Forums > Social Discussion > Iraq and 9/11
Login/Join to ParticipateNYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
I usually shy away from political debates on HoP for various reasons but I wanted to throw this one out there and see how it landed.
Please, let's keep this on this specific topic as there are so many heated emotions and feelings on both of these issues.
As the war rhetoric heats up I've been hearing more and more "We need to get Iraq back for 9/11" from co-workers, students and even people on the news.
I've always prided myself as understanding both sides of an arguement (which is why I rarely voice my own opinion.) There are valid arguements for a millitary strike on Iraq. There are valid arguements against a millitary strike on Iraq. But this "We need to get them BACK" is confusing to me.
Yes, I know that Sadam is one of MANY ruthless and murderous leaders in the world. Yes, I know that Iraq is one of the MANY countries in the world with biological and chemical weapons. Yes, I know that Iraq is one of the increasingly MANY countries in the world with radical anti-American sentiment. Yes, I understand that Iraq is one of MANY countries which could, theoretically fund terrorism in the future.
But I do not understand what role Iraq played in the 9/11 attacks. Then again, I was a bit busy that day.
I usually shy away from political debates on HoP for various reasons but I wanted to throw this one out there and see how it landed.
Please, let's keep this on this specific topic as there are so many heated emotions and feelings on both of these issues.
As the war rhetoric heats up I've been hearing more and more "We need to get Iraq back for 9/11" from co-workers, students and even people on the news.
I've always prided myself as understanding both sides of an arguement (which is why I rarely voice my own opinion.) There are valid arguements for a millitary strike on Iraq. There are valid arguements against a millitary strike on Iraq. But this "We need to get them BACK" is confusing to me.
Yes, I know that Sadam is one of MANY ruthless and murderous leaders in the world. Yes, I know that Iraq is one of the MANY countries in the world with biological and chemical weapons. Yes, I know that Iraq is one of the increasingly MANY countries in the world with radical anti-American sentiment. Yes, I understand that Iraq is one of MANY countries which could, theoretically fund terrorism in the future.
But I do not understand what role Iraq played in the 9/11 attacks. Then again, I was a bit busy that day.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
member
167 posts
Location: Bergen , Norway
167 posts
Location: Bergen , Norway
Posted:
I'm as confused as the rest on Bush'es politics but maybe....
- He want to systimatically remove anything that is or can be a threath to the US...and Iraq is just the start of it...
- Al quida ...and Saddam Hussei share strong hatred against US....so the thought and assumtion
(?) that there is a connection between them might not be as far from the thruth as we would think... (or between Iraq and any 'enemy' of the US)
Valid arguements for an Attack on Iraq.....that might be.....But is there a valid argument for an attack on Iraq thats not approved by the UN ?
who's gonna care about what the UN say if US dont follow their resolutions? To make the world lose it's respect for the UN is a big step to take....
in witch direction? I'm not sure but I dought It's the right one
'
Peace
I'm as confused as the rest on Bush'es politics but maybe....
- He want to systimatically remove anything that is or can be a threath to the US...and Iraq is just the start of it...
- Al quida ...and Saddam Hussei share strong hatred against US....so the thought and assumtion
(?) that there is a connection between them might not be as far from the thruth as we would think... (or between Iraq and any 'enemy' of the US)
Valid arguements for an Attack on Iraq.....that might be.....But is there a valid argument for an attack on Iraq thats not approved by the UN ?
who's gonna care about what the UN say if US dont follow their resolutions? To make the world lose it's respect for the UN is a big step to take....
in witch direction? I'm not sure but I dought It's the right one
'
Peace
I like Fire.. :)
SILVER Member
addict
669 posts
Location: Lancashire, UK
addict
669 posts
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posted:
Here's a hypothetical question: If Bush starts a war - one that he cannot provide enough evidence that persuades anyone, other than Mr Tony 'head up W's arse' Blair, that there is a major threat and need to take immediate action - then what action should be taken against him??
With modern day capabilities I fail to see a need for any blood shed of the innocent, unless some power mad dictatorial style leader tries to spill blood first, then neccessary action will be required by the many who stand to protect their country, not just kill people. Those deemed responsible for starting war should be taken punish them with rigourous exposure to education & put face to face with what they have caused & created.
[ 06. March 2003, 12:04: Message edited by: FireMorph ]
Here's a hypothetical question: If Bush starts a war - one that he cannot provide enough evidence that persuades anyone, other than Mr Tony 'head up W's arse' Blair, that there is a major threat and need to take immediate action - then what action should be taken against him??
With modern day capabilities I fail to see a need for any blood shed of the innocent, unless some power mad dictatorial style leader tries to spill blood first, then neccessary action will be required by the many who stand to protect their country, not just kill people. Those deemed responsible for starting war should be taken punish them with rigourous exposure to education & put face to face with what they have caused & created.
[ 06. March 2003, 12:04: Message edited by: FireMorph ]
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
So, there's pretty much no way this is going to stay on topic... It's just going to degrade into another war debate huh...
OK. Sorry I started it.
So, there's pretty much no way this is going to stay on topic... It's just going to degrade into another war debate huh...
OK. Sorry I started it.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
member
167 posts
Location: Bergen , Norway
167 posts
Location: Bergen , Norway
Posted:
Thats one of the things I have been thinking about too. If you look at recent history, than Bush should be disarmed and the american people liberated from their leader, becaused he started an unlegitimed war as far as the UN is concerned.
Any action not backened by the UN (like a war for oil-resources) is a crime against the world community. (same crime Iraq did against Kuwait). And the world answer any crime with disarming the criminals and "reinstate democracy" in the current country......
Peace....
And Peace again
quote:still hypothetical
Originally posted by FireMorph:
Here's a hypothetical question: If Bush starts a war - one that he cannot provide enough evidence that persuades anyone, other than Mr Tony 'head up W's arse' Blair, that there is a major threat and need to take immediate action - then what action should be taken against him??
Thats one of the things I have been thinking about too. If you look at recent history, than Bush should be disarmed and the american people liberated from their leader, becaused he started an unlegitimed war as far as the UN is concerned.
Any action not backened by the UN (like a war for oil-resources) is a crime against the world community. (same crime Iraq did against Kuwait). And the world answer any crime with disarming the criminals and "reinstate democracy" in the current country......
Peace....
And Peace again
I like Fire.. :)
member
167 posts
Location: Bergen , Norway
167 posts
Location: Bergen , Norway
Posted:
Sorry NYC....
Didnt meen to mess up your thread.....
Peace
Sorry NYC....
Didnt meen to mess up your thread.....
Peace
I like Fire.. :)
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
What gets me is the al qaeda are islamist extremists. Their agenda is to put the muslim world into the stone age basicly. Their reasoning is the muslim world was ontop in the stone age (I guess stone age and bronze age) So clearly western modernization is the cause for the problems in the muslim world. These guys are completly backwards. In afghanistan they hung video cassetes from light poles like they were criminals. Their second agenda is to destroy the western world (or cripple it and make it back off) so they can go about their business fixing the problems in their world.
Saddam isn't even a muslim. Atleast not really a muslim. He says he is when he addresses his people but everyone knows he isn't. By all rights al qaeda should hate saddam and possibly even target him. Ofcourse there is more to everything besides the surface of issues. Maybe al qaeda are just using religion as a tool and in secret they are makeing deals with saddam. But bush certainly hasn't proven this or even suggested it. He just puts all muslim militants under the same blanket.
It really bothers me that all the government has to do is suggest iraq might be supporting al qaeda without providing any evidence and the majority of the public are gung ho for destroying iraq.
There is good reasons for iraq to fall. I don't want to see the UN be sacrificed for that to happen. But I think it needs to happen with UN cooperation because if the invasion of iraq is cancled the UN has just turned into the league of nations (if they aren't at that status now) and if the invasion happens without UN support the UN is still shown to be weak and ineffective.
So yeah I don't know why there is so much buzz going on with the terrorism angle on iraq. It's the weakest reason for a war with iraq (even the administration has alluded to this). I guess you could chalk it up to racism towards arabs. People are unable to differentiate between the terrorist bad guys and the plain run of the mill crazy dictorial madman bad guys because they both have olive coloured skin. I would like to think there is more to it then that though.
What gets me is the al qaeda are islamist extremists. Their agenda is to put the muslim world into the stone age basicly. Their reasoning is the muslim world was ontop in the stone age (I guess stone age and bronze age) So clearly western modernization is the cause for the problems in the muslim world. These guys are completly backwards. In afghanistan they hung video cassetes from light poles like they were criminals. Their second agenda is to destroy the western world (or cripple it and make it back off) so they can go about their business fixing the problems in their world.
Saddam isn't even a muslim. Atleast not really a muslim. He says he is when he addresses his people but everyone knows he isn't. By all rights al qaeda should hate saddam and possibly even target him. Ofcourse there is more to everything besides the surface of issues. Maybe al qaeda are just using religion as a tool and in secret they are makeing deals with saddam. But bush certainly hasn't proven this or even suggested it. He just puts all muslim militants under the same blanket.
It really bothers me that all the government has to do is suggest iraq might be supporting al qaeda without providing any evidence and the majority of the public are gung ho for destroying iraq.
There is good reasons for iraq to fall. I don't want to see the UN be sacrificed for that to happen. But I think it needs to happen with UN cooperation because if the invasion of iraq is cancled the UN has just turned into the league of nations (if they aren't at that status now) and if the invasion happens without UN support the UN is still shown to be weak and ineffective.
So yeah I don't know why there is so much buzz going on with the terrorism angle on iraq. It's the weakest reason for a war with iraq (even the administration has alluded to this). I guess you could chalk it up to racism towards arabs. People are unable to differentiate between the terrorist bad guys and the plain run of the mill crazy dictorial madman bad guys because they both have olive coloured skin. I would like to think there is more to it then that though.
SILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted:
I was watching an episode of MASH the other day (yes, I need help ). They were talking about how the Korean War had no really rowsing war songs, it was said with sarcasm, but the implications are there.
People like simplicity, we always have. It is there in the pro-war factions "We need to get Iraq back for 9/11", and in the anti-war factions "Bush is evil, no war". Simple slogans are easy to believe, easy to have faith in, they are our modern war songs. Unfortunately when you push and pull on them a bit, they tend to collapse.
You notice that in high level discussions no one is saying "the US wants to get Iraq back for 9/11"? Thats because they know there is no substance to it. The only time it comes into play with the real decision makers is as an unacknowledged expression of sentiment. They might feel that way but they would never say it out loud.
I am fairly certain there is a massive mix of reasons for what is happening. Iraq is a historic enemy, Iraq is culturally very different to Western societies, Iraq probably does have weaponry, Iraq is not complying with the UN, the USA probably does have oil interests and political interests in the region that it wants to protect, Bush probably truly feels that he is freeing the Iraqi people, the USA feels very threatened and vulnerable at the moment. Within the UN there are ten times as many different motivations. Can it all be distilled into one sentence? No, or at least not with decent punctuation.
That above is not a rallying cry. Even if you were to take only the reasons that are pro-American, it is not a rallying cry. And that is the saddest thing in all this, that we cannot grapple with the full story, and have to resort to simplistic slogans and sayings.
I was watching an episode of MASH the other day (yes, I need help ). They were talking about how the Korean War had no really rowsing war songs, it was said with sarcasm, but the implications are there.
People like simplicity, we always have. It is there in the pro-war factions "We need to get Iraq back for 9/11", and in the anti-war factions "Bush is evil, no war". Simple slogans are easy to believe, easy to have faith in, they are our modern war songs. Unfortunately when you push and pull on them a bit, they tend to collapse.
You notice that in high level discussions no one is saying "the US wants to get Iraq back for 9/11"? Thats because they know there is no substance to it. The only time it comes into play with the real decision makers is as an unacknowledged expression of sentiment. They might feel that way but they would never say it out loud.
I am fairly certain there is a massive mix of reasons for what is happening. Iraq is a historic enemy, Iraq is culturally very different to Western societies, Iraq probably does have weaponry, Iraq is not complying with the UN, the USA probably does have oil interests and political interests in the region that it wants to protect, Bush probably truly feels that he is freeing the Iraqi people, the USA feels very threatened and vulnerable at the moment. Within the UN there are ten times as many different motivations. Can it all be distilled into one sentence? No, or at least not with decent punctuation.
That above is not a rallying cry. Even if you were to take only the reasons that are pro-American, it is not a rallying cry. And that is the saddest thing in all this, that we cannot grapple with the full story, and have to resort to simplistic slogans and sayings.
It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
{Waves finger at Rozi..}
See, that's why I like you. Well said, articulate, and right on a frequency I can understand. It IS a sound bite. It's an oversimplification of an anti-terrorist regime sentiment.
I still think it's ignorant. But I at least can get my brain around it.
{I was just thinkin' how you and I are oft on the same frequency in threads of days ago... you hit it again kid.}
{Waves finger at Rozi..}
See, that's why I like you. Well said, articulate, and right on a frequency I can understand. It IS a sound bite. It's an oversimplification of an anti-terrorist regime sentiment.
I still think it's ignorant. But I at least can get my brain around it.
{I was just thinkin' how you and I are oft on the same frequency in threads of days ago... you hit it again kid.}
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
M*A*S*H is my faviroute show.
M*A*S*H is my faviroute show.
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Well, I read an article today, a letter to the editor of the newspaper Stars and Stripes.
The writer made comparisons between Sadam and Hitler.
After WWI, Hitler's Germany tossed aside Treaty of Versailles, built up their army, and before we, the allies, did anything he (Hitler), reoccupied the Rhineland, seized Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland.
At that point war was inevitable, heck it had already started.
For the past 12 years Sadam has been on basically the honor system and for the past 4 years has done nothing in accordance with the peace treaty that he signed.
What is the point, an attack on Iraq may be the only way to stop a WWIII, or it could be the cause of WWIII.
Now back to the topic, Sadam and 9/11 have little relevance. I wouldn’t be surprised if he does have ties with Bin Ladin. I am sure that even as Bush has many oil and other big business buddy buddies, Sadam has his and perhaps OBL is one of them.
Did he directly have anything to do with the 9/11 murders? I doubt it, though there is that whole guilt by association.
Well, I read an article today, a letter to the editor of the newspaper Stars and Stripes.
The writer made comparisons between Sadam and Hitler.
After WWI, Hitler's Germany tossed aside Treaty of Versailles, built up their army, and before we, the allies, did anything he (Hitler), reoccupied the Rhineland, seized Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland.
At that point war was inevitable, heck it had already started.
For the past 12 years Sadam has been on basically the honor system and for the past 4 years has done nothing in accordance with the peace treaty that he signed.
What is the point, an attack on Iraq may be the only way to stop a WWIII, or it could be the cause of WWIII.
Now back to the topic, Sadam and 9/11 have little relevance. I wouldn’t be surprised if he does have ties with Bin Ladin. I am sure that even as Bush has many oil and other big business buddy buddies, Sadam has his and perhaps OBL is one of them.
Did he directly have anything to do with the 9/11 murders? I doubt it, though there is that whole guilt by association.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
starring Skippy the green llama
1,148 posts
Location: Seattle, WA
1,148 posts
Location: Seattle, WA
Posted:
I really don't see any association...Kinda when Saddam comes on the national airwaves and calls Bin Laden a pussy..That does it to me..I think the association is perhaps more with power hungry dictators with too many resources on their hands to be up to any good, to put it simply. And yes, I sincerely believe that Iraq _has_ hidden many weapons, the mass of underground buildings under Iraq has been documented for quite a while. And the US may even have sat pixx of these compounds(even weapons moving into them), but what does that prove to the UN, if it's even accepted? Dunno, if I got my ass kicked on a regular basis anytime I twitched, I think I'd start stockpilin shit too But if absolutely NO money was involved, would we be there? I don't think so personally...
I really don't see any association...Kinda when Saddam comes on the national airwaves and calls Bin Laden a pussy..That does it to me..I think the association is perhaps more with power hungry dictators with too many resources on their hands to be up to any good, to put it simply. And yes, I sincerely believe that Iraq _has_ hidden many weapons, the mass of underground buildings under Iraq has been documented for quite a while. And the US may even have sat pixx of these compounds(even weapons moving into them), but what does that prove to the UN, if it's even accepted? Dunno, if I got my ass kicked on a regular basis anytime I twitched, I think I'd start stockpilin shit too But if absolutely NO money was involved, would we be there? I don't think so personally...
First intention, then enlightenment..
Ars Pyronomica
" Life is programmed. Whether death is programmed or not is yet to be determined."
enthusiast
237 posts
237 posts
Posted:
I'm with you NYC - nicely put Rozi.
From my perspective it is the same old case. The media (and the spin doctors behind the scenes) are experts at persuading general opinion. Bush wants to do this Iraq thing (for any and all the reasons Rozi pointed out). How much support he gets is based on public opinion. America was scarred for ever on 9/11 and people will always hold a resentment (as a general not personal statement). There is now a fear of muslims (again generally), it's even (kind of) being encouraged - here in Australia we've recieved "Be alert, not afraid" propaganda saying we should be on the look out for "suspicious" behaviour, I'm sure there's similar pushes in the states too. I'm sure people will then be vigilant in looking for mideastern people doing whatever (looking suspicious, buying fertilizer for their lawn....). Using the environment of fear already in place the media is used by the officials through press releases/conferences to use these kinds of emotions to get support for things (even tax changes etc.).
With this in mind I think people have attached the Iraq issue to 9/11. I've certainly never heard an official link the 2 other than sticking them under the 'war on terrorism' umbrella. People have associated the 2 based on the emotions caused by 9/11. Especially after Afghanistan and no real 'payoff' in the sense that Bin Laden got away, people probably are still looking for satisfaction for the revenge they want (as anyone who has a loved one killed will empathise with). Putting a familiar face up as the next target (whilst still looking for the old one) has had the desired effect. It's sad that people over there (or anywhere for that matter) think this war will in anyway balance out the 9/11 tradgedy. At least there's still many people over there (like yourself NYC) who can at least try to rationalise things and not just be fuelled by emotion only.
Incidently (trying hard not to detract from your original post NYC) before the last 6 months the ONLY things I'd heard about Iraq/Saddam for the last decade was that hundereds of thousands were dying as a result of the crippling sanctions that have been in place for the last decade. Then Boom! all of a sudden Saddam's just as bad as he always was (if not worse, apparently) and now the whole world is going to suffer if we don't go and get him. When was the last time he instigated any attacks on America or another nation since Kuwait (if he has I'd be interested to know - I certainly am no expert). I feel like I'll never *really* know what's happening in the world. Colonel Gadahfi (sp) (our old 'Saddam') apparently had a plan to start another IMF to bail out third world countries and not screw them on interest to allow them to build their nations without the constant struggle of making the interest payments for loans. You hear that and wonder "Was he really as evil as we thought or were there other forces in play?".
One of my favorite quotes is from Men In Black (I know "What deep movie" ):
"The person is smart but people are dumb, panicky and easily influenced."
Sorry for the rant, nice topic NYC. Hope I've added rather distracted from the topic
I'm with you NYC - nicely put Rozi.
From my perspective it is the same old case. The media (and the spin doctors behind the scenes) are experts at persuading general opinion. Bush wants to do this Iraq thing (for any and all the reasons Rozi pointed out). How much support he gets is based on public opinion. America was scarred for ever on 9/11 and people will always hold a resentment (as a general not personal statement). There is now a fear of muslims (again generally), it's even (kind of) being encouraged - here in Australia we've recieved "Be alert, not afraid" propaganda saying we should be on the look out for "suspicious" behaviour, I'm sure there's similar pushes in the states too. I'm sure people will then be vigilant in looking for mideastern people doing whatever (looking suspicious, buying fertilizer for their lawn....). Using the environment of fear already in place the media is used by the officials through press releases/conferences to use these kinds of emotions to get support for things (even tax changes etc.).
With this in mind I think people have attached the Iraq issue to 9/11. I've certainly never heard an official link the 2 other than sticking them under the 'war on terrorism' umbrella. People have associated the 2 based on the emotions caused by 9/11. Especially after Afghanistan and no real 'payoff' in the sense that Bin Laden got away, people probably are still looking for satisfaction for the revenge they want (as anyone who has a loved one killed will empathise with). Putting a familiar face up as the next target (whilst still looking for the old one) has had the desired effect. It's sad that people over there (or anywhere for that matter) think this war will in anyway balance out the 9/11 tradgedy. At least there's still many people over there (like yourself NYC) who can at least try to rationalise things and not just be fuelled by emotion only.
Incidently (trying hard not to detract from your original post NYC) before the last 6 months the ONLY things I'd heard about Iraq/Saddam for the last decade was that hundereds of thousands were dying as a result of the crippling sanctions that have been in place for the last decade. Then Boom! all of a sudden Saddam's just as bad as he always was (if not worse, apparently) and now the whole world is going to suffer if we don't go and get him. When was the last time he instigated any attacks on America or another nation since Kuwait (if he has I'd be interested to know - I certainly am no expert). I feel like I'll never *really* know what's happening in the world. Colonel Gadahfi (sp) (our old 'Saddam') apparently had a plan to start another IMF to bail out third world countries and not screw them on interest to allow them to build their nations without the constant struggle of making the interest payments for loans. You hear that and wonder "Was he really as evil as we thought or were there other forces in play?".
One of my favorite quotes is from Men In Black (I know "What deep movie" ):
"The person is smart but people are dumb, panicky and easily influenced."
Sorry for the rant, nice topic NYC. Hope I've added rather distracted from the topic
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Another article from Stars and Stripes said that the US is planning on dropping 10 TIMES the number of bombs! WTF?? Iraq's army is less than half of what it was 12 years ago! Why would we need to do such damage?
I agree that with Sadam in power Iraq could present a threat to his neighbors and in time the rest of the world. He is a cruel dictator and needs to be removed, but this looks more like premeditated manslaughter!
We have a rule when we fight, “Do not kill noncombatants.” When you kill noncombatants you give the enemy something to fight for, revenge!
I can not believe that the fact that the US plans on dropping 90% precision guided ordinance, will prevent mass civilian casualties.
I think the US should be focusing on how not to destroy Iraq, while destroying it's armed forces.
If this does happen like the Pentagon says it will, I think it will be a mistake.
Another article from Stars and Stripes said that the US is planning on dropping 10 TIMES the number of bombs! WTF?? Iraq's army is less than half of what it was 12 years ago! Why would we need to do such damage?
I agree that with Sadam in power Iraq could present a threat to his neighbors and in time the rest of the world. He is a cruel dictator and needs to be removed, but this looks more like premeditated manslaughter!
We have a rule when we fight, “Do not kill noncombatants.” When you kill noncombatants you give the enemy something to fight for, revenge!
I can not believe that the fact that the US plans on dropping 90% precision guided ordinance, will prevent mass civilian casualties.
I think the US should be focusing on how not to destroy Iraq, while destroying it's armed forces.
If this does happen like the Pentagon says it will, I think it will be a mistake.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
SILVER Member
Tantamount to fatuity
15,966 posts
Location: Down the road, United Kingdom
Tantamount to fatuity
15,966 posts
Location: Down the road, United Kingdom
Posted:
quote:
“Why of course the people don’t want war…But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship …Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” - Hermann Goering, Nuremberg, 1946
Meh
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Fantastic quote.
I did have to look up who Hermann Goering was and it was worth the time.
Fantastic quote.
I did have to look up who Hermann Goering was and it was worth the time.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
member
531 posts
531 posts
Posted:
The only connection I have ever known to exist between Saddam and 9-11 was created by propaganda.Until this big push for war the only terror groups Saddam had been linked to were Palestinian and if memory serves me correctly, Kurdish terror groups.
I have read about the proposed military action to be undertaken on Iraq if we do go to war with them.It involves the dropping of between 3000 and 4000 bombs in less than 48 hours on the capital of Baghdad. The U.S. plan is to completely crush any opposition to Saddam being ousted.To think we accuse him of human rights violations.And I read all this in a for-profit newspaper!
One thing I will say is that whether we go to war or not the stigma of this will be felt for many years.
The only connection I have ever known to exist between Saddam and 9-11 was created by propaganda.Until this big push for war the only terror groups Saddam had been linked to were Palestinian and if memory serves me correctly, Kurdish terror groups.
I have read about the proposed military action to be undertaken on Iraq if we do go to war with them.It involves the dropping of between 3000 and 4000 bombs in less than 48 hours on the capital of Baghdad. The U.S. plan is to completely crush any opposition to Saddam being ousted.To think we accuse him of human rights violations.And I read all this in a for-profit newspaper!
One thing I will say is that whether we go to war or not the stigma of this will be felt for many years.
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
Another thing is after being bombed so heavily do you think the republic army will surrender? They are going to be afraid for the lives of their familys.
If their plan of attack wasn't so brutal maybe the republic army would turn on saddam and kick him out of power.
Another thing is after being bombed so heavily do you think the republic army will surrender? They are going to be afraid for the lives of their familys.
If their plan of attack wasn't so brutal maybe the republic army would turn on saddam and kick him out of power.
enthusiast
237 posts
237 posts
Posted:
C@ntus
What poignant, fantastic quote. That quote is so true.
C@ntus
What poignant, fantastic quote. That quote is so true.
member
102 posts
Location: Austria
102 posts
Location: Austria
Posted:
considering that the 9/11 link has already been discussed to my satisfaction;( (which means i have nothing to add to that point) i wonder about something
saw this documentation on the us army planning to use iraq to test some new weapon systems (like this microwave thingy that can fry people at a distance)
the guy they interviewed said something of the kind that the war is godsent because they need to field-test the new stuff......scary.
also i read somewhere (and correct me if i am wrong) that amunition goes stale (or whatever u call it) and has to be renewed all 6 years or so. what a splendid way to get rid of it no?
just wondering about the multitude of reasons to go to war Morgy
considering that the 9/11 link has already been discussed to my satisfaction;( (which means i have nothing to add to that point) i wonder about something
saw this documentation on the us army planning to use iraq to test some new weapon systems (like this microwave thingy that can fry people at a distance)
the guy they interviewed said something of the kind that the war is godsent because they need to field-test the new stuff......scary.
also i read somewhere (and correct me if i am wrong) that amunition goes stale (or whatever u call it) and has to be renewed all 6 years or so. what a splendid way to get rid of it no?
just wondering about the multitude of reasons to go to war Morgy
Out to Wrong Rights and Depress the Opressed.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
2,211 posts
Location: London, Wales (UK)
Pooh-Bah
2,211 posts
Location: London, Wales (UK)
Posted:
I heard a likkle rumour that could be an attack this month. Date been bandied round poss Mar 10. Saw in the paper today headline of 3 day countdown till war. Mar 10 is also a significant day astrologically (help me out astro buffs?. Anyhow please take care Monday everyone, try not to use underground / fly if it can be avoided.
I feel very sad about what what is happening and I also have a dreadful worry that we are finally about to enter the final era in the destruction of our pathetic so called civilization.
In these terrible times though, it is lovely to see so many people united in the desire for peace, no matter how futile our cries for no war are.
Peace and love
I heard a likkle rumour that could be an attack this month. Date been bandied round poss Mar 10. Saw in the paper today headline of 3 day countdown till war. Mar 10 is also a significant day astrologically (help me out astro buffs?. Anyhow please take care Monday everyone, try not to use underground / fly if it can be avoided.
I feel very sad about what what is happening and I also have a dreadful worry that we are finally about to enter the final era in the destruction of our pathetic so called civilization.
In these terrible times though, it is lovely to see so many people united in the desire for peace, no matter how futile our cries for no war are.
Peace and love
Come faeries, take me out of this dull world, for I would ride with you upon the wind and dance upon the mountains like a flame.
- W B Yeats
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
quote:Ha, a better comparison would have bean Bush and Hitler, me thinks. True. There is NO democracy left in America.
A The writer made comparisons between Sadam and Hitler.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
member
167 posts
Location: Bergen , Norway
167 posts
Location: Bergen , Norway
Posted:
Because I dont see anything in recent history that would back that up....not a thing....
And if you want a name that acctually is a word.....use "quisling" witch means Traitor...
cause Quisling was the primeminister in Norway,
and pro-Hitler, under the second world war......
after the world ended he was rightfully executed and his name became a word in both Norwegian and english laungages.....meaning Traitor.....
just to give an example
Peace
quote:I can understand frustation about the world situation....But how exactly can anyone compare Bush and Hitler????....are you thinking about Hitler as in a name that became an institution in this world, and used as a word to represent un-motivated evil?
Originally posted by Stone:
Ha, a better comparison would have bean Bush and Hitler, me thinks. True. There is NO democracy left in America.
Because I dont see anything in recent history that would back that up....not a thing....
And if you want a name that acctually is a word.....use "quisling" witch means Traitor...
cause Quisling was the primeminister in Norway,
and pro-Hitler, under the second world war......
after the world ended he was rightfully executed and his name became a word in both Norwegian and english laungages.....meaning Traitor.....
just to give an example
Peace
I like Fire.. :)
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
2,211 posts
Location: London, Wales (UK)
Pooh-Bah
2,211 posts
Location: London, Wales (UK)
Posted:
Kuwaiti oil minister Sheikh Ahmad al-Fahd al-Sabah has stated that OPEC would be prepared to increase oil exports if the US began a military operation against Iraq.
Well isn't that nice!
Kuwait's quota in OPEC is around 1.7 million barrels per day, but they have kindly offered to go over quota and export up to 2 million.
How altruistic of them
[ 08. March 2003, 00:54: Message edited by: Kat ]
Kuwaiti oil minister Sheikh Ahmad al-Fahd al-Sabah has stated that OPEC would be prepared to increase oil exports if the US began a military operation against Iraq.
Well isn't that nice!
Kuwait's quota in OPEC is around 1.7 million barrels per day, but they have kindly offered to go over quota and export up to 2 million.
How altruistic of them
[ 08. March 2003, 00:54: Message edited by: Kat ]
Come faeries, take me out of this dull world, for I would ride with you upon the wind and dance upon the mountains like a flame.
- W B Yeats
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
No time to read through and reply in depth, much as I'd like to
Simple answer: Iraq played NO role in the 9/11 attacks. In fact until recently Osama Bin Laden and Saddam hated each other, but the US has successfully overriden that hatred by giving them a great common enemy and bunching them together.
You'll see there is constant references made to connecting Iraq and Al Quaeda, directly and indirectly. Bush talks of those 'evil people' as a unified force, when that's far from the truth. This is all propoganda to increase support for a US war against Iraq. And it seems to be working, the connection is easily made, and extended to include all arabs and muslims. For example, the 'stone age islam' thing is also common, and incorrect. Another example of anti-Islamic propaganda.
Goebbels would have been impressed!
No time to read through and reply in depth, much as I'd like to
Simple answer: Iraq played NO role in the 9/11 attacks. In fact until recently Osama Bin Laden and Saddam hated each other, but the US has successfully overriden that hatred by giving them a great common enemy and bunching them together.
You'll see there is constant references made to connecting Iraq and Al Quaeda, directly and indirectly. Bush talks of those 'evil people' as a unified force, when that's far from the truth. This is all propoganda to increase support for a US war against Iraq. And it seems to be working, the connection is easily made, and extended to include all arabs and muslims. For example, the 'stone age islam' thing is also common, and incorrect. Another example of anti-Islamic propaganda.
Goebbels would have been impressed!
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
If you define a true democracy, then the "leaders" of that country get told what to do by take a vote, from the people on every decision both large and small. In effect there is no one leader, so why have an elected official in the first place if not to only have a scapegoat when the majority are proven wrong.
America has never been a true democracy, more a republic.
Though I dont like everything Bush has done, and I really question things that he has done before he was president and since then, to compair him to Hitler is rather unsupported.
Lets look at some facts,
Hitler was a great speaker, Bush cant put more than 5 words together in a speach.
Hitler was almost killed by chemical weapons in WWI, Bush's idea of war is who got the big steak at dinner, him or Jeb!
Hitler had a mushtash, Bush has yet to hit puberty
Hitler rose through the ranks on his own merits, Bush was bought everything
Hitler tried to create the supreame race, Bush bought the supreame [Presidential] race
So you see, no way in Hades could you compare Bush and Hitler!
If you define a true democracy, then the "leaders" of that country get told what to do by take a vote, from the people on every decision both large and small. In effect there is no one leader, so why have an elected official in the first place if not to only have a scapegoat when the majority are proven wrong.
America has never been a true democracy, more a republic.
Though I dont like everything Bush has done, and I really question things that he has done before he was president and since then, to compair him to Hitler is rather unsupported.
Lets look at some facts,
Hitler was a great speaker, Bush cant put more than 5 words together in a speach.
Hitler was almost killed by chemical weapons in WWI, Bush's idea of war is who got the big steak at dinner, him or Jeb!
Hitler had a mushtash, Bush has yet to hit puberty
Hitler rose through the ranks on his own merits, Bush was bought everything
Hitler tried to create the supreame race, Bush bought the supreame [Presidential] race
So you see, no way in Hades could you compare Bush and Hitler!
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
member
167 posts
Location: Bergen , Norway
167 posts
Location: Bergen , Norway
Posted:
well said Raymund....
I might add that..............
Bush support Israel and the jews's
Hitler didn't
and the commparison between Hitler and Saddam is more right since both have created a fear against them through pure brutality. And can lead their people in witch direction they want because of that....
well said Raymund....
I might add that..............
Bush support Israel and the jews's
Hitler didn't
and the commparison between Hitler and Saddam is more right since both have created a fear against them through pure brutality. And can lead their people in witch direction they want because of that....
I like Fire.. :)
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Posted:
EEr, I just wanted to throw my new signature in. Have a nice w/e.
EEr, I just wanted to throw my new signature in. Have a nice w/e.
I live in a world of infinite possibilities.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Saddam and Hitler do have an awful lot in common. The big difference is that Saddam doesn't have the resources that Hitler did. If Saddam had more resources (money), believe me, he'd be Hitler all over again. There might be some very minor differences, but the general idea would be similar.
Now, what has he to do with the attacks on Sept 11? Not a heck of a lot. The only reason that OBL and Saddam would get along is because of a little idiom in Arabic culture (and in a number of other cultures): "My enemy's enemy is my friend." In the absence of the "Great Satan" the two of them would hate each-other, but because they have the goal of destroying the U.S. and Israel in common, it is conceivable that they would work together, or at least that Hussein wouldn't hinder any Al-Qaeda activities in Iraq.
Having said that, Hussein isn't into terrorism. He's too much of an egomaniac for that. He wants a big army (I think he acts like his military is a bunch of toy soldiers) and he likes to fight more-or-less conventional wars. He might not use completely conventional weapons, but his weapons are deployed by uniformed personnel in the Iraqi military. Terrorism just isn't his style.
Was he a happy man on Sept. 11? Yeah, probably. Did he have anything to do with it? If anything, probably not very much.
What gets me about this isn't the fact that we're going to war, but the fact that Bush has been saying that we're going to war for a good 18 months now and it's painfully obvious that he wants a WAR, not a specific result, just a war for war's sake.
Saddam and Hitler do have an awful lot in common. The big difference is that Saddam doesn't have the resources that Hitler did. If Saddam had more resources (money), believe me, he'd be Hitler all over again. There might be some very minor differences, but the general idea would be similar.
Now, what has he to do with the attacks on Sept 11? Not a heck of a lot. The only reason that OBL and Saddam would get along is because of a little idiom in Arabic culture (and in a number of other cultures): "My enemy's enemy is my friend." In the absence of the "Great Satan" the two of them would hate each-other, but because they have the goal of destroying the U.S. and Israel in common, it is conceivable that they would work together, or at least that Hussein wouldn't hinder any Al-Qaeda activities in Iraq.
Having said that, Hussein isn't into terrorism. He's too much of an egomaniac for that. He wants a big army (I think he acts like his military is a bunch of toy soldiers) and he likes to fight more-or-less conventional wars. He might not use completely conventional weapons, but his weapons are deployed by uniformed personnel in the Iraqi military. Terrorism just isn't his style.
Was he a happy man on Sept. 11? Yeah, probably. Did he have anything to do with it? If anything, probably not very much.
What gets me about this isn't the fact that we're going to war, but the fact that Bush has been saying that we're going to war for a good 18 months now and it's painfully obvious that he wants a WAR, not a specific result, just a war for war's sake.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
Dom I don't know if you are refering to my post where I said islamists want to put the muslim world into the stone age or not but since you put stone age into quotes I am assumeing you are refering to it.
Yes I suppose saying islam=stone age would be false and may be a myth. To bad I said islamist which does not mean the same thing as islam. Which is an extreme revivalist movement in the islam world, something that is only believed in by a small minority of muslims. It's mostly exists in arab countries and not the big muslims countries like pakistan.
The islamists are very dangerous and fanatical and they seem to ignore the parts of the koran that put emphasis on spreading muslim faith via peaceful means.
If you want to pick someone as an example of a victim of propaganda make sure you understand the terms you think they don't understand.
Dom I don't know if you are refering to my post where I said islamists want to put the muslim world into the stone age or not but since you put stone age into quotes I am assumeing you are refering to it.
Yes I suppose saying islam=stone age would be false and may be a myth. To bad I said islamist which does not mean the same thing as islam. Which is an extreme revivalist movement in the islam world, something that is only believed in by a small minority of muslims. It's mostly exists in arab countries and not the big muslims countries like pakistan.
The islamists are very dangerous and fanatical and they seem to ignore the parts of the koran that put emphasis on spreading muslim faith via peaceful means.
If you want to pick someone as an example of a victim of propaganda make sure you understand the terms you think they don't understand.
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
Mike in the past osama has spoken out agaisnt saddam. Al aqaeda and their buddies have also overthrown governments like saddams. Now they may very well have given up their diffrences in the interest of screwing over america but if that's true it's because america has screwed them over enough to bring this about.
I imagine clintons air stike has something to do with this change in heart in some muslims. The target's picked for the airstrike were mostly unconfirmed possible military targets, Backed up by evidence not much greater then the whims of the CIA (when the CIA is sure they are usually wrong, when they aren't sure only an idiot would take it as evidence). Among the targets he destroyed which were almost entirely nothing but civilian structures was a pharmasutical plant.
But hey america forgot about the sex scandals for a little bit.
Mike in the past osama has spoken out agaisnt saddam. Al aqaeda and their buddies have also overthrown governments like saddams. Now they may very well have given up their diffrences in the interest of screwing over america but if that's true it's because america has screwed them over enough to bring this about.
I imagine clintons air stike has something to do with this change in heart in some muslims. The target's picked for the airstrike were mostly unconfirmed possible military targets, Backed up by evidence not much greater then the whims of the CIA (when the CIA is sure they are usually wrong, when they aren't sure only an idiot would take it as evidence). Among the targets he destroyed which were almost entirely nothing but civilian structures was a pharmasutical plant.
But hey america forgot about the sex scandals for a little bit.
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com