[vyper]

Am I missing something here?

[Woolie Wool]

They don't like our economic system because they consider stuff like advertisements, stock exchanges, and other such things to be immoral. They consider anything different from themselves to be evil.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool

1. He posed a potential risk to US assets overseas, especially in Israel.
2. He gave the families of suicide bombers $10000 each (which is literally sponsoring terrorism)
3. He had not fully cooperated with UN inspectors, so he was already in material breach of UN resolutions whether or not he actually had weapons. In fact, we found prohibited missiles in Iraq that violated the 150km range limit, although they didn't have WMDs on them. ANY breach of the UN resolution was enough to justify force, not just proof of WMD possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. He is a brutal despot who crushed dissent and murdered his own people.


All politicians are lying, cheating weasels. Live with it.
 

1. Yeah, thats what we've been saying all along. Dancing bear.

2. He sure did, and America gives Israel weapons and money. Both of you were just supporting "your side" of the conflict. Both sides are equally guilty.

3. Israel has violated many, many UN resolutions. So has the US.

4. Ageed.

And saying I should "live with" corrupt, power hungry, war-mongering politicians is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. You can't possibly mean that?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kazan
the fundamentalist isalmists want to kill _ANYONE_ who doesn't: treat their women like property, wear a beard, bow down to mecca five times a day, etc



anyway - conspiracy theories = extraordinary claims, you have no extraordinary evidence to back it up

however **** is an arse, blair is a puppet, and saddam is genocidal

Al Sadr is in the sack with Iran, anyone who picks up a gun and fires are occupation troops is a combatant, there are a lot of iraqis that ARE happy that we kicked saddam out: don't kid yourself by saying there are none because i have it directly from the horses mouth

1. Wrong. Where is your proof? How many Islamic fundamentalists do you know? Or do you just think whatever TeeVee says? They have specific goals, such as getting US troops out of the Middle-East, getting Israel to give back Gaza and the West Bank. These are not insane, unachievable fantasies, they are real goals that can (and should) be accomplished quite easily.

2. I never said Iraqis weren't happy to see Saddam go. They were. But they don't want the US to take his place. They don't want to trade one bully for another. Especially a foreign one.

[Woolie Wool]

You have a very delusional idea of what TV news is like. TV news has always been liberal and antigovernment, and always will be. Their coverage (except for Fox's) of the war on terror has been decidedly negative. The real sources that tell us the kind of things Kazan mentioned are in newspapers and online.

2. I never said Iraqis weren't happy to see Saddam go. They were. But they don't want the US to take his place. They don't want to trade one bully for another. Especially a foreign one.

We're not a bully like Saddam. We only go after those who deliberately try to hurt us. You can think and say pretty much anything as long as you don't hurry anything by commiting or inciting acts of violence. You can say "Bush is Satan, the US sucks, and Saddam is a great guy" without any consequence (besides other people invoking their right to ridicule you). If you tried to criticize Saddam when he was in power, you'd be hauled off to God knows where or even killed.

[Genryu]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool

1. He posed a potential risk to US assets overseas, especially in Israel.

I thought that Israel was a country, not an US asset, seems I don't know my geography that much...

2. He gave the families of suicide bombers $10000 each (which is literally sponsoring terrorism)

That one's true, and has nearly never been used by **** and Co, which I found highly amusing.

3. He had not fully cooperated with UN inspectors, so he was already in material breach of UN resolutions whether or not he actually had weapons. In fact, we found prohibited missiles in Iraq that violated the 150km range limit, although they didn't have WMDs on them. ANY breach of the UN resolution was enough to justify force, not just proof of WMD possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The resolution didn't clearly said that a breach would trigger the sending of troops. How can it even be considered then as a good reason to go to war ?

4. He is a brutal despot who crushed dissent and murdered his own people.

And who is worse, the guy who does this or the governement that backed him up and numerous other tyrants and dictator ?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
You have a very delusional idea of what TV news is like. TV news has always been liberal and antigovernment, and always will be. Their coverage (except for Fox's) of the war on terror has been decidedly negative. The real sources that tell us the kind of things Kazan mentioned are in newspapers and online.



We're not a bully like Saddam. We only go after those who deliberately try to hurt us. You can think and say pretty much anything as long as you don't hurry anything by commiting or inciting acts of violence. You can say "Bush is Satan, the US sucks, and Saddam is a great guy" without any consequence (besides other people invoking their right to ridicule you). If you tried to criticize Saddam when he was in power, you'd be hauled off to God knows where or even killed.

As far as I can tell, the threat from Saddams' Iraw was exactly zip.  Whilst Saddam was an evil bloke and deserved to be removed, that wasn;t the justification given for this war.  the cause given was WMD & terrorists in iraq, neither of which have proven true.  That is, except for the foreign fighters flooding into the country to be martyrs.

Also, bullying doesn;t just extend to military force.  Threatened sanctions towards the likes of France and Germany for disagreeing (how dare they!)  with the US over Iraq counts as bullying IMO.

NB:  Iraq started destroying the long (well, not exactly long....) range missiles when they were discovered, which shows that the weapons inspectors were having an effect.  It also evidences Iraq complying with the resolution, albeit largely to save their own arse.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by aldo_14
As far as I can tell, the threat from Saddams' Iraw was exactly zip.  Whilst Saddam was an evil bloke and deserved to be removed, that wasn;t the justification given for this war.  the cause given was WMD & terrorists in iraq, neither of which have proven true.  That is, except for the foreign fighters flooding into the country to be martyrs.

You confuse supporting terrorism with actually giving terrorists sanctuary inside the country. He gave thousands to the family of each suicide bomber in Israel. How can that not be supporting terrorism.

Also, bullying doesn;t just extend to military force.  Threatened sanctions towards the likes of France and Germany for disagreeing (how dare they!)  with the US over Iraq counts as bullying IMO.

What, not buying their stuff because we don't like them? That's typical and accepted politics. It's done all the time. It's just too bad that their economies will suffer badly without our dollars fattening their pockets.

NB:  Iraq started destroying the long (well, not exactly long....) range missiles when they were discovered, which shows that the weapons inspectors were having an effect.  It also evidences Iraq complying with the resolution, albeit largely to save their own arse.

They kicked the weapons inspectors out in the late '90s. That's not cooperating.

[Rictor]

After they'de been in there for like more than 5 years.

And as I said, both Israel and the US have disobeyed UN resolutions. Except when you do it, you don't say you're not cooperating, you say that you are maintaining your sovreignty. Love hypocricy.

And there are many, many people in the world who consider the IDF to be terrorists. You giving them weapons is the same as Saddam giving money to the families of suicide-bombers.

I've already said all this, but you just don't bother to read.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool

You confuse supporting terrorism with actually giving terrorists sanctuary inside the country. He gave thousands to the family of each suicide bomber in Israel. How can that not be supporting terrorism.
 

And that constitutes an immenent and dangerous threat to the sanctity of the US/UK?

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
What, not buying their stuff because we don't like them? That's typical and accepted politics. It's done all the time. It's just too bad that their economies will suffer badly without our dollars fattening their pockets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2968775.stm

Sounds like petty recriminations.  And it;s not the tactics, it;s the reason - 'disagree with us and you get cut off' sounds like bullying to me.  especially if everyone is as desperate to suckle on the golden teat of the US economy as you say.

Originally posted by Woolie Wool

They kicked the weapons inspectors out in the late '90s. That's not cooperating.

That was the past - the inspectors were back in, doing their job.  That was co-operating.

[Turambar]

So its not terrorism when Israelis bulldoze the houses of the families of suicide bombers, when Israelis tear down villages, when Israelis use a missile to take out an old guy from the safety of an attack helicopter!!

The Palestinians are fighting for their freedom, and it is the ultimate sacrifice to give up your life for a cause!

[aldo_14]

It's still murder - cowardly murder - to kill civillians with a suicide bomb.

[Rictor]

So is dropping bombs from 20 miles up, or killing with a cruise missle fired from 200km away. They're all equally cowardly. The Palestinians have two things going for them

1. They have a legitimate claim to the land for which they are fighting.
2. They are man enough to die for the cause in which they believe, not take potshots from  halfway across the world or from a stealth bomber in the sky.

[Woolie Wool]

And that constitutes an immenent and dangerous threat to the sanctity of the US/UK?

In international politics, a threat to one's allies (Israel, in this case) is generally considered to be equivalent to a threat to oneself. Besides, the President said he'd wage a war on terrorists and those who help or harbor them. And so he did.

Originally posted by Rictor
So is dropping bombs from 20 miles up, or killing with a cruise missle fired from 200km away. They're all equally cowardly. The Palestinians have two things going for them

1. They have a legitimate claim to the land for which they are fighting.
2. They are man enough to die for the cause in which they believe, not take potshots from  halfway across the world or from a stealth bomber in the sky.

First of all,
1. The land actually never belonged to the Palestinians. Ever. First it was the property of the Jews, then the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the Turks, then Britain, and then it became the independent nation of Israel.
2. Israeli soldiers and police often DO die for their cause. They get shot, stabbed, blown up, etc. all the time by Palestinian rebels. Whether they die on foot, in a tank, or in a plane makes no difference. Furthermore, it's not the suicide bombers so much as the disgusting terrorist leaders that indoctrinate them and send them out to be "martyred" who are the cowards.

[vyper]

I smell worryingly blind patriotism...

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool

In international politics, a threat to one's allies (Israel, in this case) is generally considered to be equivalent to a threat to oneself. Besides, the President said he'd wage a war on terrorists and those who help or harbor them. And so he did.


First of all,
1. The land actually never belonged to the Palestinians. Ever. First it was the property of the Jews, then the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the Turks, then Britain, and then it became the independent nation of Israel.
2. Israeli soldiers and police often DO die for their cause. They get shot, stabbed, blown up, etc. all the time by Palestinian rebels. Whether they die on foot, in a tank, or in a plane makes no difference. Furthermore, it's not the suicide bombers so much as the disgusting terrorist leaders that indoctrinate them and send them out to be "martyred" who are the cowards.

1. Now, assuming you are right (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), we've got Israel belonging to: Jews, conquerers, conquerers, conquerers, conquerers, Jews (conquerers)., Now, what does this teach us about land ownership?

He with the biggest gun gets the loot. No justice or reason, just force. Yay!

And it doesn't matter if the Palestinians "owned" the land. As we've seen, whoever has the biggest army gets to say he "owns" the land. Its matters who has lived there for the longest time, and that would be our good friends the Palestinians.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool

In international politics, a threat to one's allies (Israel, in this case) is generally considered to be equivalent to a threat to oneself. Besides, the President said he'd wage a war on terrorists and those who help or harbor them. And so he did.
 

I'm sorry, but that's just daft.  If anything, the Iraq war increase the likelihood of terrorism - as we've seen in Spain, Turkey and Iraq itself.  It gave Arabs another cause to die for - putting American forces on the ground was like drawing a gigantic bullseye.

Not to mention that it neccessitated moving the most fluent Arabic speaking special forces away from the hunt for Bin Laden.  Or that other countries like syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia itself could be said to beequally or more dangerous in these terms.

And that any reduction in terrorism in Israel itself would be minimal - Iraqs support was after the act, and to the familes.  It was probably a more effective PR excercise that a facilitator of terrorism.

[01010]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
They don't like our economic system because they consider stuff like advertisements, stock exchanges, and other such things to be immoral. They consider anything different from themselves to be evil.

You mean advertising cigarettes to children isn't immoral?

[Rictor]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1108956/posts

Read the people's comment here. Its all war-bloggers splooging their pants at the prospect of leveling Fallujah, trying to outdo each other as to who can think of the most terrible death for the population of Fallujah.

O'Reilly, the quintessential American fanatic.

I had quite a good laugh before I got bored at the sheer repetition.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
1. The land actually never belonged to the Palestinians. Ever. First it was the property of the Jews, then the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the Turks, then Britain, and then it became the independent nation of Israel.

And how do you think the jews got it in the first place? That's right. They kicked out the people who were already there.