While the 'civilized world' looked elsewhere...

SLY and Rask, You both have very good arguements on both your opinions. SLY, the quote you posted at the beginning of page 6, I was just clarifying how they were once related. Saddam and Laden connected in the events of 9/11 is far from the reason things are happening now. Although I have to agree with Rask that they can and probably will unite to fight a common enemy, The US, if war broke out.

Why Saddam is targeted by US is primarily what Rask said, he's neglects to follow the terms of the peace signing after the Gulf War. What I don't like is the fact is it's taken 12 yrs for anyone to act against Saddam. I also don't like how Bush is approaching the problem which I've clearly stated my reasons in previous posts. It's something that must be done, but he's going about it the wrong way.

I do believe Saddam should be taken out of office for many reasons but it isn't worth going to war for. That's my opinion. Right now Saddam is practically harmless, starting a war is going to p*ss off even more people. Especially people around the middle east, like SLY. It's just not worth it.

noticingthemistake - yeah dude , that's what I was trying to say ... Saddam is evil but harmless since the gulf war ended ... he should have been removed 12 years ago .
But starting a war NOW for that reason is realy senseless.

In the struggle of Good against Evil, it's always the people who get killed.

The terrorists killed workers of 50 countries in NYC and DC, in the name of Good against Evil. And in the name of Good against Evil President Bush has promised vengeance: "We will eliminate Evil from the world", he announced.

Eliminate Evil? What would Good be without Evil? It's not just religious fanatics who need enemies to justify their insanity. The arms industry and the gigantic war machine of the US also needs enemies to justify its existence. Good and evil, evil and good: the actors change masks, the heroes become monsters and the monsters heroes, in accord with the demands of the theatre's playwrights.

This is nothing new. The German scientist Werner von Braun was evil when he invented the V-2 bombers that Hitler used against London, but became good when he used his talents in the service of the US. Stalin was good during World War Two and evil afterwards, when he became the leader of the Evil Empire. In the cold war years John Steinbeck wrote: "Maybe the whole world needs Russians. I suppose that even in Russia they need Russians. Maybe Russia's Russians are called Americans." Even the Russians became good afterwards. Today, Putin can add his voice to say: "Evil must be punished."

Saddam Hussein was good, and so were the chemical weapons he used against the Iranians and the Kurds. Afterwards, he became evil. They were calling him Satan Hussein when the US finished up their invasion of Panama to invade Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Father Bush that particular war against Evil upon himself. With the humanitarian and compassionate spirit that characterizes his family, he killed more than 100 000 Iraqis, the vast majority of them civilians.

Satan Hussein stayed where he was, but this number one enemy of humanity had to step aside and accept becoming number two enemy of humanity. The bane of the world is now called Osama bin Laden. The CIA taught him everything he knows about terrorism: bin Laden, loved and armed by the US government, was one of the principal 'freedom fighters' against Communism in Afghanistan. Father Bush occupied the Vice Presidency when President Reagan called these heroes 'the moral equivalents of the Founding Fathers.' Hollywood agreed. They filmed Rambo 3: Afghani Muslims were the good guys. Now, in the time of Son Bush, they are the worst of the bad guys.

Henry Kissinger was one of the first to react to the recent tragedy. "Those who provide support, financing, and inspiration to terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves," he intoned, words that Son Bush would repeat hours later.

If that's how it is, the urgent need right now is to bomb Kissinger. He is guilty of many more crimes than bin Laden or any terrorist in the world. And in many more countries. He provided 'support, financing, and inspiration" to state terror in Indonesia, Cambodia, Iran, South Africa, Bangladesh, and all the South American countries that suffered the dirty war of Plan Condor.

On September 11 1973, exactly 28 years before the fires of the WTC, the Presidential Palace in Chile was stormed. Kissinger had written the epitaph of Allende and Chilean democracy long before when he commented on the results of the elections: "I don't see why we have to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people."

A contempt for the people is one of many things shared by state and private terror. For example, the ETA, an organization that kills people in the name of independence in Basque Country, says through one of its spokespeople: 'Rights have nothing to do with majorities or minorities.'

There is much common ground between low- and high- tech terrorism, between the terrorism of religious fanatics and that of market fanatics, that of the hopeless and that of the powerful, that of the psychopath on the loose and that of the cold-blooded uniformed professional. They all share the disrespect for human life: the killers of the 5500 citizens under the Twin Towers that fell like castles of dry sand-- and the killers of 200 000 Guatemalans, the majority of whom were indigenous, exterminated without television or the newspapers of the world paying any attention. Those Guatemalans were not sacrificed by any Muslim fanatic, but by terrorist squads who received 'support, financing, and inspiration' from successive US governments.

All these worshipers of death are in agreement as well on the need to reduce social, cultural, and national differences to military terms. In the name of Good against Evil, in the name of the One Truth, they resolve everything by killing first and asking questions later. And by this method, they strengthen the enemy they fight. It was the atrocities of the Sendero Luminoso that gave President Fujimori the popular support he sought to unleash a regime of terror and sell Peru for the price of a banana. It was the atrocities of the US in the Middle East that prepared the ground for the holy war of terrorism of Allah.

Although the leader of the Civilized World is pushing a new Crusade, Allah is innocent of the crimes committed in his name. At the end of the day, God did not order the Holocaust against the followers of Jehovah, nor did Jehovah order the massacres of Sabrah and Shatila or the expulsion of Palestinians from their land. Aren't Allah, God and Jehovah are, after all, three names for the same divinity?

A tragedy of errors: nobody knows any more who is who. The smoke of the explosions forms part of the much larger curtain of smoke that prevents all of us from seeing clearly. From revenge to revenge, terrorism obliges us to walk to our graves. I saw a photo, recently published, of graffiti on a wall in NYC:

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

The spiral of violence creates violence and also confusion: pain, fear, intolerance, hatred, insanity. In Porto Alegre, at the beginning of this year, Ahmed Ben Bella warned: 'This system, that has already made mad cows, is making mad people too." And these mad people, mad from hate, act as the power that created them. Eduardo Galeano - http://www.zmag.org

The thing to ask is who is the judge of what/whom is evil or what/whom is good? In the present dilema, it's whose side you support. The terrorist, and those who support them, think that we're evil and they're good based on their beliefs and the actions they take. They all thought they were saviors for what they did. Same thing with those who oppose it, they're evil for killing innocents but it's good when we do the same thing bombing villages. Like you said Azreal. I think everyone has evil and good inside them, and every action has a evil side and a good side. Depending on which you choose to view based on what you think is evil and good. As its panning out now, I can see nothing but evil. War is not a good thing no matter which side you look at it. You can't fight evil with evil for it only creates more evil and more terror amongst those who are good.

Taking it to the extremes and the bible, many things that even god does could be considered evil. Now if jesus was gods son, isn't it evil to let your son suffer the way he did?? Yet he was able to save Noah and many others according to the text. But then again it depends on how you look it. A christian might say, "he let him die because it was meant to be and he wanted him to come home." An Athesist might say, "well I would never let my son die that way without doing anything." It all depends on how you look at things and what your beliefs are.

Now without confusion, I believe that terrorists are evil and they should be punished severely for what they have done. That's my belief and yeah it's out of anger. Would I be doing good by doing such a thing?? I don't think so. That's the trap the world is in right now, a struggle of those with different beliefs on good and evil. Which is a trick cause it's all evil. Until we find a way to fight it without enforcing more evil...

Of course terrorists are evil - ALL terrorists - even those who claim to be doing it to fight Terrorism. however - the problem is that we have to see where it all comes from - we have to solve the problems at their roots. You can kill a million moskitos, but there will be 2 million to take their place even more agressive - you have to dry out the swamp where they breed - and in our case the swamp is a political one!
There is no such man who wakes up in the morning and says to himself "today i will blow myself up in a disco in tel aviv". Such decisions grow inside a human beeing over YEARS ans YEARS.

What we are about to do is to breed even more such people by killing the innocent, and there WILL BE a lot of innocent deaths! There will be no Marshall Plan like after WW2 - this is a completely different, scattered nation - not like germany.

Its an illusion, that when Iraqi soldiers and civilians, with bombs raining down on Baghdad, suddenly scratch their heads and say to themselves: "These bombs aren't really meant to kill me and my family, they are meant to free us from an evil dictator!" At that point, they thank Uncle Sam, lower their weapons, abandon their posts, and rise up against Saddam Hussein...are you realy dumb enough to believe that? (general statement - not directed towards a specific person - so no offense!)

how many of us are aware that america has been at war against Iraq for more than twelve years? We are told that Iraq is a threat because it has weapons of mass destruction. How many of us remember that in 1991 the United States pulversied Iraq, destroying not just military targets, but water treatment and sanitation plants, bridges and electrical stations?

This, combined with twelve years of punishing sanctions have led even according to the most conservative United Nations estimates to more than a million deaths. When US Secretary State Madeleine Albright was asked a few years ago if she thought half a million deaths was a price worth paying for the policy towards Iraq, she did not challenge the number. She simply said "we think it's worth it." Most of the victims have been Iraqi children under five, the elderly and the sick. Now we are contemplating an even more devastating attack against a greatly weakened population.

I call that terrorism too - and if Bush is man enough to go by his attitude "all terrorists have to be punished", then he should start bombing washington instead.

Azreal, I agree with everything your saying. When you think about the bombing in '91, of course our action was cruel. We later offered to help the Iraqi families who were effected, but Saddam refused. He later gave in, and we did go in and help. Not that this makes it any better but we accepted our mistakes. This is one of the reason why I am against it again, we have not learned from that mistake. We need to do something, but not at the expense of the innocent. If Bush thinks this is the only way, he should be made to join the front line of attack. I hate this about politicans, they have the power to send people to their death while they sit pretty in an office. I think if Bush had to personally walk on Iraqi soil, he would quickly change his mind.

All weapons of mass destruction should be destroyed, US and Iraqi. Why are only a certain number of countries allowed weapons?? Why even have such weapons that can destroy mankind, is there a point?? If you use them we all die?? If world leaders have a problem they should be the ones to work it out, not the people of there represented countries. Where's the freedom for those people?? Especially those who don't want war and don't want to die so some stupid retards personal vendetta.

The citizens of these nations are only numbers to be played with in the game of global dominantion. Heartless...

[Edited by noticingthemistake on 03-03-2003 at 12:01 PM]

Originally posted by PonyOne
Sorry I haven't posted lately, it's been a busy week.
Saddam knows this all too well sinc we kicked the snot out of him in 1991.

Out of HIM? or out of the innocent population?

PS i know someone said something pertaining to Saddam/Bin Laden being monsters of our (West's) own creating.... I agree with this; it is pointless to argue that we didn't give these men any power. But at what point does that stop being our problem? Is it wrong for us to try to stop them?

Of course not! but if this is done with counter-terrorstrikes it wont solve the problem! it will make it even worse. What about Mr. Bush and some others going out in public and saying "Ok folks - it was all our fault. we have done great evil to millions of people. We want to stop this now. We have enough money to help every nation - letz do it! we understand why you are pissed at us. we deeply regret what we did"... Now THAT would be a step in the right direction, instead of screaming "kill em all"

Originally posted by Azrael
Of course terrorists are evil - ALL terrorists - even those who claim to be doing it to fight Terrorism. however - the problem is that we have to see where it all comes from - we have to solve the problems at their roots. You can kill a million moskitos, but there will be 2 million to take their place even more agressive - you have to dry out the swamp where they breed - and in our case the swamp is a political one!

Conversely, if you dry up the swamp, but leave the Mosquitos unmolested, the Mosquitos just fly to another swamp.

You're half right, Bush is half right.

what about trying to answer to a whole post instead of a small fragment which you think comes handy to twist it around the other way?

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Conversely, if you dry up the swamp, but leave the Mosquitos unmolested, the Mosquitos just fly to another swamp.

It would take a sick man to try to molest a mosquito. Hehe. Sorry, no offense I just thought it was funny terminolgy.

About getting Bush to drop his case. I wouldn't hold my breathe on that one Azreal, the UN has failed along with the most of the US population.

Originally posted by Azrael
what about trying to answer to a whole post instead of a small fragment which you think comes handy to twist it around the other way?

Because for now I've got 15 minute breaks in which to post. That's not nearly enough time to respond to everything fully. I'll do that after work. But my post does get to the heart of the issue of your post; you expect half the solution to work, Bush expects the other half of the solution to work. In either case, doing a job half-assed doesn't really fix the problem.
That's the curse of looking at a problem through polarized lenses.

Come to think of it, you've never actually disproven or adequately rebutted a single thing I've said. I guess we both have some research to do.

of course we both do for we are only 2 numbers in a large crowd that has to swallow what they feed us.
But its a question of how we put it all into context.
so it is highly doubtable that anyone of us here knows the full truth.
the only thing that undoubtably remains is that war is crap and that a nation ike america HAS the power to solve problems peacefully - an i say as loud as i can "WAR? NOT IN MY NAME!"

[Edited by Azrael on 03-04-2003 at 01:42 AM]

Rask, why would you look for someone to rebutt someone else post?? To me this thread is opinion oriented, each one of voicing our opinions on what is going. The facts are there just to support our opinions, at least this is what I see. Hopefully this isnt another war based on who knows more about the war that might end up out there. Chill guys.

Here's the bottom line for me...Clearly most of the world population doesn't want a war, then by god there shouldn't be a war. Or even signs of aggression, but the bad thing is that the world powers have their difference. So instead of listening to the people they represent, they're letting their greet or petty differences evoke this aggression. It's wrong for everyone who has to act or is effected by their decisions. When they don't even support it????

So if most of the people in a neighborhood don't want a man turned in for beating his wife, he shouldn't be arrested for it?
Or because most of the Southern states were fine with slavery (and then later segregation), the Northern states shouldn't have interveined?

I think in this instance the sum of the facts show that most of the world is wrong. If I am indeed wrong, I think my case should be easy enough to rebut, and trust me, I want to be wrong about this.

Originally posted by Azrael
so it is highly doubtable that anyone of us here knows the full truth.

Absolutely true.

the only thing that undoubtably remains is that war is crap and that a nation ike america HAS the power to solve problems peacefully

Your right... but only if the person at the other side of the table wants peace too. Our choices here are 1). Let Saddam have his way (short term "peace," long term strife) or 2). remove him from power. Unfortunately, that's only likely to happen via war because the security around Saddam very effectively prevents assassinations, and let's face it, the man doesn't give up. Ever.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
So if most of the people in a neighborhood don't want a man turned in for beating his wife, he shouldn't be arrested for it?

That's the wife's choice, no one can make that choice for her. Even if a nieghbor was to report it, if she doesn't press charges. Nothing can be done. That's the law.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Or because most of the Southern states were fine with slavery (and then later segregation), the Northern states shouldn't have interveined?

Look how many people dies over this and even after the northern states won, the slaves were not truely free. They were still persecuted in the south for another 100 years. Also the southern states broke away from the northern states, that was their decision.

I am in no way supported that this is right. Even if you look at what the consequences of starting a war now are, it won't solve anything. Yeah we may be able to get rid of Saddam but his supports will grow more ticked off at us, and well just be creating more Bin Ladens. There are other ways to approach this besides war. War should always be the last option, clearly this is not the case if we're already talking about bombing Iraq when the inspectors are still inspect Iraq. They have even complied to help us destroy the weapons, so why is war still waging forth????

I think your right Rask, but dropping a few hundred bombs over baghdad isnt going to change Saddam's mind. It didn't work 10 yrs ago, it won't work now. If Saddam is the tyrant we say he is, do you think he cares about his people. And who do you think is going to die when we drop bombs?? The innocents Iraqis, which have done NOTHING to us. Our actions are much sicker than Saddam's!!! WE ARE THE TYRANTS WITH THESE ACTIONS, THE WORLD IS RIGHT!!!

tsk, tsk.... I could'a sworn I started this thread about the largely ignored threat of war between India and Pakistan!....

So now that everyone has had a chance to re-state all of the same circular, emotion-based factoids that do not refute my position, or Raskolnikov's, I thought I would just drop in long enough to point out that this discussion has very clearly demonstrated that most of the so-called 'leaders' of the world have devolved into the squishy, pink, gutless shams that the Saddams of the world have always depended on for their survival. The unloved Mr. Hussein has played the heartstrings of public opinion like a harp.

'Popular Opinion' is not inherently correct. It is simply a position embraced by many people. People who may all be getting their guidance from various branches of the same source. People who instinctively prefer to belive tales that fit teir notions of how things should be. The only protection available to an individual who wishes to avoid being overwhelmed by propoganda, is the skill of clear, analytical thought.

The world is [u]not[/u] right; it is merely very vocal about being [u]wrong[/u].

http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html

Originally posted by noticingthemistake

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
So if most of the people in a neighborhood don't want a man turned in for beating his wife, he shouldn't be arrested for it?

That's the wife's choice, no one can make that choice for her. Even if a nieghbor was to report it, if she doesn't press charges. Nothing can be done. That's the law.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Or because most of the Southern states were fine with slavery (and then later segregation), the Northern states shouldn't have interveined?

Look how many people dies over this and even after the northern states won, the slaves were not truely free. They were still persecuted in the south for another 100 years. Also the southern states broke away from the northern states, that was their decision.

Well, atleast you're consistant.