers or die.
Much they can do, they try to kill a soldier, they get a bullet in the head.
There is no solution to this crisis.
Besides, the US soldiers are not doing anything special in Iraq besides just going around and getting killed sometimes.


13:32:52 Jun 3rd 07 - Mr. Breadlord:

we are beeing coditioned on a mass scale to think like Osi sayain ect.
its to late for Osi doh :p.
there is a large group of people agains it and doing something against it no matter how small it may seem.The best method to deal with people like us is to trow a towl over us and hide it from tv and media ect. to prevent it from spreading but it will spread.And its just not this specific case.
Why are we even so intrested in iraq ect. is it becouse the thing that are happining there 'inhuman'?woulnt we all like to think sow but unfortunitaly these kinds of things happen in alot of places and the only reason you get to see these images is becouse of becouse its in the intrest of the elite rich.They are trying not to make the same mistake like in vietnam by trying to hide it and leave all of the news about it to the ones agains the war who where trying to gain awareness for it.
we wont jsut stand up for these kindof cruelties that they infactdrown us in every day but also against all other other hidden cruelties
no matter how difrent it may seem has the same reasons and the same kindof thinking behind it.

also
ref.    3 episode documentary                 

Trap: What happend to our dreams of freedom.


14:04:40 Jun 3rd 07 - Mr. Breadlord:

and lady tuntaly i  agree with you frrst answers but not the others.

i gues il start with the pionts i disagree....

''"when will the world see that treisom can not be stoped by war"

--but if you kill the man who commits it, then you have in effect stopped terrorism.  The idea itself cannot be stopped.  That same idea alone with no one to use it is harmless.''


more that like 80% of vitoms of war in iraq are killed by bombs and many innocent victims do die in those bombs wich creates more terrorists.

(note: same thing but doing what noone want us to do i dont talk diffrent from media perspective same as your/our perspective)

most of the people get killed by pilots who drop bombs on people from miles above with the purpose of killing those people.becouse others thel them to do . the people that die are relatives friends cousins doughters, brothers, and sisters. when they die by the bombs that are dropped and get blown into pieces you feel helpless and angry. and makes you want to get even.

il skip the rest you get my piont


06:53:18 Jun 5th 07 - Sir Ironpick:

"It can begin to end as soon america leaves, we know for sure it wont aslong the us is still in Iraq."

If democracy fails, there will certainly be a violent civil war in which factions compete for power.  End to the killing?  No.

"Well, I suppose you mean like suicide bobmbers since America is the largest terrorist arround."

Define terrorism, please.

"Get people a decent life down there and they wont feel the need to try and kill themself."

The lack of American involvement in the Mid East won't necessarily raise the standards of living.

"When you are forced to defend what you have stolen? (ie: natural resources in south america)"

What I was actually trying to get at was that if there is an agressor nation and a victim nation, if the victim nation gives in and resigns its resources, then there is, in effect, peace.  However, the victim does not want to lose its resources.  So it fights back.  Even if the resource is non-essential to life.  War truly is run by the wealthy, and on BOTH ends.

"more that like 80% of vitoms of war in iraq are killed by bombs and many innocent victims do die in those bombs wich creates more terrorists."

So kill the people setting the bombs and you've stopped terrorism.  (In theory.)

"most of the people get killed by pilots who drop bombs on people from miles above with the purpose of killing those people."

For the most part the bombs dropping from airplanes stage of the war is over.  The largest amount of casualties at this point come from IEDs, suicide bombings, or ambushes.  I'm not going to say the insurgents are the evil ones here because American troops have commited some wrongdoings, whether by accident or intentional, against innocent bystanders.


22:02:52 Jun 5th 07 - Mr. Basch:

theres only one solution, strap americans with bombs and give iraq a taste of their own medicine lol


00:44:44 Jun 7th 07 - Mr. Mattimao:

this is a video what will happen in the future:).  the only way to end violence is to kill everybody:)http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php


04:33:36 Jun 8th 07 - Mr. Boom Boom JR Style:

hey guys i know im late but it was the USA that created the terrosits the russians invaded afghanistian in the cold war and they could never crush down the rebels...so the US decided that by giving them weapons they could help fight the russians..well the US tried to hold the country and the rebelled...blah blah blah u get the idea if we hadnt givin the afghanistianes weapons we would never have any terroist..but US did and...all this has happened :(


05:44:20 Jun 8th 07 - Sir Ironpick II:

It is true we trained them how to attack Russian invaders and gave them weapons to do so.

But there would be terrorists with or without the weapons.  The biggest killer in Iraq now are IEDs, which are usually homemade.


12:54:49 Jun 8th 07 - Mr. Peace N War:

back to the russain thing the reson the states gave them wepons was because the russains were killing so many ppl and there was also the threat of russa being abal to lanch wmd (wepons of mass distruction) from afgan territory giving the states less time to detect the missiles comeing and also eruop also gave wepons e.g. uk to try and stop this threat


20:29:47 Jun 8th 07 - Mr. Breadlord:

hmmm evil russians thats all they do isnt it. (-_-')

but US dint just give weapons they gave training most importantly to the Rebel or future Terrorist 'leader' Bin ladin

He  Pretty much went to TERRORIST SCHOOL in US for 7 years getting terrorist training.

OR no im sorry thats not what you call what the CIA does by couseing the deaths of thousends of people.....

 oh yes coverd operation training.


20:50:12 Jun 8th 07 - Mr. Iwasfrozen:

some times i wish all the killing would just stop


16:49:42 Jun 9th 07 - Sir Ironpick II:

Don't we all?


17:51:09 Jun 9th 07 - Mr. Iwasfrozen:

why do people feel the need to kill each other?

i will never understand...


17:56:53 Jun 9th 07 - Sir Ironpick II:

You'll never make a good politican with that line of thought :)

Though the world could use another Ghandi.


18:02:31 Jun 9th 07 - Mr. Iwasfrozen:

lol


23:39:32 Jun 9th 07 - Mr. Ghouma:

Mr Peace and war, Russia didnt kill alot of people in Afghanistan, america on the other hand dont like nationalized property so they made Afghanistan to the *beep*whole it was before you made it an ever bigger *beep*whole with the Invasion.

"If democracy fails, there will certainly be a violent civil war in which factions compete for power.  End to the killing?  No."
Throwing out the Israelis and American supported terrorists will be bloody. The fact that the US is trying to create that civil war already is whats makes it ever bloodier. And YES eventually, when the struggle for power is over will end the killings. How can you be so sure the struggle for power will be as violent as against the US occupiers?

"The lack of American involvement in the Mid East won't necessarily raise the standards of living."
Yea it probably would. Look at the nations in teh middle east that recieves american support and then tell me they wouldnt be better of without their american supported govermetns (Egypt, Saudi arabia) or look at Iraq before the sanctions wich served no point then to destroy the Iraqi middle class at the same time they made Saddams grip stronger not to mention the USA put Saddam in power in the first place.

"Define terrorism, please."
Killing innocent civilians.

"What I was actually trying to get at was that if there is an agressor nation and a victim nation, if the victim nation gives in and resigns its resources, then there is, in effect, peace.  However, the victim does not want to lose its resources.  So it fights back.  Even if the resource is non-essential to life.  War truly is run by the wealthy, and on BOTH ends."
I dont see what point your trying to make with the agressor victim nation thing, your gonna have to make that more clear. Well Americas wars in South America has had the support of the South American elite generally, focusing to destroy the efforts of the poor to make a decent living for themself. Look at Nicaragua, El salvador, Cuba, Colombia etc. America has protected the rich in south america from the poor, and killing millions of poor people in the process. Good on ya!

"So kill the people setting the bombs and you've stopped terrorism.  (In theory.)" Sure you can do that, worked well for ya in Vietnam. America has INVADED iraq. You cant call people targetting americans terrorists, they are freedom fighters. America is the terrorist, it dosnt care for human lifes.

"For the most part the bombs dropping from airplanes stage of the war is over.  The largest amount of casualties at this point come from IEDs, suicide bombings, or ambushes."

Most of the Americans killed.

" I'm not going to say the insurgents are the evil ones here because American troops have commited some wrongdoings, whether by accident or intentional, against innocent bystanders."
Some wrongdoings like killing a million innocent civilians?


02:05:38 Jun 10th 07 - Sir Ironpick II:

"Throwing out the Israelis and American supported terrorists will be bloody. The fact that the US is trying to create that civil war already is whats makes it ever bloodier. "

American-supported terrorists?  What, the militia we are trying to train to ensure that elections go on?

"How can you be so sure the struggle for power will be as violent as against the US occupiers?"

Once American troops are gone, insurgents will continue to kidnap, murder, and hold hostage supporters of democracy, reconstruction funded by America, and murder those who would oppose a new regime from rising up.

"or look at Iraq before the sanctions wich served no point then to destroy the Iraqi middle class at the same time they made Saddams grip stronger not to mention the USA put Saddam in power in the first place."

You're not referring to American policy 20-30 years ago when the USSR was about to invade, are you?  Yeah, things have changed.

"Killing innocent civilians."

So if a police officer accidently shoots a bystander while trying to kill a man in a crowded mall strapped with bombs, he is the terrorist, since he's the one who actually killed someone?

"I dont see what point your trying to make with the agressor victim nation thing, your gonna have to make that more clear. Well Americas wars in South America has had the support of the South American elite generally, focusing to destroy the efforts of the poor to make a decent living for themself. Look at Nicaragua, El salvador, Cuba, Colombia etc. America has protected the rich in south america from the poor, and killing millions of poor people in the process. Good on ya!"

Two men are in a room.  A third man has a gun and points it at the two.  The two men make peace.  Peace made!  That simple enough for you?

You hold a very narrow view of American involvement in South America.  Building roads, power plants, canals, telephone lines, etc. does not only effect the wealthy elite but helps the middle and poor classes as well.  Companies in South America that have been restored to their geographical owners have a steady and reliable export.  How much have you studied economics?  The fact is lives will be lost in any modernizing region; it's a natural phase, and not completely attributeable to American doings.

"Most of the Americans killed. "

No.  Americans troops, American civilians, British troops/civilians, and iraqi civilians (and iraqi police and militia).

"Some wrongdoings like killing a million innocent civilians?"

You don't seem to realize that a million + casualties includes civilians, insurgents, and troops alltogether.  And not even by direct combat, but by internal strife between religious factions.  If you say America is responsible for all those deaths because we came, you might as well Julius Ceasar for blaming the deaths of 2000 years of European-related wars.


13:20:20 Jun 10th 07 - Mr. Breadlord:

nah just hope Democrats they will like give half the oil away adn make deals with neigbor countries to do their job for them :D and reatreat like 80% troops there.


16:45:38 Jun 10th 07 - Sir Ironpick II:

Democrats aren't really any more humane than Republicans are.  Opposing Iraq is just something they can get publicity for.


17:58:29 Jun 10th 07 - Mr. Ghouma:

"Democrats aren't really any more humane than Republicans are.  Opposing Iraq is just something they can get publicity for."

You have nothing to support that. The fact that remain though is that the republicans just killed a million innocents in Iraq.

"American-supported terrorists?  What, the militia we are trying to train to ensure that elections go on?"

No, the american and israeli mercenarys going on a killing spree trying to create a civil war.

"Once American troops are gone, insurgents will continue to kidnap, murder, and hold hostage supporters of democracy, reconstruction funded by America, and murder those who would oppose a new regime from rising up."

No way you can know that, and its demeaning to the Iraqis saying they cant fix their own nation. What we do know is that the killing wont stop as long as America remains in Iraq. America has done nothing right this far, only killed alot of civilians so leaving Iraq is the first step, then America should pay for all the warcrimes it commited.

"You're not referring to American policy 20-30 years ago when the USSR was about to invade, are you?  Yeah, things have changed."
There was hardly a cold war to speak of when the sanctions begun. And they have been running until this Iraq war. The sanctions are said be responisble for causing 500.000 childrens deaths and has only strenghend Saddams rule.

And who was USSR about to invade? I think you got the info upside down, USA was the nation that invaded Soviet. Soviet was never even close to invading America.

"So if a police officer accidently shoots a bystander while trying to kill a man in a crowded mall strapped with bombs, he is the terrorist, since he's the one who actually killed someone?"
... No. Using violence or the threat of violence to inflict fear is the defention of terror. And by that standard America is by FAR the largest terrorist.

"Two men are in a room.  A third man has a gun and points it at the two.  The two men make peace.  Peace made!  That simple enough for you?"

What?! Should I even respond to that one? Read what I said again. Wow, we have tyrranical ditatorships that sells out all the nations natural resources to America, for military support to terrorize the population so they can keep their power. Sure America points a gun at the poor to make them give everything they have or they shoot them. How can you defend that? Look at how you supported the Sormozas in Nicaragua killing two and a half million civilans in the process.
(please dont use metaphors in the future).


"You hold a very narrow view of American involvement in South America.  Building roads, power plants, canals, telephone lines, etc. does not only effect the wealthy elite but helps the middle and poor classes as well.  Companies in South America that have been restored to their geographical owners have a steady and reliable export.  How much have you studied economics?  The fact is lives will be lost in any modernizing region; it's a natural phase, and not completely attributeable to American doings."

I take it american companies built thoose roads, powerplants, canals, telephone lines etc. out of goodwill, no? Was they payed for with taxes? Why even bring it up then? They could have gotten that from anywhere else.

"You don't seem to realize that a million + casualties includes civilians, insurgents, and troops alltogether.  And not even by direct combat, but by internal strife between religious factions.  If you say America is responsible for all those deaths because we came, you might as well Julius Ceasar for blaming the deaths of 2000 years of European-related wars."

The freedom fighters in Iraq didnt ask for an american occupation as far as I know. I dont think you have killed that many soldiers though. However I guess when u kill civilians you call them "insurgents" to make it look better. And of course America is responsible for all thoose deaths, you could have just not invaded, you knew this was gonna happen and still did it.

Why would Caesar be responsible for 2000 years of european related wars?


06:03:17 Jun 11th 07 - Sir Ironpick II:

"You have nothing to support that. The fact that remain though is that the republicans just killed a million innocents in Iraq."

Democrats supported intervention in Iraw prior to 9/11.  They didn't strongly oppose the initial invasion.  Only in recent years has Iraq become the touchy subject that you can't mention American politics without bringing up.

"No, the american and israeli mercenarys going on a killing spree trying to create a civil war."

Can you provide some citations?

"No way you can know that, and its demeaning to the Iraqis saying they cant fix their own nation. What we do know is that the killing wont stop as long as America remains in Iraq. America has done nothing right this far, only killed alot of civilians so leaving Iraq is the first step, then America should pay for all the warcrimes it commited."

Look at history.  When a regime falls, factions compete for power.  America has does nothing right so far?  Saddam was in violation of weapons inspections.  Saddam committed genocide, gassed entire villaged, murdered his own relatives to secure his reign.  So it would have been best to keep him alive and in control?  How about setting up elections and helping to frame a constitution to protect rights civilians lacked under Saddam?  Rebuilding homes, setting up hospitals, training police?

Let me guess:  A million dead innocent civilians!!!

"And who was USSR about to invade? I think you got the info upside down, USA was the nation that invaded Soviet. Soviet was never even close to invading America."

Soviet unions attempted to invade Afghanistan.  US trained Iraqi forces and terrorists to combat this.  I never said the USA was being invaded.

"... No. Using violence or the threat of violence to inflict fear is the defention of terror. And by that standard America is by FAR the largest terrorist."

Well, here you've changed your definition of terror.

Also by this idea, the UN is a terrorist because it demands weapon inspections and weapons regulations with the threat of repercussion through blockades, tarriffs, and in worst-case-scenario, invasion.

Let's talk about Korea some.  Communist forces in North Korea invade South Korea.  The UN condemns this action and pledges action against it.  But %90 of the troops sent to Korea... are American.

"What?! Should I even respond to that one? Read what I said again."

Might I mention that this is "in theory" and speaking nothing of morality or ethics.

"Wow, we have tyrranical ditatorships that sells out all the nations natural resources to America, for military support to terrorize the population so they can keep their power. "

So do the republics, commonwealths, etc.

"I take it american companies built thoose roads, powerplants, canals, telephone lines etc. out of goodwill, no?"

Goodwill, no.  Profit.  Companies require such infrastucture, so they funded the projects or funded governments to complete such actions.

"The freedom fighters in Iraq didnt ask for an american occupation as far as I know."

Occupation, no.  Invasion?  Hell yeah.

"However I guess when u kill civilians you call them "insurgents" to make it look better."

No.  There is no cle*beep*perate body count for insurgents or civilians, because to be quite honest the insurgents, for all purposes, ARE civilians until the moment they detonate the IED.


06:12:08 Jun 11th 07 - Sir Ironpick II:

"And of course America is responsible for all thoose deaths, you could have just not invaded, you knew this was gonna happen and still did it."

The CIA had strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction.  Britain and many other European countries offered to aid American troops in invasion and occupation.  Saddam is gone and a democracy is being set up with free elections.  If you want, call America a "new" type of terror, but don't forget Iraq was never a land of butterflies and bunnies to begin with.

"Why would Caesar be responsible for 2000 years of european related wars?"

Caesar introduced European Warfare.  America introduces war into Iraq.  Caesar and the Roman Empire didn't cause a majority of the bloodshed caused by Roman war.  America has not directly caused a majority of lives lost in Iraq.  American bombs and bullets have not killed a million civilians.


06:30:08 Jun 11th 07 - Mr. Deadguy:

dude the roman empire first existed only a few hundred years bc and warfare existed in europe long long before Caesar


10:46:33 Jun 11th 07 - Mr. Ghouma:

"Democrats supported intervention in Iraw prior to 9/11.  They didn't strongly oppose the initial invasion.  Only in recent years has Iraq become the touchy subject that you can't mention American politics without bringing up."

Sure but it was the Republicans who lied to them.

"Can you provide some citations?"

I either read it in some article posted on www.whatreallyhappened.com or in the Iraqi movie code of silence, dont remember.

"Look at history.  When a regime falls, factions compete for power.  America has does nothing right so far?  Saddam was in violation of weapons inspections.  Saddam committed genocide, gassed entire villaged, murdered his own relatives to secure his reign.  So it would have been best to keep him alive and in control?  How about setting up elections and helping to frame a constitution to protect rights civilians lacked under Saddam?  Rebuilding homes, setting up hospitals, training police?"

Sure, but most of the factions are already cooperating. And sure I think it will be bloody when America leaves, but America mannaged to kill millions of civilians where ever it goes. When America is out peace can begin.
No, you shouldnt have put him in power in the first place. When he already was in power u shouldnt have given him Chemical weapons to bomb the kurds. And when that already was done u shouldnt have imposed sanctions that only made hin stronger. The fact remains that before the sanctions life was pretty good in Iraq, and the midle class was growing. The more educated the people got eventually they would get rid of him themself.

When the election is a joke, the constitution isnt followed by the rulers and the hospitals dosnt recieve much money, at the same time all the Iraqi oil is stolen worth billions, and their family members killed I guess they have reasons to be a little angry in Iraq?

"Soviet unions attempted to invade Afghanistan.  US trained Iraqi forces and terrorists to combat this.  I never said the USA was being invaded."

Why are u dragging this up then? Afghanistan isnt even close to Iraq.

"Well, here you've changed your definition of terror.

Also by this idea, the UN is a terrorist because it demands weapon inspections and weapons regulations with the threat of repercussion through blockades, tarriffs, and in worst-case-scenario, invasion."

Please use common sence. The UN actions isnt directed at the population.

"Let's talk about Korea some.  Communist forces in North Korea invade South Korea.  The UN condemns this action and pledges action against it.  But %90 of the troops sent to Korea... are American."

It was an American war to protect the facist dictator in south Korea, Syngman Rhee. And since the Soviet boycotted the UN at the time because the UN had taiwan (american facist puppet at the time) represent all of China. So any UN resolution at that time was only American doing.

"Might I mention that this is "in theory" and speaking nothing of morality or ethics."

What you was sayin is that you want the peace of the gun to keep injustices because they favour america.

"So do the republics, commonwealths, etc."
What? Yes France and England likes to help dictatorships that favour them aswell. Thats our Capitalist system at work.

"Goodwill, no.  Profit.  Companies require such infrastucture, so they funded the projects or funded governments to complete such actions."

Are you saying that Amerian companie built infrastructure in South america for free?

"Occupation, no.  Invasion?  Hell yeah."
I wouldnt be so sure about that, all the Iraqis I know didnt want an american invasion.



13:21:53 Jun 11th 07 - Mr. Ghouma:

"The CIA had strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction.  Britain and many other European countries offered to aid American troops in invasion and occupation.  Saddam is gone and a democracy is being set up with free elections.  If you want, call America a "new" type of terror, but don't forget Iraq was never a land of butterflies and bunnies to begin with."

American terror isnt a new type of terror, America was built on the genocide of the native Americans. No they didnt have any "strong evidence", evidence would mean that there was WMDs. There was none. The UN inspectors said so, Germany and France warned America but America wanted the oil so they made alot of *beep* up. And FYI, the nations in Europe wich supported the war, the population was even more against the war then in the nations that condemed it.

Democracy and free elections are just words, anyone can say them. Look at what happens in Iraq instead of what some polticians says. Appearently you didnt get any food rations if you didnt go and vote in Iraq.


01:02:22 Jun 12th 07 - Sir Ironpick II:

"American terror isnt a new type of terror, America was built on the genocide of the native Americans."

As is European terror of Greeks and Romans fighting the "barbarians" of other lands?  Or practically any other North or South American country?

"No they didnt have any "strong evidence", evidence would mean that there was WMDs. "

Do you know what evidence means?

"There was none. The UN inspectors said so"

Because Saddam would not allow full searches.

"Democracy and free elections are just words, anyone can say them"

Anyone can say "American terrorism" and "million dead innocent civilians" as well.  One purpose of continued occupation is to assist Iraq in free elections and democracy; if America suddenly and completely withdrew, chances are much higher that the system will collapse quickly and give way to a new dicatorship.  This isn't just what the politicians say.


01:14:11 Jun 12th 07 - Duke Erunion Telcontar:

My brief two bits.

The Americans are right to stay in Iraq, they just took the wrong approach to things in several ways, alienating the local populace with their practices. The problems with the Americans their is they failed to understand and get in the good graces of the locals. This has, and is causing a great deal of unrest.

So, stay in Iraq until it's fully settled, calm the populace, make 'em like you and everything will be fine. How to do this however might be difficult.


04:34:07 Jun 12th 07 - Sir Ironpick II:

Even if America withdrew all its troops and just had people building homes and funding police and a constitutional democracy they'd still be getting blown up by insurgents.


05:56:02 Jun 12th 07 - Sir Raidel:

It's a religous thing, that's what started it all.  It's another case of a leader using religion as an excuse to make himself more powerful and keep his country under his thumb.  Think of it like England while Protestant vs. Catholics were still extremely bloody.  As I recall Ireland shed a lot of blood while England was protestant and they stuck to their Catholic roots.  Just the same Saddam(who was Sunni, I think....) killed a lot of Shiites(the majority) and kurds(just ethnicly different).  Now a Shiite leader is in control, and he's doing little to nothing to disarm the Shiite militias that have been around since Saddam's time.  What our government seems to have trouble understanding is that outreach will beat force anyday.  We should have been trying to reach out to Iran this whole time, furthermore, we should've never installed Saddam the first time, or at least removed him the first time we invaded Iraq while the country was FAR more stable.  Saudi Arabia, the Emirates.  Most of our anti-middle east issues stem from our close relations with Israel, which are again because of religious reasons, as Israel would be "God's chosen people".

I think you'll find that any time a big power is trying to expand, the US will try to stop it.  If China tried to invade anything now, we'd be there with our weapons and training again.  India is like our little pet right now to counter China, though, so if India invaded somebody there's a chance we'd support them.  Whatever.  We need a change of administration either way, but an immediate pullout is not an option.  It'd have to be slow, and the best way to do it would be replace American troops with a UN peacekeeping forse, which a large portion of should be in Darfur right now.


19:35:13 Jun 12th 07 - Mr. Ghouma:

I dont really get alot of the points your trying to get Iron. I just think that thoose (America and England) who have been torturing the Iraqi people for twenty years have the right to use violence to achieve Democracy. America have no credability, America has a history of supporting the most brutal dictatorships on the planet, and crushing any Democracy (In their power) that does not agree with them.

What really bothers me is that my nation with other nations helps America to be able to stay in this war. My goverment is using our tax money to buy dollars because your currency is on the brink of collapse. Thats the price we normal taxpayers has to pay to help our weapon companies to get american orders and make the stock owners even richer.



19:37:57 Jun 12th 07 - Mr. Ghouma:

And Ironpick, thoose you call insurgents are gonna have to be the people who builds up a new goverment.


02:14:29 Jun 13th 07 - Sir Ironpick II:

"I just think that thoose (America and England) who have been torturing the Iraqi people for twenty years have the right to use violence to achieve Democracy."

Do have the right?

"What really bothers me is that my nation with other nations helps America to be able to stay in this war."

This is perfectly understandable.  I'm not really very fond of the war myself either, and my generation is who will have to pay for it.

"My goverment is using our tax money to buy dollars because your currency is on the brink of collapse."

The American currency is on the brink of collapse?

"And Ironpick, thoose you call insurgents are gonna have to be the people who builds up a new goverment."

Many of the insurgents are religious fanatics or former supporters of Saddam's regime.  Once American troops are gone, they will likely turn to terrorizing supporters of the constitutional democracy.


09:55:41 Jun 13th 07 - Mr. Ghouma:

"Many of the insurgents are religious fanatics or former supporters of Saddam's regime. Once American troops are gone, they will likely turn to terrorizing supporters of the constitutional democracy."

Nope, the largest resistance armys are cooperating, they will most likly have to get rid of the most extreme groups and thoose supported by America and Israel to make chaos. America cant stay in Iraq forever, your gonna need a draft to do so, and I dont think the opinion of the war would stay the same if you had one. To be honest, you are pretty much *beep*ed in Iraq.
So it is ineviteble that theese resistance armys form the new goverment, appearently there are 6 large of them. But they have all points of diffrent views, some are secular others shia or sunni or nationalistic or what have you.

"The American currency is on the brink of collapse?"

Sure you have a national debt of 9 trillion dollars and a whole in the budget for 50 trillon. If it wasnt for all theese countrys buying dollars you would be in extreme trouble.

"This is perfectly understandable.  I'm not really very fond of the war myself either, and my generation is who will have to pay for it."

Wars like this only benefits the capitalists in the world, it is used to transfer your tax money to go to thoose who own the companies who benefits from the war. Most wars are like this.


14:36:25 Jun 13th 07 - Mr. Breadlord:

True


15:30:55 Jun 13th 07 - Sir Ironpick II:

Aka, bloody civil war.

"America cant stay in Iraq forever, your gonna need a draft to do so, and I dont think the opinion of the war would stay the same if you had one. To be honest, you are pretty much *beep*ed in Iraq."

I have a feeling once 2008 rolls around there are going to be some improvements and we get stubborn Bush out of office for good.

"Sure you have a national debt of 9 trillion dollars and a whole in the budget for 50 trillon. If it wasnt for all theese countrys buying dollars you would be in extreme trouble."

You need to compare national debt to GNP.  America has a massive national debt, but can afford it.  Additionally, the reason many countries buy either the American dollar or the Euro is because they are much more stable than others.


16:39:14 Jun 14th 07 - Mr. Ghouma:

9trillion dollars divided by 300m is 30k per person. 50 trillion dollars divided by 300m is 170k per american citizen. Thats problematic. And the dollar is not stable, compared to african currencys or the rubel, not compared to the euro or pound. The swedish goverment does not need to invest in dollars as a stable currency, neither does the japaneese or chineese. We do it because you cant afford your war so you just print up dollars to cover the expenses, our nations buy them  to help you out.

An intresting thing was that Saddam Hussein was about to stop accepting dollars for oil, this is intresting since what keeps the dollar up is that the OPEC nations only accept dollars for oil. If that was to change the dollar would be in for a low. That would probably bring on another depression and none of the capitalist nations want that. De Gaulle had similar plans to crush the dollar but didnt see them though.


06:16:51 Jun 15th 07 - Sir Ironpick II:

"9trillion dollars divided by 300m is 30k per person. 50 trillion dollars divided by 300m is 170k per american citizen. Thats problematic. "

Not sure where you're getting 50 trillion from.  9 trillion is large, but 30k in taxes over the course of a citizen's lifetime (or several) is not an impossible sum to pay off or balance.

"And the dollar is not stable, compared to african currencys or the rubel, not compared to the euro or pound"

What do you mean by this, The Euro and pound are also unstable, but african currencies are not?

"The swedish goverment does not need to invest in dollars as a stable currency, neither does the japaneese or chineese. We do it because you cant afford your war so you just print up dollars to cover the expenses, our nations buy them  to help you out."

Not necessarily because you NEED to; it is just a form of investment.  The value of the dollar goes up and down; money can be made between currency eximprovements.  The cost of the war has come to around 435 billion dollars, which may sound like an absurdly high number.  (In fact, it even exceeds Sweden's entire Gross National Production from 2004.)  But compared to America's GNP it isn't in any way small, but not wildly out of control.


06:48:41 Jun 15th 07 - Sir Fizban:

Mr. Avionaro

Report


5/22/2007 2:15:57 PM
USA only creates terrorism, perhaps we should invite bush to this game, so he canplay his  war here, instead of the real world. I'm not supprised if the CIA caused 9/11. that Al qaida or somethng is just a splintercelll of the cia or something like that. such agencies have to secure their funds, no war, no funds.

 

Oi. Do I need to jump in here about terrorism? Let's forget the War in Iraq. (which is actually a good thing and the left-wing media needs to *beep* and stop spreading 'We are losing' nonsense. If we're losing, it's only because of them)

Anyone familiar with Palestine? Yeah, it's that little place near Israel that's been the source of their terrorism for quite some time. So, we've got Israel's peaceful Muslim neighbors fighting amongst themselves, Hamas and Fatah. We've got Hamas kicking the other group's @$$ in so many ways, and then dragging their defeated opponents in the streets (some in their underwear) and then gunned down.

Still, all of that is terror, especially to the civilians trapped over there, is it not? No Americans in Palestine. Hmm, hey maybe this is the 'evil' nature of the Islamofacist extremists and they'll continue with what they're doing unless stopped. Now when I say stopped, I'm not meaning let's sit down at a table and 'talk' so we can 'understand' each other. (Reminds me of the story where there's a hunter wanting a bearskin coat and the bear wanting a full stomach, and they both compromised and they both got what they wanted. (Hunter gets eaten by bear, for those who don't catch on fast.)) Evil must be confronted and put down.

"An intresting thing was that Saddam Hussein was about to stop accepting dollars for oil, this is intresting since what keeps the dollar up is that the OPEC nations only accept dollars for oil. If that was to change the dollar would be in for a low. That would probably bring on another depression and none of the capitalist nations want that. De Gaulle had similar plans to crush the dollar but didnt see them though."

Here's another interesting thing: Hussein probably had most of the other nations on the UN Security Council bought off with money from oil profits. I think they were getting a 1% kickback from them (though when you start selling millions-billions in oil, 1% doesn't look half-bad).

Long/Short of it is this, I can find clips from the Clinton Era from where they were saying the CIA had WMDs, and how he was supporting terrorism. Yet they didn't do squat about it. So when Bush goes in there with the same info, he's the spawn of all evil? Now if Hilary gets elected (God help us), she can campaign on getting us out of Iraq all she wants, once she's in there though you'll find we're still over there.


[Top]  Pages:   1 

Login
Username: Don't have an account - Sign up!
Password: Forgot your password - Retrive it!

My bookmarksOld forum design


- close -
  Copyright © 1999-2018 Visual Utopia. All rights reserved. Page loaded in 0 seconds. Server time: 9:36:57 AM