|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Church spreading aids | |||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: A "phychotic", that would be what, a diseased plant? At least Bush isn't eating babies on television, eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
metatron Inactive Member |
What are you muttering about now Gene?.
Not even Tony Blairs willing to pretend that fuckwit George Bush is right any more. Have you noticed (as your president and military obviously havent) that Al-Qaeda is recruited, financed and organised from Saudi Arabia?. No threats being made toward the real problem because the real aim is oil. Wake up Gene the Bush family are risking world peace for personal financial gain. Stop the war!!!!!. [This message has been edited by Metatron, 01-12-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: Yeah I have. But the Saudis aren't making weapons of mass destruction, are they? By the way, what do you propose we do about it? You're opposed to ousting Saddam so you support invading Saudi Arabia?
quote: World peace? LOL! What was in those cannisters the cops found in a London apartment last week? If your idea of world peace means that terrorists are going to be flying planes into office towers, gassing the Tube, and eventually setting off low-yield Iraqi nukes in New York, I say screw it. You can go out there and do your job and not whine about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
Al-Qaeda operatives themselves are weapons of mass murder. Look at what they did in NY. Look how they inspire some foolish countrymen of mine to bomb two clubs in Bali. Saddam have never used his missiles to attack US. (He did sent some to Israel back then, but Israel is also suspect of having nukes). And Saudi Arabia cash flowed into their coffers. Some of their benefactors didn't even know they were funding terrorists; Al-Qaeda financiers asked for charity from unsuspecting wealthy donors (from Malaysian intelligence reports). Oh, and don't forget N. Korea, they got away easy with their nukes because they have no oil underneath.
So what does GWB have in mind again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
I agree, stop the war!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
Hi Andya, I'm glad you're joining in. I know I don't act like it but I think it is important to hear the opinion of Muslims on this.
quote: That is true. But does it mean he can be trusted? Saddam also does not have nukes and does not have missiles that can reach the US. If we leave him alone it is likely he will eventually develop that capability. And then he may use it, probably against Israel, *maybe* against the US.
quote: Israel has nukes. That's probably not a good thing but it isn't against any law I'm aware of. It is illegal for Iraq to attempt to develop nukes because of the terms of their surrender after the Gulf War.
quote: When civilians fund terror it is difficult to track. As Metatron will gladly point out Americans are known for funding the IRA. Saddam's regime however is funding terror, he gives thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers that attack Israel. And he very likely wants to have better toys up his sleeves. The best we can do about that is try to cooperate with the Saudi government to crack down on those charities that fund terror. We've even had to shut down a couple on US soil.
quote: I think North Korea is just as dangerous as Saddam and I think Bush is not being aggressive enough in dealing with them. I do agree that Iraq is of greater tactical value to the US because of its own oil reserves and its proximity to Kuwaiti and Saudi reserves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
metatron Inactive Member |
The problem currently is that in 1990 iraq attacked kuwait giving reasonable justification for a military responce. There is no justification now, George bush wants control of the iraqi oil supply. Every country on GB's "axis of evil" list is currently (if they have any sense) negotiating a mutual defence pact against american aggression.
Saddams aim during the gulf war was to unite every muslim country in the world against America, he failed. Now ten years down the line of increasing bad feeling toward America in muslim societies, Saddam stands a much better chance of achieving this. North Korea's recent actions were timed perfectly to demonstrate that America could not care less about WMD, but will start wars for oil. Do you think the timing was chance or two members of a mutal defence pact working together?. ...................World peace? LOL! What was in those cannisters the cops found in a London apartment last week? If your idea of world peace means that terrorists are going to be flying planes into office towers, gassing the Tube, and eventually setting off low-yield Iraqi nukes in New York, I say screw it. You can go out there and do your job and not whine about it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------You're saying I should shut up and blindly obey orders Gene?. "I was following orders" is what the Nazi's said at Nuremberg. Tell Anne Franks surviving relatives that soldiers should obey all orders without question. [This message has been edited by Metatron, 01-14-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
I thought you liked guns, Funky? I don't have a problem with guns. I do though have a problem with the idea of bringing more guns to the table when a situation is already unstable and explosive. I think governments could take a lesson from Dr. Seuss, I seem to remember a childrens book he wrote, in which both sides kept bringing bigger and bigger weapons to the table, nearly causing disaster. ------------------Saved by an incredible Grace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
If they were just looking for oil you think that they'd attack Canada, we're much closer and have virtually no military. I think the Ft Mc Murray oil sands produce more oil than all of Iraq.
Or maybe they would go after Saudi Arabia, I thought that they were the greatest producer in the world. Now that comment was on a "think I know" basis. Even though I lean towards agreeing with the idea that the U.S is after oil, there must be other reasons. Maybe Samaratins purse will get to help with the clean up of Iraq again and we'll have the Jesus movie on Iraqi television again. yay ------------------Saved by an incredible Grace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: Human rights violations supply justification for ousting Saddam, just as they justified ousting Milosevic. Also, under the terms agreed to in the Iraqi surrender in the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam cannot have chemical weapons. His failure to cooperate with disarmament gives the United States authority to attack (Resolution 1441 found that Iraq was in 'material breach' of its obligations). Technically our current action can be seen as a continuation of the Gulf War after Iraq failed to disarm.
quote: Funny how everyone opposing the war claims that is what Bush wants and they never seem to be able to support the assertion. Personally, I would rather the US find an alternative for oil and cease all petroleum imports from the Middle East than buy oil from people that hate us! Actually, all indication is that France is the nation after oil. They profited the most from the 'oil for food' program and have the longest history of dealing with Saddam, (ie, accepting his blood money). Remember the Iraqi nuclear reactor Chirac built? And vowed to rebuild after the Israelis destroyed? From NewsMax.com : ------------Saddam's Bombmaker: France Helped Baghdad Get Nukes It's no accident that the French, along with Germany, have now lined up in opposition to U.S. plans to use military force to neutralize Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program. Especially since, according to at least one former top Iraqi nuclear scientist, Paris helped Baghdad go nuclear in the first place. According to Dr. Khidir Hamza, who ran Saddam's nuclear bombmaking program in the early 1990s, Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor was built by the French. When the Israelis determined that the reactor's real purpose was to make nuclear weapons, they destroyed it in a 1981 bombing raid. "From the moment Osirak was hit we knew we had to try another method to get the bomb," Dr. Hamza told the Washington Times in September 2002. The year before, Dr. Hamza confirmed that the Osirak reactor was never intended to be anything but a nuclear bombmaking plant. "I went to France in 1974 to buy a reactor, as a starting point, for a plutonium bomb," Hamza told the Carneigie Endowment in November 2000. "It was a long-range project. The reactor would be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the French would be there." And even after Osirak was taken out, French assistance was critical to Baghdad's continuing plan to get nuclear weapons. "Just before the Gulf War, the crash program was ongoing to make one bomb from the French fuel," Hamza told the Carniegie group. "People were putting stock into that one bomb," he said. "They were afraid of even testing the bomb, because Iraq testing that one bomb would be like telling the world that we used the French fuel." Dr. Hamza said that in 1990 Saddam ordered him to make a single nuclear device using materials obtained from Paris. "We made a device, actually, minus the core," he told PBS's "Frontline" in October 2001. "And we sat down and did calculations. ... We would have had a small - probably two- to four-kiloton - explosion at the time. ... But the idea was [that Saddam] wanted it on a missile, and he was mad at us for not making it small enough." Undoubtedly, one of the things French diplomats now fear most is that a U.S. invasion of Iraq is likely to confirm Dr. Hamza's account, providing undisputable evidence that Baghdad relied on French assistance to make Iraq's most deadly weapon of mass destruction. From: http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/1/24/113801 ------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: Whoa! Wait a minute! You are PRO-WAR with North Korea? And ANTI-WAR with Iraq? Maybe you would like to elaborate? The Bush Administration thinks they can deal with North Korea diplomatically, which shows that they think war is only a last resort. I personally wouldn't mind it if there were a couple of carriers and nuclear missile subs hovering off the Korean peninsula but I suspect that the anti-American peaceniks would have a problem with that too. Also, why did we attack Milosevic? Where's the Yugoslav Oil Reserve?
quote: I thought that was your job, soldier. Maybe if you don't want to go fight a war, you shouldn't be in the army? But apparently your idea of world peace is allowing gas attacks in subway systems and planes flying into buildings and letting Saddam lower dissidents feet-first into shredding machines and gas whoever he pleases. If that's your idea of peace, I don't want it. As for Hitler, you would probably protest a war against him too. [This message has been edited by gene90, 03-30-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
metatron Inactive Member |
Gene every nazi at the nuremberg trails said "I was only following orders", soldiers should question every order they are given by either loonies (Hitler) or religious bigots (Bush).
Why were we ordered to protect "Oil assets" whilst watching Iraqi's loot hospitals?. By the way your fucking useless countrymen killed two lads from my platoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
quote: And in the '70's there was a Florida (if I remember correctly) senator talking about "North American" oil resources. And it was obvious to most what that meant. As a northern neighbor I don't completely trust the US. If it gets too difficult to fuel those SUV's the US will decide we are an "imminent danger" of some sort. And you're right about virtually no military. Why bother, no one else represents a danger and we couldn't stop the US anyway. [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-19-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
You know, even in the "Free For All" area, there is such a thing as staying on topic. Why is all this Iraq war type stuff showing up here?
Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: Maybe because protecting an urban environment would cause more civilian casualties?
quote: Sorry about that, but soldiers die. They knew that when they enlisted. You know that too. Why the hell are you even in your nation's army? Last I heard the UK doesn't have mandatory service. You like the "cheque" you get but you won't fight a just war? Don't whine to me about lousy career decisions you've made.
quote: Where's Bush's torture chambers? Deathcamps? --------------------------------------------------------April 9 Crowds of Iraqis celebrate and pull down a statue of Saddam as Baghdad falls. Western newspapers publish reports from inside the infamous "White Lion" prison in the southern city of Basra, where for decades victims of the toppled regime were hung from ceiling hooks and tortured with hot irons, cigarettes, boiling water, pliers, and baths of acid. The U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, announces himself "deeply disturbed" over civilian deaths and injuries resulting from the U.S.-led coalition war of liberation. April 14 Western newspapers publish reports from inside suburban Baghdad's notorious Abu Ghraib prison, Saddam's largest, where thousands of people were tortured and murdered: forced to sit on glass bottles until their intestines were perforated, their lips and ears and tongues amputated with box cutters, and so forth. Vieira de Mello tells the BBC that "war is always too high a price" to pay for freedom, that coalition forces are guilty of "serious breaches to the Geneva Convention," breaches that his agency will investigate if, "as I hope we will be able to," his staffers are allowed to return to Iraq. Meantime, the commission approves a resolution expressing "deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism" and authorizing an inquiry into "the situation of Muslim and Arab peoples" with "special reference" to attacks against their persons and properties "in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001." http://www.weeklystandard.com/...es/000/000/002/594ifgdy.asp
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: Because we like fighting over it, Moose. I still wonder why your treacherous comment about wishing the White House and Pentagon would "disappear" appeared anywhere.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024