Larian Studios Forums General Chat More Beautiful

@ toejam, what else? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

I have heard rumors of several resolution proposals being passed around behind the scenes at the UN, condemin the US for violating UN protocol, but have yet to find any published versions, yet. In the meantime, it's too bad we can't sponsor resolutions against ourselves, or I would like to submit this from Oregon State University:

Proposed Resolution

Against US War on Iraq
for the

OSU Faculty Senate

January 9, 2003 meeting

As put forward by the OSU Faculty for Peace and Justice

Brought to the floor as new business by OSU Senator John Selker representing the College of Agriculture

Preamble:

1) For there to be a just and peaceful world, it is essential that certain fundamental principles be upheld.

2) Paramount among those principles is that societies and the governments acting on their behalf should act to the fullest extent possible to honor and preserve the sanctity of life.

3) Also fundamental is the principle that war, and its consequent threat to the lives of innocent human beings and profound damage to ecosystems, should always be a last resort, employed only as absolutely necessary.

4) Also fundamental is that governments should uphold the rule of law, and should act consistently with international law, and with agreements and accords between and among nations developed to maintain order, peace and justice.

5) Further it is a historical role of institutions of higher education to serve as places of free and open intellectual exploration, to provide a venue for discussion and communication of topics of public debate.

6) These principles are of utmost relevance to Oregon State University given its dedication to: the centrality of intellectual basis in deciding the course of human affairs; the stimulation of inquiry; openness; social responsibility; and its responsibility to contribute to the well-being of society.

7) These principles are therefore also of utmost relevance to our Faculty Senate and our responsibility to share governance of this institution.

8) When a majority of our body agrees that actions of our government pose serious and grave threats to the preceding fundamental principles and to the well-being of society,

9) And when the silence of individuals and institutions will be construed as approval of these government actions,

10) And when our collective voice may contribute to respect for and adherence to the preceding fundamental principles,

11) Then it becomes our responsibility to contribute to the public dialogue by actively speaking our views.

From this basis, we conclude that

12) Whereas The United States (US) government has made clear preparation to take military action against Iraq;

13) Whereas Iraq has not been known through disclosed documents to have committed aggression against the US or other countries which might justifies a response of war;

14) Whereas The US government has presented no credible evidence that Iraq has intentions of harming the citizens of this country or that Iraq presents a threat to the US;

15) Whereas The United Nations (UN) Security Council, in unanimously adopting resolution 1441 enforcing the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, asserts in Article 14 that the Security Council alone has the authority to determine what, if any, action to take regarding current or future Iraqi violations of their resolutions;

16) Whereas The UN Charter declares unequivocally in Articles 41 and 42 that the UN Security Council alone has the power to authorize the use of military force against any nation in noncompliance of its resolutions;

17) Whereas A pre-emptive war waged by our government without UN authorization would be contrary to the above mentioned fundamental principles;

18) Whereas The vast majority of the international community has not lent its support for war against Iraq;

19) Whereas Diplomatic solutions have not appear to have been exhausted, and therefore the fundamental intellectual responsibility of the US leadership to provide justification of war showing proof that all other means have failed has not been satisfied;

20) Whereas Through such a war OSU faculty, staff and students will have their careers, work and educations interrupted and lives put in jeopardy,

21) Whereas The lives of many innocent Iraqi civilians, who have already suffered enormously under Saddam Hussein's rule and UN sanctions; will be injured and killed;

22) Whereas The high cost of this war’s cost may further deepen the US economic crisis which continues to damage OSU;

23) Whereas A war with Iraq would threaten to further destabilize the Middle East, possibly leading to wider regional war and increased support for groups dedicated to terrorism, endangering the citizens of the US as well as the OSU community as they perform their work both within and outside the US;

24) Be it Resolved That the OSU faculty senate opposes the US engagement in war in Iraq at this time.

I'd sign that with my signature.
Kiya

I am following this discussion with profound interest. I also think that Toejam's outstanding argument for his case is one of the best I've seen.
As for Mickey... I am astounded that such ridiculous comments could come from a sopposedly intelligent person. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/down.gif" alt="" />

Kiya-did those weapons inspections find ANY functioning long range weapons with biological/chemical/mass destruction capabilities? I'm curious...

Saddam is nothing, he has not DONE anything since the gulf/oil war to warrant this total invasion. I am going to laugh my ass off when the US forces waltz into Baghdad and find no weapons of mass destruction.(whatever the hell that means) I hope the UN will prosecute the Bush for his total arrogance.

Oh and Mickey, I saw at least 3 or 4 thousand people protesting the war in Boston. Take that and multiply that across all the cities in the US and add in all the people who have to work, such as myself who think that this war is totally wrong but don't have the time to protest and you have a LOT of people. I saw that CNN poll too, and I can tell you where to stick it. It bollocks.

The UK. I have known that Tony Blair has his nose so far up Bush's ass for a long time. This is totally embarrasing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" /> At least the population is not fooled by this crap. Comparing the 2 countries the UK has so much more of a right to free speech than the US.

Know why I really really object to this war? Its pathetic, its the biggest kid in the playground picking on the others and giving the teacher the finger. I wish Bush has been drafted in vietnam. Then we could have avoided all this crap.
If the US has such a problem with Saddam, WHY DID YOU PUT HIM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE???? Who's next? This will never be over as far as I can see.

Another point as to how pathetic this war is. How many US/British troops have been killed by each other? I'm not surprised the US/UK wants to send its forces to a war. They're INCOMPETENT!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/stupid.gif" alt="" /> They need practice!

Ranting Womble signing off, sipping a very nice french Vodka. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

so let me understand this, it's okay to slander america and its citizens but no one else?



yeah, i admit some of what i said could have been worded better but i was in a bit of an aggravated mood to come on here and see anti-america comments. i apologise if i offended you.

and, yes the US was watching up to that point, but most of europe was getting its butt kicked up till that point. i'm not saying americans saved everyone else's , i'm just saying that america was the straw that broke the camel's back.

anyways, to get to what i wanted to post.

Iraq's leadership is crumbling into dust and it's people being liberated.

Despite constant assertions by the anti-war crowd that Saddam did not have banned weapons - he has been documented as using them against our forces last night and today. So far, they have only been SCUDs - hopefully the conflict will be over before he gets a chance to finally reveal where he's been hiding all of that Anthrax, Saren gas, and the nuclear campaign that Iraqi defectors have been warning about for over a year.

The coalition against Saddam's regime has grown to over 40 nations - despite claims from detractors that we were acting alone. More and more are coming aboard as they begin to see that Saddam really is THAT crazy.

Iraqi civilians that have alredy been liberated have been practically humping our soldiers in the streets. They have vehemently displayed their hatred for Saddam (despite the fact that he won 100% of their votes in a recent "election") and are obviously excited about the enventual liberation of the entire country.

The U.S. led coalition has set amazing precedents in noble attempts to limit not only civilian casualties but even Iraqi military casualties! We've spent enormous amounts of time and money making sure that soldiers in Iraq are aware that they do not have to die for Saddam. One of the biggest logistical concerns of our military in this conflict has not been the destruction of the Iraqi people, but rather the protection of their civilians from their own government and the safe surrender of the fighting forces.

Why then, are there still people who are against this operation?

Is it because they feel that Hans Blix and his teams should have been given more time? Despite the fact that most naysayers still don't realize that Blix and his people were NOT there to find banned weapons - people still think that he should have been given more time. Blix himself also recently expressed no regret or outrage that Saddam had chosen war over simply handing over his weapons.

People are now saying (as was predicted by the more thoughtful of journalists) that Saddam is now somehow justified in using the weapons that he was not supposed to have. How does this work? Are these people trying to say that it is better for Saddam to actually use these weapons on people than to simply give them up peacefully? Do people really believe that if Saddam were willing to go to war with the most powerful military coalition ever devised simply because he wants to keep his weapons that he would somehow have been open to letting U.N. inspectors find them? Anyone willing to risk their lives, their country, and their people's lives would certainly not let a few inspectors stumble across a few weapons. Let's step back into a reality for a bit.

So what is it? Again, I'm at a loss. Is it because of the loss of life? Well, I've already pointed out that this campaign is more "life-friendly" than any campaign devised of it's size in history. Also, it's a fact that Saddam is responsible for YEARLY more of his own people as were killed in the ENTIRE Gulf War 1. Imagine that - Saddam kills more Iraqis in ONE YEAR every year than a U.S. led coalition did in outright war 12 years ago in which Iraqi casualties were NOT such a big concern. In liberating Iraq, we are saving lives - so that can't be the reasoning.

So? Why are people still against it? Well, in actuality - most people support it. In recent polls, the vast majority of peoples support the U.S. President in his actions and agree that the U.N. had failed miserably. To add insult to injury, more and more countries are signing up daily to become a part of what is now the beginning of freedom and new life for the Iraqi people.

Why are people still against it? I really can't say - other than to say that these people are REALLY against Bush and are simply using this war as an extension of him to . To those people I would like to offer this thought: You may our President - you may even us. I hope you realize, however, that we are bringing to the Iraqi people the gift of freedom and a new life away from a terrible dictator whom they've lived under in fear for about 30 years. You can go ahead and Bush and the U.S. - but, please - look at what you're REALLY against here.

The regime is shutting down and soon the Iraqis will be free. Be happy for them, if nothing else.

A little better, Although I still think you live in CNN heaven.

Oh Bush will liberate the world for us and freedom will be for all! OOOOOOOOO! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> Jesus......H........Christ! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

I ask again, why is this man more revered than a King?? Bringing 'freedom' to the world has always been one of the dictums of a conquerer..

Who's next then eh? I reckon we mayaswell move onto Iran sice all the troops are there.......

Mickey, I don't know how the media in the USA function at the moment:

Have you seen all those demonstrations in Arab countries? Some have been killed by the police, trying to keep down riots. I call it Bush-War, ok? This Bush-War will cause a very deep gap between the Arab world and the Western one - Bush is shattering everything that has to do with peace and coming together.

How come, the battle is raging in some Iraq cities, the harbour one in particular? No, Mickey, this Allied invasion humiliates the Arab heart and pride - how will Bush mend that? With money? Do you call this liberation?Don't tell me you really believe this bombardement on Bagdad is only going to hit military buildings? I heard a report of a German novelist living in Bagdad at the moment and her reports were terrible: Civilian quarters are being attacked, specially around the University quarters were she lives. the hospitals are in bad shape because of the Embargo, civilians are trying to rescue their buried people with bare hands - no heavy gear cause of the Embargo. Is this liberation?
The Bagdad population is without protection there are nearly no bunkers, they stay in their houses and hope they are not hit. Have you seen all those destructions on TV??? Liberation for death?

Young Iraqi here in Germany are signing up to become Iraq soldiers, they will be merely cannon fodder

What about the huge demonstration in San Francisco (20000 IIRC) and 1200 were arrested by Amerian police

IMO you may use examples out of Nazism and 2nd World War, I didn't live at that time, so I feel no offense in your words, have no responsibility to what happened at that time. I live now: And now I feel responsibility and speak up.
Kiya

I'm not mad at you Mickey, but I'm mad about the US desinformation policy - your mass media are "controlled" by the Government, reducing themselves to a megaphone for mislead patriotism - and this in a country where free press was so important.. Where is Woodward??

This Bush-War causes death not only in Iraq but all over the world, there where demonstrators are being killed - civilians - Bush has a lot of blood on his hands. And he will isolate the USA, this is sad. You are a grand nation - but I'm very sorry, a great deal of your population is sadly mislead and desinformed.

MICKEY:

>>soon the Iraqis will be free<<

or dead. Current food rations estimated by the UN indicate that most Iraqi's have only 2 days supply of food currently. I haven't seen any indications that relief will arrive in time.

I suppose being dead is one way to be free, tho.

Why drop bombs at all? They are innacurate. If Bush really wanted to capture and bring to justice Saddam then he should have the guts to send in troops to hunt for him. Not blow Bagdad to smithereens and search through the pieces to see what's left. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/down.gif" alt="" />

Yes, and no humanitary help from outside, no Red Cross = the people are dying there - dying.
Kiya

Godammit, this whole situation pisses me off..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />

i'm not dead yet.

No, Faile, you're not dead <giving you a hug>. There are a lot more people like you - very brave, demonstrating, keep it up - for the sake of yourself and for a more differenciated view others have about your country, hm?
Kiya

@Womble: I don't know about weapons - I only know the report SCUD's had hit Kuwait was a false report - propaganda. And those surrendered Iraqi soldiers on the road with a white flag - propaganda. Ripped apart by journalists/army specialists: Having a neat white flag properly on a stake and running on the road towards American was a frame (correct word? fraud?)

sighs

i'll be honest, i've been arguing with people about this war for a long time now and i am tired.

i'm not quite sure how my thread on love turned into this. whatever your arguements for or against the war are, it doesn't matter anymore.

all the anti-war protests in the world no matter where they're held or how many people attend them will change the fact the war has started.

some people argue that bush is only doing this for the oil and others argue that he's doing it to get saddam out of power and to liberate the iraqi citizens.

this can be argued up hill and down, inside and out until we're all blue in the face but all of it is mere speculation just like the numbers the UN is releasing about how many people will wind up .

we will only know for sure when the war is finally over. anything anyone says at this point is all recycled.

no one can really say anything new, we're just rewording the old stuff and package it as a new diatribe. which is why i am not replying to anyone's post in particular.

as for me, i am going to devote my time and energy into supporting and praying for the troops who are fighting for the right reasons, which is to liberate iraq from an evil dictator who kills more of his own people every year than all the iraqi's that died in the first gulf war. that is, in my opinion, the right thing to do now.

And if you have prayers left, Mickey: Maybe one or two for the suffering Iraqi civilians?
Kiya
I'm an aethist, I don't pray... I'm not sarcastic now about prayers, ok?

@mickey,


>>and, yes the US was watching up to that point<<

uh, doing a lot more than watching, actually. Remember the Lend-Lease act? The funny thing is, american's attitudes towards this war were mostly shaped by the same machine that shaped them in WWII, it's just much more efficient now.

>>, but most of europe was getting its butt kicked up till that point. i'm not saying americans saved everyone else's , i'm just saying that america was the straw that broke the camel's back.<<

and your point? gee, the french made major contributions during the US war for independence; I don't see them attempting to use it as justification these days.

>>Iraq's leadership is crumbling into dust and it's people being liberated.<<

uh, hmmm. so far americans have been met with resistance all along the way. relatively few of the Iraqi defense forces have actually surrendered, and the Fedyeen (sp?) are now beginning coordinated attacks on US rear positions and supply lines. Sound like the leadership has crumbled to you?

>>Despite constant assertions by the anti-war crowd that Saddam did not have banned weapons - he has been documented as using them against our forces last night and today. So far, they have only been SCUDs <<

It's not just the anti-war crowd that are asserting this, but the UN inspectors themselves. In fact, it is only the US and UK governments that are asserting anything else. I got news fer ya, the missiles used so far against the US were NOT PRORSCRIBED BY UN RESOLUTION - those missiles are short range ballistic missiles, rather than the long range ones actually proscribed by resolution. Moreover, Iraq was busily destroying medium range missiles at the request of the UN before the US decided to invade. And... think this one over brainiac ... if the missiles fired at the US are "weapons of mass destruction" then so is my slingshot! We have done more damage to our troops and allies retalliating against these "Weapons of Mass Destruction" than the weapons themselves have done! (we managed to shoot down a british jet with the weapons we use to defend against these so called "major threats")

>>- hopefully the conflict will be over before he gets a chance to finally reveal where he's been hiding all of that Anthrax, Saren gas, and the nuclear campaign that Iraqi defectors have been warning about for over a year.<<

I have to agree that I also hope the same. I also hope for your own sanity that they at least find SOME real evidence of any of the WMD's you list, as there hasn't been any publically released so far. What will you do if, after all is said and done, no significant weapons from your list are actually found. What will you believe then?


>>The coalition against Saddam's regime has grown to over 40 nations - despite claims from detractors that we were acting alone. More and more are coming aboard as they begin to see that Saddam really is THAT crazy.<<<

uh, exsqueeze me, but only 3 nations have pledged troops, and the bulk of the forces still are represented by the US (over 85%). this is a far cry from the 1st gulf war. Moreover, if you look at how the US got those "40 nations" to sign on in "support" you will find that most climbed on after being offered very magnanamous grants, or were privately extorted by the US adminstration. VERY FEW are offering anything but their name in support.

>>>Iraqi civilians that have alredy been liberated have been practically humping our soldiers in the streets. They have vehemently displayed their hatred for Saddam (despite the fact that he won 100% of their votes in a recent "election") and are obviously excited about the enventual liberation of the entire country. <<<

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> uh, even the primary US media hasn't shown this to be the case. What the hell is your source for this info?

>>The U.S. led coalition has set amazing precedents in noble attempts to limit not only civilian casualties but even Iraqi military casualties! We've spent enormous amounts of time and money making sure that soldiers in Iraq are aware that they do not have to die for Saddam. One of the biggest logistical concerns of our military in this conflict has not been the destruction of the Iraqi people, but rather the protection of their civilians from their own government and the safe surrender of the fighting forces.<<

Gees, I haven't heard anyone parrot the conservative media spin on this so well since Nixon times. One, war propaganda to attempt coercion into surrender is nothing new. It's been done since before WWII. Why? because it's CHEAPER to do it that way than waste ammo. Here is a direct quote from one of the soldiers on the front line who I watched being interviewed last night:

reporter to soldier: I have heard it is difficult to tell the civilians from the combatants (here). What orders have you been given if it looks like a civilian might be hostile?

soldier: I have a green light to shoot any potential threats.

reporter: even if it looks like a civilian.

soldier: yes.

even so, the collateral damage from the war directly probably will not be the largest source of civilian casualties. It is more likely to be from starvation as no aid workers can get Iraqi civilians at this point, and their food supply is running out.

>>Why then, are there still people who are against this operation?

Is it because they feel that Hans Blix and his teams should have been given more time? Despite the fact that most naysayers still don't realize that Blix and his people were NOT there to find banned weapons - people still think that he should have been given more time. Blix himself also recently expressed no regret or outrage that Saddam had chosen war over simply handing over his weapons.<<

NO! the reason so many are against this war is that they see the repercussions of going against the rule of law. How on earth is an illegal war without international sanction going to curb terrorism? Terrorists don't have "countries" they mostly exists as loose knit groups. getting rid of saddam may reduce (I say may, as there really isn't any evidence that he has sponsored terrorism against the US since 1990), one potential threat, while giving impetus to dozens or even hundreds more. Where will it end? With only the US left and all other countries bombed back to the stone age?

Just because Blix is upset that Saddam did not surrender (what is your evidence of this, BTW) does not make what the US did any less upsetting.

>>People are now saying (as was predicted by the more thoughtful of journalists)___Which Journalists would these be? Rush Limbaugh? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cry.gif" alt="" /> ___ that Saddam is now somehow justified in using the weapons that he was not supposed to have. How does this work? Are these people trying to say that it is better for Saddam to actually use these weapons on people than to simply give them up peacefully? <<<

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/memad.gif" alt="" /> No, you moron! I guess you missed the whole cold war, huh? What they were saying is that it was extremely unlikely that Saddam would use WMD with the threat of destruction of his regime hanging over his head. Now that there is no longer an implied threat (we invaded), what has he got to loose? Aside from this, the discussion was purely hypothetical as there was no evidence presented to indicate he even had them to use.

>>>Do people really believe that if Saddam were willing to go to war with the most powerful military coalition ever devised simply because he wants to keep his weapons that he would somehow have been open to letting U.N. inspectors find them? Anyone willing to risk their lives, their country, and their people's lives would certainly not let a few inspectors stumble across a few weapons. Let's step back into a reality for a bit.<<<

Indeed, let's get back to reality. One: Saddam did not declare war on the US. If he were willing to go to war, wouldn't he want to fire the first shot?
He doesn't care about his weapons, he cares about keeping power. that's it.
UN inspectors did not complain (the UNMOVIC team) that they did not have full access. They simply were not finding any WMD's. If all of these weapons existed, and the americans knew where they were, why didn't they tell the inspections team?

>>So what is it? Again, I'm at a loss. <<

no surprise here. You need some strong glasses to see past your propaganda driven world.

>> Is it because of the loss of life? Well, I've already pointed out that this campaign is more "life-friendly" than any campaign devised of it's size in history. Also, it's a fact that Saddam is responsible for YEARLY more of his own people as were killed in the ENTIRE Gulf War 1. Imagine that - Saddam kills more Iraqis in ONE YEAR every year than a U.S. led coalition did in outright war 12 years ago in which Iraqi casualties were NOT such a big concern. In liberating Iraq, we are saving lives - so that can't be the reasoning.

So? Why are people still against it? <<

As i mentioned before, they are afraid of losing legitimacy, of losing the rule of law, of actually INCREASING the terrorist threat against the US. You obviously have nothing to fear because you blindly ignore the real danger here.

>> Well, in actuality - most people support it. In recent polls, the vast majority of peoples support the U.S. President in his actions and agree that the U.N. had failed miserably. <<

those two do not go together. check your stats.

>>To add insult to injury, more and more countries are signing up daily to become a part of what is now the beginning of freedom and new life for the Iraqi people.<<

what the hell does that mean? are you signing up to be a part of a new life for the Iraqi's? why don't you ask the afghanis what they thought of our "help".

>>Why are people still against it? I really can't say - other than to say that these people are REALLY against Bush and are simply using this war as an extension of him to . To those people I would like to offer this thought: You may our President - you may even us. I hope you realize, however, that we are bringing to the Iraqi people the gift of freedom and a new life away from a terrible dictator whom they've lived under in fear for about 30 years. You can go ahead and Bush and the U.S. - but, please - look at what you're REALLY against here.<<<

*sigh* all of this is just regurgitation of your previous missive, no reason to respond further

>>The regime is shutting down and soon the Iraqis will be free. Be happy for them, if nothing else. <<

I certainly will, for the ones that survive, that is. What i won't be happy about is what happens to the rule of law in the world because of this. I won't be happy when china uses this as an excuse to invade Taiwan, or N. Korea uses it as an excuse to launch a pre-emptive strike on S. Korea. I won't be happy about those who are called "cowards" and unpatriotic because they believe that this war is not a good thing for the US, nore the rest of the world.

Will you be happy about these things, I wonder?

Have to disagree with you on this point. Am I incorrect in saying that Bush has sent over 250,000 ground troops in at this point? The idea with the bombs is to remove command and support centers, and to soften up armor and troops before moving in with ground forces, in order to minimize american (and allied) losses. Standard military proceedure since WWI. As far as anyone can tell so far (there are plenty of witnesses on scene, tho I have to say I am not one of them), 90% or more of the bombing strikes have been against government buildings directly. This is not carpet bombing in any sense of the word. At least technology has allowed for SOME control in modern warfare. Iraq has reported several hundred injured, but only 1 or 2 civilians dead in Baghdad so far (EDIT: that changed big time on sun/mon. it's now up to around 200 +, so say the Iraqis). I have to say, considering that one would think that Iraq would pump up civilian casualty stats, this is pretty remarkable. However, it also seems to have completely failed to remove any significant communication or leadership infrastructure as well. In the end, it will for sure come down to ground skirmishes in Baghdad.

@MICKEY:
sighs

>>i'll be honest, i've been arguing with people about this war for a long time now and i am tired.<<

aren't we all.

>>i'm not quite sure how my thread on love turned into this. whatever your arguements for or against the war are, it doesn't matter anymore.<<

technically, if you look back, it was simply because you couldn't post the "i" in girl, which lead to a discussion of censorship, which let, naturally, to a discussion about censorship in the current conflict. Amazing as it may seem, if you could have posted that "i" from where you were, it never would have gone this direction. Interesting, huh? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

And, yes, it matters EVEN MORE now what the arguments are, as we as a country will have to decide what road we take from here. There is no sitting on the fence any longer. If you think the repercussions from our current actions will end with the war, you are seriously deluding yourself.

>>all the anti-war protests in the world no matter where they're held or how many people attend them will change the fact the war has started.<<

Nope, but maybe it will make an impact on those who are thinking about the next one.

>>some people argue that bush is only doing this for the oil and others argue that he's doing it to get saddam out of power and to liberate the iraqi citizens.

this can be argued up hill and down, inside and out until we're all blue in the face but all of it is mere speculation just like the numbers the UN is releasing about how many people will wind up .<<

no, it's not all just speculation. I know it is hard, and tiring, and difficult, but as Molder would say: "The truth is out there!" Believe that and look for it yourself. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!


>>we will only know for sure when the war is finally over. anything anyone says at this point is all recycled.<<

again, I doubt this, there are still things just now being released about things that happened during world war 2.

>>no one can really say anything new, we're just rewording the old stuff and package it as a new diatribe. which is why i am not replying to anyone's post in particular.<<

repackaging = rethinking; at least for me, the more I see, the more i become interested in getting to the bottom of things. What you are saying sounds like you have given up on your own search.

>>as for me, i am going to devote my time and energy into supporting and praying for the troops who are fighting for the right reasons, which is to liberate iraq from an evil dictator who kills more of his own people every year than all the iraqi's that died in the first gulf war. that is, in my opinion, the right thing to do now. <<

fine and dandy. Prayers couldn't hurt. but when you have the energy again, you have resources at your disposal should you become curious as to why others believe as they do, or maybe why you even believe what you believe...

cheers

KIYA:
>>The Bagdad population is without protection there are nearly no bunkers, they stay in their houses and hope they are not hit. Have you seen all those destructions on TV??? Liberation for death?<<

I saw interviews with Iraqi families that said they would not use the existing bunkers because of what happened in the '91 conflict when the US tageted and destroyed a civilian bunker, thinking it was a military one. so it doesn't even matter if there are enough bunkers. the interviews i have seen remind me of interviews with Londoners during the blitz in WWII. they are so used to being bombed they just go on with their regular business, and hope for the best.

>>Young Iraqi here in Germany are signing up to become Iraq soldiers, they will be merely cannon fodder<<
yup, but at least it shows they believe in the sovereignty of their country, as I am sure they are not going to "support saddam"


>>your mass media are "controlled" by the Government, reducing themselves to a megaphone for mislead patriotism - and this in a country where free press was so important.. Where is Woodward??<<

Eh, it's nowhere near complete control. They can't control the Associated Press (AP), nor many independent press organizations. I read articles from the AP and others all the time that make me question what's going on. for example, in yesterday's New York times, there was prominent article on how the CIA itself was blowing the whistle on Bush's supposed links between Iraq and terrorism:

"The forged documents were not created by the CIA or any other U.S. government agency, and CIA officials were always suspicious of the documents, American intelligence officials said. But the information still ended up being used in public by Bush."

so there ya go, still some free press here. It's not all doom and gloom, but a lot of the popular media seem to be pressured to tow the "Bush" line, for whatever reasons. It is a positive sign that even the CIA is becoming wary of Bush.

sounds good <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> what brand would that be? I like lemon absolut that has been sitting in the freezer for a week, myself!