Larian Studios Forums General Chat More Beautiful

We don't have to take our believes overthere. They already have their own.
And those are mixed and messed up more than enough already.

The thing to do for the allied forces is to get rit of Saddam. Turn control over to the UN (*grin*) and get the hell outta there.

Let's not even start about believes in a comflict that's already messed up politically and military.

I meant in just trying to understand what motivates them, not forcing our ideas on them. I'd much rather let the UN handle it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they refuse.

That's just what I ment, and often said before.
The UN handled it the last 12 years.
And every single day Saddam laught in their faces.

Like so many of those international organisations, the UN was created becouse a bunch of politician needed to find a job becouse a couple of their nephews couldn't get a decent job.
You get a lot of bla bla. But so far the UN has failed in about everything it ever got involved in.

Well they certainly didn't support their own policies which basically made them ineffective.

Yes.
The world never was ready for something like the UN.
You see that on a smaller scale constantly in Europe.
They wanna be the EC. But the differences of intrests of all countries is just to big.
Spain is getting a lot of crap from the EC becouse of the last environment disasters with that tanker.
It was very simple to every one who uses his/her brain.
The tanker was in trouble and was losing oil. So Spanish politicians who cared mored about the famous Spanish beaches than the environment got it toed to open sea.
Ofcourse it went down like a brick there. But only a relatively small amount of the oil reached the Spanish beaches. That it killed millions of sea creatures and birds... why should they care... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />
And believe it or not... partly why Spain is supporting Bush in the Iraq thing is a childish revenge on the crap they're getting from the rest of the EC becouse of that environmental disaster.
Neat, eh. - I vote for a kindergarden to run the EC, next (forced) elections.

Just to throw a zinger in here - and with all this going on people wonder why if there are aliens advanced enough to build spaceships they don't come visit our wonderful planet openly... Duh, we can't even communicate with our fellow human beings if their skins the 'wrong' color or their eyes are shaped differently. Just imagine an aliens welcome!

If they're smart enough to build spaceships...
they're probably smart enough to stay away. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

History repeats itself?

dqueene I tought you should have known this but the american oilproduction is nat that plentyfull anymore, it's getting drained cus it's used too much, Iraq has oil enough, and they don't use it as much, their oil gets exported for the greater half, if bush has that oil, if he has iraq and other surrounding countries in his power guess who's gonna get the $$$ of the oilexport?

american soldiers have died enough needlessly, the vietnam war what was that about, communism I don't think communism is such a bad thing, it is much more stable and realable than democratism.

WWI and II were wars american soldiers did die for a good reason, hitler planned genocide on everything he didn't like, Jews, queer poeple that shoul have been stopped. But vietnam was not about the librity of them poeple but only about destroying communism.

most russian aren't that happy without communism, idd they like the freedom, but they did also like the governement watching over everyperson, giving him food, and work.

Here we get money when we don't, in old russia if you hadn't a job they gave you one.

I am not a patriot, i don't like the idea of countries I believe in one united world no differences on nation, class, race etc... but as many poeple are hungered for might this won't happen in my lifetime, everyone is still selfish.

Those country do hate america cus america stands for everything they don't have. They can't go to america cus they will 'steal' jobs, bring it to them? as almost no governements seems to have the slightest will to do this peacefully it won't happen, poeple die, have their homes destroyed etc.

Do you really think poeple have their homes destroyed their children killed for what america has to offer? are you williing to share your wealth with them iraqis after the war? only when you are going to help the person who lives there to have the life you have, maybe then this would be justified.

Who would suffer more and who would get the most out of this war? Iraqis will suffer the most we will have a lot cheaper oil. iraqis get destruction and death, have to rebuild the little they have and be as far as the were before the war only now saddam isn't there. is that worth it?

*grin* Ofcourse.
ppl are still as stupid as they ware back then.
-Goering was a master in propaganda and disinformation.
That's why Hitler gave him that job.

dqueene- don't duck. state your opinion and stand by it. no civil person will be mad at you for an opinion.

now, if america gets to be police, and go around liberating people, do you think we will invade china next? china persecuted one of the most peaceful religions that exsits, and exiled the dahli lama. so will we liberate china? nope. why? because there is nothing for us to gain.



i am trying to show you the whole truth, seth. did you know that 75% of all the radio stations in america are owned by one huge coorporation? it's called clear channel. you cannot trust what you hear or see on the coorporate news. they are always protecting their interests. i balance what i hear from the tv, and what i hear and read from the independant alternative news sources. and the truth is, bush is lying to our faces. again, i am most definitely not opposed to getting saddam. if that was what the war is really about, then i would be ok with it. the bottom line is, saddam is just a conveinent excuse!

Nope. They won't invade China. China is to powerful and has nuclear weapons. Bush only attacks more easy targets.
But maybe he can start a new "cold war" period.

Saddam is an excuse. And a good one. Couse he's doing the same. One is no better than the other.
But if the result is that after this Iraq's ppl can expect a better future I don't mind "using Bush" to reach that goal.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Not so sure it's really about only the oil in Iraq. It's more likely about stability in the region to maintain oil flow, among many other things like:

-supporting the current power structure in the US
-Dividing the EU to make it weaker (have seen little news on this, but it makes sense from a US economic and political standpoint)
-Removing a potential threat to our only real "friend" in the region: Israel.
-rebuilding a weakened economy in the US by increasing defense spending (it's worked many times before)
-Literally a "crusade" by bush, there is evidence he wanted to do this a LONG time before he ever became president; sometime after he attended a religious revival meeting in the '80's and became a "born again Christian" (he was an alcoholic and drug user before that).

Note that I don't have any direct evidence to support the above, except about the bush born-again-christian thing, and notes from him to his aides that sound like those of a crusader, rather than a president. Additionally, there is evidence that Bush's political strategy is entirely devised by his primary adviser, Karl Rove (do a search on the name on google; SCARY!!).

However, as far as dictators go, I won't be sorry to see Saddam take a hike. I just hope it stops there, and we can gain some semblance of reconstuction going with the UN and begin repairing the damage done to relations around the world.

It is hard to believe that Bush knew about (or some say, even planned!) the 9/11 attacks. One's mind just does not want to go there. However, an interesting piece of history (was on the History Channel about a month ago) is the fact that before the U.S. was bombed at pearl harbor, Germany launched a massive U-boat attack against the entire eastern seaboard on North America in an attempt to stop supplies reaching the UK. The British had picked up the subs leaving port, and at that time had full access to de-crypted german communications, so they knew at all times where most of the subs were. they reported the sub postions to both the U.S. and Canada. The Canadians quickly responded with their navy and drove the U-boats out of their territorial waters. However, the U.S. chose to completely ignore the intelligence info supplied by the British. Dozens (hundreds?) of US ships were sunk by U-boats in the resulting raids (unkown number of dead), and yet the US navy was officially told NOT to pursue the U-boats. Interviews with the U-boat captains after the war all recounted their surprise at so easily being able to strike U.S. shipping; even being able to freely travel directly into New York harbor with no resistance.
After some time, the navy decided to scapegoat one admiral for the apparent "blunder" and finally go after the U-boats. But the public outrage at the time over losing so many U.S. ships to the germans was instrumental in Washinton building support to enter the war. Some analysts say that this was probably a direct attempt by hawks in the US govnmt to gain support for going to war.

Refer back to the quote from Goering I posted earlier. I think this is probably a more common tactic than one might at first believe.

Do I believe that Bush had anything to do with 9/11 directly? Logical or not, I just can't force myself to believe that our own president would be involved in something like that, or i would go mad. I have already decided to leave this country as it is.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/alien.gif" alt="" />

...

The better question is: will China use Iraq as justification to invade Taiwan?

As far as a better world for Iraqis... anyone happen to know how the afghanis are doing now that we "helped" them?

SETH:


hmm. And their messed up national identity and belief systems have NOTHING to do with interference from the US, Britain, USSR, etc.? right? oh, of coooouurrse not. We took our beliefs "over there" a long time ago. Problem is, they just don't fit!



<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/suspicion.gif" alt="" /> Yup, that's just what irresponsible children do, make a mess and let someone else clean it up. BTW, the UN is already drafting resolutions to say that the "victor" in the war (gee, wonder who that will be <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />) will be responsible for cleaning up aftewards. Smart move, IMO.

I have much more to say to you about the UN, too, like posting a two page list of the accomplishments of the UN over the last 20 years, but it will take me some time to compile it (I'll post a brief version tommorrow). Your earlier comments about the uselessness of the UN show that you really don't know that much about it. I suppose you like the idea of the US as a "benign" dictator for the whole world, eh?

about pearl harbor- president FDR knew about pearl harbor and allowed it to happen, even held back intellegence from his commanders, because he couldn't get support to enter WWII. once we were bombed by japan, we easily got the go ahead. more info here. it's extremly interesting, even if you think it's a crock of sh*t, read it all the way through.

FAILE:
now, if america gets to be police, and go around liberating people, do you think we will invade china next? china persecuted one of the most peaceful religions that exsits, and exiled the dahli lama. so will we liberate china? nope. why? because there is nothing for us to gain.<<<

minor correction: China invaded Tibet and exhiled the DL from there. The question has been asked for decades as to why no-one has tried to put significant pressure on china to liberate Tibet. BTW, the same argument China used to "annex" tibet is now being used by them for Taiwan.

>>>Don't attack them. Just state clearly what you think. The ones who give you a hard time on that aren't freinds and don't respect your opinion.<<<

aww, have fun. Flame on! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> It's not that hard to still respect someone for who they are and trash what they say at the same time. We all say stupid stuff. I say, feel free to add some fire to your opinion, so long as the discussion topic is still furthered in some meaningful way. A part of how some folks express themselves is with fire and brimstone.


>>>Let him who is without sin... -know what I mean? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /><<<

yup. and .. "living in glass houses" too <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />


>>>>i am trying to show you the whole truth, seth. did you know that 75% of all the radio stations in america are owned by one huge coorporation? it's called clear channel. you cannot trust what you hear or see on the coorporate news. they are always protecting their interests. <<<

Good point. It is now just as usefull to mistrust the media as it is those that use it for their own ends. Geee, can you say "ORWELL"?? it would be very usefull if you posted some links documenting this.

i'm sure i would have been protesting back then, but in 1988, when saddam gassed the kurds, (yes, it's really kurds in english <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />) i was only 8 years old. biggest worry i had was if my mom was going to bring home the right cereal this time.

and i kind of take offense at the assumption i protest because it's "in". thats simply not true. perhaps for some it is, but i truly feel that this war is being fought for the wrong reasons (meaning it's not being fought for the iraqi's liberation) and i think most of the people protesting feel the same as i do.
too many people are taken in by what the government and the mass media tell you.
http://www.indymedia.org
i strongly urge you to take a look at this site. down the column on the left side of the page you will find a link for whatever country or state you are in.

toejam- thats what i meant about china/tibet. sorry if i said it all jumbled. did you want links about clear channel? i'll look, post as soon as i find.

-- that was easy. also looks like i got my stat wrong- this says it's 60%, not 75%. still, it's too much. http://www.clearchannelsucks.org/
here's more:
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=4808
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_clearc.html