Heroic act by coalition soldiers!!!

ToshiroOC · Apr 2, 2003, 02:19 AM

People appear to ignore me when I make a salient point.

EDIT: "salient" pretty much the same as "valid"... and it wasn't aimed at you, though you are most welcome to answer.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 2, 2003, 02:24 AM

I suspect you are talking about me but im not sure...i dont know what salient means....

Im gonna edit my post.

Bluelight

The_Neon_Cowboy · Apr 2, 2003, 02:25 AM

not to re drege up what we were talking about before but they just had some iraqy religus leaders talking about thet civillans killed in the van on tv... that the driver told not to stop so that the soldgers would be force to fire upon it. knowing that killing wemon and children would make the us look bad and help gain support agenst the US. Also about how the pevious sucide bomber.....

The_Neon_Cowboy · Apr 2, 2003, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight

Will you then invade Iran? Syria? etc etc...

Bluelight

I dunno seria been asking for it and has making "acts of agression" so it's possabilty... sending volinters to fight for Iraq and supply them with material such as night vision and other millitary supplies

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 2, 2003, 03:03 AM

IM just reading what one of you officers says concerning about the killed peole in the van.

He says the Usa are sorry for the incident and that it was caused by the "climate" constructed by the Iraq Ã¬s.

I have also read an American description of exactly what happened.

It verifies exactly what i said earlier.

The responsable for the shooting got...scared that the bus was a "sucide attack" and shot.

There is nothing whatsoever anywhere that says...Iraq forced the van to go against Usa troops.

It is a plain case...of...war...nothing else.

The majority of all dead...in wars are civilians.

Bluelight

The_Neon_Cowboy · Apr 2, 2003, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight

There is nothing whatsoever anywhere that says...Iraq forced the van to go against Usa troops.

Bluelight

live interview on cnn with iraqys sure does

~~SH4President~~ · Apr 2, 2003, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
recenly its hard to tell. they apear to be very agenst the war. Ain't it funny how thier storys dont match all those who were there and the other reporters who were their .... it allready been talked about how they had a diffrent story of what happend...... many found it disturbing

What can I say???
You ask of proof and when given to you by WashingtonPost you say that you dont know if WP is run by Saddam Hussein!!!
Why dont you admit that you are wrong instead?
Saying that WashingtonPost is run by Saddanm Hussein really makes you look silly.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 2, 2003, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
live interview on cnn with iraqys sure does

Well what Cnn says has no relenace at all to me.

I have heard what one of your leading military had to say about the issue.

had their bveen anything whatsoever that indicated that the Iraq Ã*s sent the van...he surely would have said so.....

Why??

Because it would have taken off even more of the guilt from the Americans...

As it is....

They got scread and shot....They are people you know....They do get scared...

No bleeding point in arguing about that.
And....had it been sent by the Iraq Ã¬s......Then it would have been full of explosives....

It wasnt.

Your soldiers did a mistake...which is under the circumstances understandable....

No point in trying to make more out of than that.

Bluelight

~~SH4President~~ · Apr 2, 2003, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Jonathan Last, a columnist for the web edition of The Weekly Standard, put out a pretty decent article the other day. It is called "A Little Perspective, Please."

The pertinent points:

[W]e're now on Day 8 of the war and with only one or two exceptions, even the greatest, most lopsided military victories take longer than 8 days [...]

Even the French--the French!--were able to hold out [against the Nazis] for 44 days. If Saddam prolongs the fighting for another 5 weeks, all he will be doing is rising to the level of military competence set by France.

Frankly, this alarmism is unfounded and unecessary. The war will take as long as it takes. Getting all hot and bothered because it's going into its second week is silly, frankly.

You think that US-troops are like Nazi-troops ?.

And Iraqy like France?

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 2, 2003, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SH4President
What can I say???
You ask of proof and when given to you by WashingtonPost you say that you dont know if WP is run by Saddam Hussein!!!
Why dont you admit that you are wrong instead?
Saying that WashingtonPost is run by Saddanm Hussein really makes you look silly.

Every newspaper questioning Bush in Usa are finaced by Saddam.15 years ago they were run by "The communists".

This is part of a paranoia that some Americans cant live without.

Bluelight

merry · Apr 2, 2003, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
How does leaving Saddam Hussein in power promote peace and justice in the Middle East?

The answer is that removing Saddam Hussein is a step in the right direction

Right.

Quote:

and in America's position as the most powerful country in the world, it is our responsibility to humanity to remove this dictator. With power comes responsibility and we are living up to our responsibility with this war.

The way you put it, being powerful atracts the responsibility of "doing good" to others, which sounds fair, if not generous. As long as everybody clearly understands and agrees with what the "good thing" is. Usually, it isn't so (see the "wars you believe more important" bit in the next quote - what you believe more important isn't what I believe, is the truth where the muscle is?), hence any community develops a system of laws, enforcing of law and decision upon thereof (hope this gets through, mind that I have trouble formulating this in a foreign language).

Such a system has both to set up the rules and prevent abuse of power.

In a community of people, there is a justice system, police and state. In a community of countries... all we have is the UN (I know, I'm simplifying). So what I'm being critical about is not the removal of Saddam, but the lack of patience of the US - not with Saddam, but with the rest of the international comunity. I know it's not easy to have the means of doing what one thinks of as "good" and to have to waste time and energy on convincing others (it's not easy on the individual level either). But if a comunity is to last, it's the only way, or else you get the Power guy, the yesmen - and the Enemy.

Quote:

You cannot denounce this war because America isn't going through with the wars you believe more important - this war is will bring longterm peace and justice to Iraq at the expense of shortterm peace. What America isn't doing cannot be used to detract from what America is doing.

Not to detract, maybe, but to question (be it ask yourself)... For example:

Iran looks far more dangerous than Iraq, they are ruled by a hardcore Islamic regime, they are not only known for supporting international terrorism (which Iraq isn't known to) but they brag about it. They might not have WMD (or they might) but Iraq was going through a disarmament programme - reluctantly, but the programme was there, why not intimidating Iraq into complying to it, they seemed pretty cooperatif in the wake of this war. Iran even has lots of oil, if that was what it's all about.

Now, if the security council would've had approved this war... Was it that hard for the US diplomacy to anticipate and prevent French/German oposition? For the anticipation part, there was no need of Einsteins, don't you think? As for meeting those sensibilities, nothing has been done, of course they're pissed at the US, not that I like Chirac (I don't), but "America's position as the most powerful country in the world" doesn't make arrogance a virtue. And the US position has clearly been "we don't care of what you think".

Without all this, with UN agreement, if there still had been Thomases to remember about Iran, would those have been right, at least it would've been "our" mistake, to learn from.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 2, 2003, 06:11 AM

Merry...just one little point.....Iran...is not really what it looks like at the moment.The government is presently run buy moderate peole that tries slowly to adapt Iran to reality.

Any attempts by the west to interfere with Iran.....will of course immidietly stop this process.

Bluelight

ToshiroOC · Apr 2, 2003, 06:31 AM

Quote:

The way you put it, being powerful atracts the responsibility of "doing good" to others, which sounds fair, if not generous. As long as everybody clearly understands and agrees with what the "good thing" is. Usually, it isn't so (see the "wars you believe more important" bit in the next quote - what you believe more important isn't what I believe, is the truth where the muscle is?), hence any community develops a system of laws, enforcing of law and decision upon thereof (hope this gets through, mind that I have trouble formulating this in a foreign language).

Such a system has both to set up the rules and prevent abuse of power.

In a community of people, there is a justice system, police and state. In a community of countries... all we have is the UN (I know, I'm simplifying). So what I'm being critical about is not the removal of Saddam, but the lack of patience of the US - not with Saddam, but with the rest of the international comunity. I know it's not easy to have the means of doing what one thinks of as "good" and to have to waste time and energy on convincing others (it's not easy on the individual level either). But if a comunity is to last, it's the only way, or else you get the Power guy, the yesmen - and the Enemy.

I happen to agree with you... and I feel that the U.S.'s decision to move ahead without U.N. agreement was detrimental to both America and her neighbors, the rest of the world. The U.N. may have decided that the war wasn't worth it for true and good reasons, or petty anti-American foreign policy reasons, but regardless, it was the will of much of the world that this war not happen, and I feel that the U. S. should have abided by that. I wish I could have provided more debate on this topic

I feel that international unity should come before the immediate removal of Saddam Hussein. I feel that international unity is significantly more important than Saddam Hussein's immediate removal. Saddam Hussein can always be removed - international unity might not always be possible to reconstruct in any reasonable manner.

Quote:

Not to detract, maybe, but to question (be it ask yourself)... For example:

Iran looks far more dangerous than Iraq, they are ruled by a hardcore Islamic regime, they are not only known for supporting international terrorism (which Iraq isn't known to) but they brag about it. They might not have WMD (or they might) but Iraq was going through a disarmament programme - reluctantly, but the programme was there, why not intimidating Iraq into complying to it, they seemed pretty cooperatif in the wake of this war. Iran even has lots of oil, if that was what it's all about.

Now, if the security council would've had approved this war... Was it that hard for the US diplomacy to anticipate and prevent French/German oposition? For the anticipation part, there was no need of Einsteins, don't you think? As for meeting those sensibilities, nothing has been done, of course they're pissed at the US, not that I like Chirac (I don't), but "America's position as the most powerful country in the world" doesn't make arrogance a virtue. And the US position has clearly been "we don't care of what you think".

Without all this, with UN agreement, if there still had been Thomases to remember about Iran, would those have been right, at least it would've been "our" mistake, to learn from.

Again, I think that the U.S. has terribly bungled this entire situation. Removing Saddam Hussein is important, but removing him NOW at the cost of international unity was and is simply not worth it. About Iran though, I do believe that that is an entirely different situation. Iran is a progressive country - it has students rising up by the thousands to protest. It has more women it it's legislatures than the U.S. does in hers. It is debatable whether it is a worse threat... North Korea also poses a threat, and it could also be debated whether North Korea was a greater problem or not. However, the U.S. cannot do more than one thing at once, and apparently it has been decided that Iraq is the greatest threat, and so Iraq comes first. Whoever is the next greatest threat will be next, and so on and so forth.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 2, 2003, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
People appear to ignore me when I make a salient point.

EDIT: "salient" pretty much the same as "valid"... and it wasn't aimed at you, though you are most welcome to answer.

I was a bit rough in my answer to the WW3 and nuclear war fans..Not really insults but still..not necessary...

Bluelight

Falstaff · Apr 2, 2003, 08:27 AM

This is what disturbs me, I voted for him, and chafed when I heard early on that he would act independently assuming we had no support at all. But I was dismayed when he seemed to be saying in Newsbites that he could care less what the world thought. And then the powerful evil nation statements..He has rebuilt the GOP in his image, and perhaps carried on the "New World Order" agenda of his father, but it is a hard sell..

merry · Apr 2, 2003, 08:58 AM

Iran... my bad. There's no point in starting a debate on that, I just had the general idea that they are openly involved in the support of Hezbollah and the like, while Iraq isn't known to.

"Removing Saddam Hussein is important, but removing him NOW at the cost of international unity was and is simply not worth it."

I wish I'd said that, and nothing more, that's exactly my point. And I think this is the source of all the contradiction.

Isn't it funny, if we take our time we can find a common language, and agree on things, at least to the extent of making a discussion possible, and none of us has any special training, or reward. Those people - politicians - are paid fairly well, and have studies and counsellors and stuff, OK I've never been a president so maybe it's more complicated than I imagine, but still.

GOG · Apr 2, 2003, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
It still doesn't answer the question: How does leaving Saddam Hussein in power promote peace and justice in the Middle East?

You came through and basically said Israel was just as bad, and that the issue is whether the world is allowed to remove corrupt dictators.

The answer is that removing Saddam Hussein is a step in the right direction, and in America's position as the most powerful country in the world, it is our responsibility to humanity to remove this dictator. With power comes responsibility and we are living up to our responsibility with this war. You cannot denounce this war because America isn't going through with the wars you believe more important - this war is will bring longterm peace and justice to Iraq at the expense of shortterm peace. What America isn't doing cannot be used to detract from what America is doing.

At my knowledge, Hussein has done nothing since Kuwait. And IF you are successful with taking him down, by then you'll have the majority of the Arab world against and it probably will be worse then it is now.

That's where we think different, I don't want you to police the world, that's a job for UN.

Falstaff · Apr 2, 2003, 02:43 PM

your knowlege may be corrupt, pleae read the last 12 years of any well respected news magazine...it may be enlightening...

GOG · Apr 2, 2003, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
your knowlege may be corrupt, pleae read the last 12 years of any well respected news magazine...it may be enlightening...

Please define what's corrupted, and I will prove you wrong.

Reuter · Apr 2, 2003, 03:47 PM

It depends on what magazines you read....lol
But I would prefer to take a look at ISP( no not your isp).
They say Hussein was tricked by the Americans to invade Kuwait .
And did your magazines tell you about the 1.5 million ,yes one and a half million, children who starved because of the embargo?
I doubt it.

BWX · Apr 2, 2003, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GOG
At my knowledge, Hussein has done nothing since Kuwait. And IF you are successful with taking him down, by then you'll have the majority of the Arab world against and it probably will be worse then it is now.

That's where we think different, I don't want you to police the world, that's a job for UN.

The UN's job is policing the world? Shows how much you know.

GOG · Apr 2, 2003, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX232
The UN's job is policing the world? Shows how much you know.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/basicfacts/peacesec.htm

JavaFox · Apr 2, 2003, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by merry
Iran... my bad. There's no point in starting a debate on that, I just had the general idea that they are openly involved in the support of Hezbollah and the like, while Iraq isn't known to.

Actually, Iraq openly supports Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas.