posted February 18, 2003 02:00 AM              

Australians, like many other countries have an elected parliament that are in not because they are what we want, but because they are one of a couple of choices we had. Does that make sense jwhop?

Our Government does not represent what the Australian people want jwhop. This is why they will not let us vote on whether or not we go to war with Iraq, jwhop. Cabinet will decide whether we will join the war, with parliament then debating the decision. We already know the outcome of that jwhop, seeing that our men and women are already deployed in the middle east.

Seeing that most statistics are made up on the spot jwhop, I will not give credit to your 'supposed' figures.

Now, I'm not opposed by the stance the American Government has taken. The only thing I oppose is the way you give your opinions to people here.

Sure, free speech etc etc. Give your opinion as much as you want jwhop. But why be a smart ass about it?? jwhop, huh? Even without your tone of voice here its obvious to see your arrogance through your words.

posted February 18, 2003 02:01 AM            

SOME civilians might die?? Try tens of thousands. Darling Donald Rumsfield's plan of attack for Iraq is called 'Shock And Awe'.
That means they plan on raining down 800 cruise missiles in two days. That's more than we fired in the whole 40 days of the first Gulf War. It will be comparable to the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
But you don't seem to care. Even though nearly HALF the population of Iraq is under the age of 14.
But what do you care.? You probably have them catagorized in the same boat as those damn 'commies' right?

You and all the other armchair war mongerers make me ill.
There are other ways to diffuse the situation in Iraq. The only problem is an inablility to think outside the box, of which you are a perfect example.
Why don't you try thinking for yourself for once instead of reciting what the government and corporate media want you to believe.

Here's another juicy factoid you may not be aware of.
GEneral Electric doesn't just make lightbulbs. They also make nukes. Therefore they are poised to make a doosey of a profit off of a war. Now consider how the media tries to sell us war. They have the neat little logo, meme and even a war jingle. Now consider that GE also owns NBC.
Now do you think that their opportunity to profit off of a war with Iraq has any influence on the way the news is presented?

posted February 18, 2003 12:59 PM              

Wildly flinging arms,
the furry of colour of a child's lit eyes,
the tales of dress and hair,
flung into the sky,
mixed with holler.

Her ornamented animation,
tears lingering in perpetual balance,
failing to fall, glimmering, Silver,
under her black eyes.

"From the sky will come the fire.
and men will come, all in black
to take daddy and mommy..
and my brother, he will stop them.
He will hit them. He will defend me.
But they will put off my arms and legs."

Shuttering in excitement,
terrified by what she sees,
Rania, just one little girl,
cowering under the clouds of war,
waiting, hoping, losing, day by day,
her life in any other way.

Jakie

"War Is A Tragedy
Not A Strategy"

"War Orphans Make
Great Terrorists"

Stephen Vincent

posted February 18, 2003 01:01 PM              

NwEvil, if the industry is across the pond then come on out here, you HAVE to live out in Cali for awhile!

This debate over war is of interest to me but everyone's figures and arguments are so exagerated it doesn't make for to civil of a debate.

One thing I have to say though, is that yes, there will be civilians dying because of the invasion, in every war civilians die...
but for that half of the population of Iraq, that's supposedly under 14, do we want them to grow up in the horrifying dream that is present day Iraq. Rule by terror, rule by fear, kidnapping innocents just to scare all others, almost every person in Iraq knows a family member that's been killed or missing thanx to the gov't.

So let's do it for that half of the population that would have to grow up in this nightmare of a life...

posted February 18, 2003 01:05 PM              

Death is easy to pronounce.

He deserved to die.

They ought to be shot.

Hanging’s too good for him.

The words fall glib.

Throwaway lines

sentencing them to death.

Distant observer,

you speak without guilt, or fear

of misplaced allegiances.

You just need something to say,

that’s all.

The right sentiment, rightly declared

whichever way your loyalties blow

in the gust of the smokefilled air.

A country burns.

The death-dealers deserved to die, you say.

Death is easy to pronounce.

It’s the smell of burning children that’s hard.

posted February 18, 2003 01:29 PM            

If we had used the philosophy of sparing the civilions as a reason not to go to war, then where would Hitler be at this point?

For the people that would not have us take out Saddam, what would your choice have been when Hitler was in power? Are you then saying it is better to spare 10,000 now and let 1 Million die at the hands of the madman?

Or has the anti-war speech (which is ironic since we are not yet at war) promoted by the greedy French and anarchists really making an impact and causing you to think it is okay to have a madman like him lead a country? Look at what he is doing?

When is war right?

Posting pictures of baby coffins is a great effect which is why the Iraqi's use it for propaganda. One only has to look at what these leaders do in order to brain wash the masses in regards to their media communications. They must be doing something right though, because so many people here posting think it's a good thing to keep Saddam in power.

That is until terrorism lands at your doorstep.

For me, I hate war, but I also know when it is neccessary. I think of how those children will grow up knowing that they are just pawns in Saddams game. The women are nothing more than property to be disgarded at will.

Our protestors would rather save the spotted owl, kill researchers, burn down buildings, than save a child from a life of tryanny and a woman from being a slave. I see how our values have become. One would rather die to save someone from eating meat than fight for the right of freedom.

------------------
"Lahn dádzaayú nahikai leh ni' nyelíí k'ehge," Goyathlay (Geronimo)

posted February 18, 2003 03:17 PM              

That's an incredibly sloppy generalization for one as intelligent as you, pidua.

posted February 18, 2003 03:24 PM            

Those aren't our values or America's values either. This group doesn't realize what a radical fringe element they are in America's population.

They haven't learned a thing from the last 2 elections here---perhaps it's genetic.

posted February 18, 2003 03:35 PM              

quote:

---

From tash : And everyone's so worried about Iraq, but I'd be more worried about North Korea. Or haven't you heard ? They actually HAVE bombs that can reach the US. Not saying Iraq doesn't, but PROVE it first.

---

It's necessary , before any intervention, politic or military, the verification of the real danger that Iraq represents to the world.
Pakistan, India, China, North Korea also possess destruction mass weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons and nobody speech anything... Which is the level of reliability of those countries ?
Why Iraq represents a true threat to the USA or to the world and those countries don't ?
Who believes that Iraq is really a threat for the world must be very naif ...

A country that manufacture atomic weapons and weapons of mass destruction , don't have moral authority to impede the other of manufacturing theirs.
"Do what I say, but, don't do what I do "...

If the intention is humanitarian, why the richest and powerful nation of the world is destining billion of dollars to kill and to destroy instead of investing in the improvement of life conditions in the planet and in the humanity's peaceful and harmonious development ?

The "current" North American government never had sensibility or diplomacy in the foreign policy subjects. Saddam Hussein it's a dictator , but the American president and his military forces cannot impose his presence in Iraq. This attack is just the coronation of the incompetence for the dialogue, the respect and the exercise of democracy.

In the reality, Saddam Hussein as Bush are wrong. Both for authoritarianism . The difference is that one is " local " and the other "worldwide".

A country with the largest military budget of the world doesn't have external enemies that can cause significant damages , yet, if the harsh and unilateral attitude of the White House persists, USA will become a danger for themselves and for the world. And my fear is that we may see "others" 9/11 every month...

As you insist on speaking of Second World War, Bush has the same right of attacking Iraq that Hitler had to invade Austria and Poland claiming his ' space vital '. Today, the history repeats 1938.

Finally, for a while, I'm trying to know the true reason why some people defend this attack but nobody gets to answer...
Various stories of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda all proved false...Bin Laden hates Saddam as much as he hates America [ I already said that in another thread ]...
...then let's try human-rights abuses, in this case we have Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Sudan, Mauritania, China, as well as any number of sub-Saharan despotisms...forget that one...
...let's see, hummm, Iraq has, or may be acquiring, "weapons of mass destruction." U.N. inspections did not support the claims.

Since none of the stated reasons can withstand critical scrutiny , I should believe that Iraqi crisis cannot be separated from three factors: the dream of America's multinational corporations to secure control of Middle Eastern oil reserves, the desire to exercise global hegemony, and the influence of " Israel and friends".

quote:

---

Regarding oil, the Times of London explained on July 11, 2002, that an American victory "would open Iraq's rich new oilfields to Western bidders and bring the prospect of lessening dependence on Saudi oil. No other country offers such untapped oilfields . . . Iraq's proven reserves of 112 billion barrels are second only to Saudi Arabia's 256 billion barrels." The windfall could be even greater: Oil-industry experts estimate the reserves to be over 200 billion barrels, concentrated primarily in the three huge oil fields in the south—Majnoon, West Kurna, and Nahr Umar—each of which exceeds the reserves of Kuwait. As an expert told the Times, "There is nothing like it anywhere else in the world. It's the big prize."

This bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq would have the additional advantage of undermining the strong position of Russia's Lukoil and France's Total-Fina-Elf in Iraq's oil production. Former CIA director James Woolsey bluntly declared last summer that France and Russia "should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them." Otherwise, he warned, "it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them." Since "the new Iraqi government" will be roughly as independent as that of Mr. Kharzai's in Kabul, Iraq's oil would become a U.S. asset and quite possibly be used to offset the costs of waging war against her.

---

If we cannot be reasonable, at least, we may try to be coherent... propaganda is to say that this war is not for oil.

posted February 18, 2003 04:05 PM              

I can see why people here want us to liberate Iraq. Very humanitarian, it almost moves me into the pro- war camp. But there are some things that you humane people haven't thought of. For example... you admit, pidaua, that whacking Iraq will cause many civilian casualties? It seems rather odd to liberate a country by killing its inhabitants. Furthermore, Iraq poses no danger to the US, as long as we don't provoke Saddam. There are many messed- up countries we could help with less danger to ourselves than Iraq. Also, nobody wants us to attack Iraq. Governments say they do, of course, but that's because we're the biggest bully on the playground and it's a way to please us.

jwhop and all othe pro- warrers, please give a point by point argument- coherent, etc.- as to why we should invade Iraq. Thanks.

posted February 18, 2003 04:44 PM              

Yeah.

So, my Grandfather is opposed to this war, too - I guess making him also a member of the "radical fringe".

Yeah.

posted February 18, 2003 04:58 PM              

quote:

---

Iraq poses no danger to the US, as long as we don't provoke Saddam.
jwhop and all othe pro- warrers, please give a point by point argument- coherent, etc.- as to why we should invade Iraq.Thanks

---

After this attack , we will be watching something unusual: The effect will come before the cause !
Then, we must be ready to see and to suffer with terrorists attacks at every moment...

posted February 18, 2003 09:20 PM              

Here's another American joke:
What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
Trilingual.
What do you call someone who speaks two languages?
Bilingual.
What do you call someone who speaks only one language?
American. It's a gross generalization and corny, but oh well. When you're at the top of the world, you gotta roll with the punches.

Harpyr- in case you're interested, one of jwhop's major news sources is newsmax.com. Check it out, it's a really excellent news source! Although it does tend to give a little too much slack to them lib'rals.

posted February 18, 2003 10:39 PM              

Yeah,lets end this debate on happy, fun notes.

posted February 18, 2003 11:25 PM              

Harpyr, com'n, that's not an objective source

Don't want to offend, but saying the American media is bias for pro-war, and then posting statistics from a bias anti-war website for legitimacy... seems a bit hypocritical to me.

posted February 19, 2003 12:50 AM            

Sure, you can say you chose the lesser of two evils when you elected your Parliament. I don't know anything about any of them so I won't agree with you. You have a representative government, what you're advocating is a direct democracy.

The US is a Republic and we've chosen the right man to run the Executive Branch which includes the job Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces. The President is backed by about 75% of Americans in disarming Saddam and Congress has given him all the authority he needs to do the job.

You won't accept my numbers? OK, run the numbers for yourself.

Talk to me about arrogance RRR? You know, real arrogance is a small unelected percentage of the general population trying to tell the rest of us what to do and substituting their judgment for ours. It's even more arrogant when they aren't able to formulate any alternative that gets the job done.

jwhop

posted February 19, 2003 01:05 AM              

of course, no one likes the idea of war.

but there aren't any other alternatives being presented.

i completely think that for *anyone* to feel that saddam wouldn;t do anything without us "provoking" him hasn't left his/her house in the past year and a half. and i think that given that, some aggression on the part of the civilized world is warranted when he continues to play games and try to make himself capable of hurting others outside his country. you can't let a monster like him brew for so long. even his offspring is sick and demented.

now, i'm not too sure though about these statistics that everyone is posting. Where are the polls being conducted? Who is being polled? Are they truly representative of the populations being considered? I've certainly never been presented with a poll of this nature, and neither has anyone I know.

I don;t know...in NYC anyway, there's a very big mix of emotions on this. People will absolutely surprise you with their opinions about this impending war.