Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Moss, Mar 25, 2003.
...you're killing me.
What's weirder is how Americans think they belong to humanity. Someone should tell them that the Zoo is over there, behind us...
"Monkey no obey U.N. law because monkey want bannnananananaa to sit on..."
We've done more than Iraq or any other country ever has for humanitarian aid...
So we don't belong to it... we grace it with our presence...
We're so humane... "Ooh, let's go shoot up Iraq! They got oil! ooh, and a dictator... 50 points if you can hit him!"
I'd offer at most 25 points for saddam...
50 is usually the mouse scurrying across the corral trying not to get trampled on by the cattle...
Let's extend this a bit. How many Kuwaitis were killed in the Iraq invasion and occupation? How many Kurds were killed after?
And who says it was the sanctions? As far as I know, Saddam was allowed to sell oil for humanitarian aid. Where has it gone? Why wasn't it distributed to the people?
Funny how Saddam can build oodles of palaces and homes, yet the rest of his country is apparently starving or disease-riddled.
Where are you getting that price from? And how does it cause a splinter in OPEC, when I imagine OPEC would either overrule Iraq or kick it out (and it's not really annoying the US, as there hasn't been an outcry when oil reached $40 per barrel in the months preceding the war).
False, what and who do you think put down the Shiite Basra rebellion in 1991? And what do you think is fighting the coalition forces now?
This I agree with, they shouldn't have gone to war if they didn't get UN support. But what does European cohesion have to do with this? It's pretty irrelevant.
What are you talking about? Bombs don't just "fall" now, they are guided to their destination. Considering the amount of explosives "dropped" on Iraq, the civilian casualties are VERY low, and if all the missiles actually were on target, they would have been even lower.
You've given rather zip about why it's for oil. Just one paragraph and a small one at that.
There are two extreme viewpoints that are totally irritating:
1: The cavalier attitude about the war being one big bomb party
2: The idea that warring against anyone, for any reason, regardless of tyranny, is far worse than the initial atrocity that provoked it.
One is totally inhumane, the other will serve as a safety net for the inhumane. I don't like the
Moss, where are you collecting this drivel? Okay, so what Ferrit said may or may not be filled with contradictions, but the one thing he said about misinformation is totally solid (potentially barring the single word "left-wing").
Do you honestly think, Moss, that with as large as the media is in this country that the government could possibly control it? If it weren't for the competing factions, I would say it is much more likely for the media to be controlling the government. "Tommorrow Never Dies" may not have bee the best Bond movie ever, but it's concept is not near so far-fetched as you might think.
And what's with the pointless name-dropping? Robin Cook? Do you know who that is? The only Robin Cook I know is an author and a medical doctor. He wrote Coma. I've read all of his books. Have you? If he actually said that, I'll tell you right now that it's been taken out of context and twisted for this use. If anyone knows the dangers of chemical warfare, it's Robin Cook. He was more likely commenting on the fact that we armed them in the first place. Although I could see him saying something along the lines of the danger being more immenant internally than from an outside nation. Regardless, you don't even comment who he is and you expect it to hold weight?
Where are you from, how old are you, and where are you getting your information from? You are a bit confused, my friend.
Oh, and as far as what Sadam does and doesn't have, he didn't have the missiles that he's been dropping over Kiwait (sp?) either...
I think he meant that one Labour guy in the British parliament, who's called Robert Cook IIRC. He was the fraction chief (I don't know how that's really called in English, heh) of the Labour party, but resigned because of Blair being so pro-war.
I'm not sure how true that is, but I heard that they were some of the ones which Blix ordered to destroy shortly before the war began.
US officials at least said that it weren't scuds (what was suspected at first) but something else.
Separate names with a comma.