# Lets not forget



## habilis (Mar 21, 2003)

Before we become desensitized to the legendary brutality and genocide commited by the Saddam regime, please take a couple minutes to read a brief summary of Saddams Atrocities related by the escaped Iraqi citizens themselves.
http://www.bonkdown.com/liberate.html

It would be a crime againt all humanity to NOT go to war against him.

If you're in the peace crowd, you should know, intentional or not, this behavior is what you're supporting and defending by proxy. You should also look into exactly who is kicking in for your peace protests. Islamic Jihad has been funneling thousands of blood-stained dollars into your movement.


----------



## toast (Mar 21, 2003)

Is this a pathetic attempt to teach us that Saddam is a bloodthirsty dictator ? Well, sorry to deceive you, but everyone in the peace camp knows that.

War is a crime against humanity in itself. If you want to join Saddam in the Hall of Fame of bloodthirsty state leaders, go on. But not in my name.



> If you're in the peace crowd, you should know, intentional or not, this behavior is what you're supporting and defending by proxy. You should also look into exactly who is kicking in for your peace protests. Islamic Jihad has been funneling thousands of blood-stained dollars into your movement.



May it be reminded Saddam's missiles are American made (technology, patents, manufacture). Islamic Jihad is one of America's first client, as far as weaponry is concerned .

May it be also reminded that war will have terrible consequences in terrorist organizations, one of them being major upheaval and aggressivity against the USA and against Western countries in a more general view. This is what war will result in: unlimited escalation of violence. Again, not in my name.

But this post was a brave attempt, true, I'm impressed . It's less anti-French and patriotic than the previous ones, well done !


----------



## binaryDigit (Mar 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *... May it be reminded Saddam's missiles are American made (technology, patents, manufacture). Islamic Jihad is one of America's first client, as far as weaponry is concerned .
> ...*



Actually the Scud missiles are Russian made, not US.  He may have some US made smaller armaments, but if I remember correctly, many of the weapons they posses are Soviet made (planes, etc).  No doubting though that yes, a great many of the weapons used around the world by friend and foe alike are US made.


----------



## Dime5150 (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *War is a crime against humanity in itself. If you want to join Saddam in the Hall of Fame of bloodthirsty state leaders, go on. But not in my name.
> 
> 
> ...



Yea war is a crime against humanity. We should have never fought in WW2. Should have just left Adolf Hitler to do his thing.


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> [/B]May it be reminded Saddam's missiles are American made (technology, patents, manufacture).[/B]




That is not true.



> _Originally posted by toast _
> [/B]Islamic Jihad is one of America's first client, as far as weaponry is concerned.[/B]



That is definitely not true. Please post credible evidence.


----------



## chevy (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *Before we become desensitized to the legendary brutality and genocide commited by the Saddam regime, please take a couple minutes to read a brief summary of Saddams Atrocities related by the escaped Iraqi citizens themselves.
> http://www.bonkdown.com/liberate.html
> 
> ...



I agree with you, therefore there is only one place for Saddam: http://www.un.org/icty/
His pain will be longer and more humiliating in endless jail than buried.


----------



## chevy (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Dime5150 _
> *Yea war is a crime against humanity. We should have never fought in WW2. Should have just left Adolf Hitler to do his thing. *



Adolf would not have survived long after his campaign in Russia.... he lost most of his troups in Russia.

Nevertheless USA significantly helped to shorten the war in Europe and it was good.


----------



## fryke (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Dime5150 _
> *Yea war is a crime against humanity. We should have never fought in WW2. Should have just left Adolf Hitler to do his thing. *



Your sarcasm might seem funny to you, but there are really quite some differences. Let me try my sarcasm: First, you didn't _start_ WWII...


----------



## Arden (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Dime5150 _
> *Yea war is a crime against humanity. We should have never fought in WW2. Should have just left Adolf Hitler to do his thing. *


War _is_ a crime against humanity.  What was Hitler doing in the 1930's?  Preparing for war.  What did he do?  Go to war with most of Europe and Russia.  What did the US do?  Stopped Hitler.

Would you rather be saying "God Bless America" or "Heil Hitler"?


----------



## edX (Mar 22, 2003)

see you guys keep missing fryke's point. all us antiwar people vehemtly dispise anyone who starts war. we dispise hitler, we dispise mussolini, we dispise pearl harbor,we dispise kosovo, etc.  we dispise saddam for the war he started in kuwait. in short, nobody who starts a war is right and just. 

war doesn't happen without someone starting it. someone being the aggressor. he who fires the first shot is the criminal. after that, we want it to stop. those who are attacked should defend themselves. others should step in and see that it stops ASAP. hopefully thru peaceful negotiations and economic sanctions. after all, wars are usually started because somebody wants something somebody else has. they are normally about struggle for resources. this can be talked out if the parties are willing. if not, then other actions should be taken. 

that is the problem here - the US has started a war without caring what their own international organization of peace maintenance even cares about it. without exhausting peaceful measures. if you don't understand the implications of this in terms of world peace and stability in the future, then you're too busy looking at the short term, just as nazi germany did.

at this point the war has started. we can all only pray that it ends quickly and reasonably. but there are no guarentees in war. so far more allied lives have been lost thru accidents than thru actual combat. let's hope it stays that way and that the accidents end as well.

but let's also not forget the reports of all the innocent people inside iraq that have already been killed. we don't have any reports of those tolls yet that i'm aware of. but you can bet they have already occurred and will continue with the 'shock and awe' campaign. there is nothing 'awesome' about dropping missles into people's living rooms. there is something very shocking about it though.

in war, nobody is ever 'right'. sometimes they are 'justified'. always somebody who only wanted to have a better life loses.


----------



## chevy (Mar 22, 2003)

In 1939, the strongest were the Germans (remember the Blitzkrieg, German tanks driving 40 km/h through Poland with nearly no opposition but a few horsemen) and the Japanese (they controlled a large part of far-east). They didn't know how to stop after the first easy victories. In 1945 they were both defeated.


----------



## toast (Mar 22, 2003)

Toast: "May it be reminded Saddam's missiles are American made (technology, patents, manufacture). Islamic Jihad is one of America's first client, as far as weaponry is concerned."
*Satcomer*: _That is not true._

Washington Post Sunday Herald International Guardian

Toast: "Islamic Jihad is one of America's first client, as far as weaponry is concerned."
*Satcomer*: _That is definitely not true. Please post credible evidence._

Violence Policy Center Massachussets Institute of Technology Tech Review


----------



## toast (Mar 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chevy _
> *In 1939, the strongest were the Germans (remember the Blitzkrieg, German tanks driving 40 km/h through Poland with nearly no opposition but a few horsemen) and the Japanese (they controlled a large part of far-east). They didn't know how to stop after the first easy victories. In 1945 they were both defeated. *



Hm... "The strongest" should be replaced by "the wittiest". I'll explain:

In 1939, the German army was _not__the biggest army:
- First of all, France had far more planes, such as the Dewoitines. France had been one of the first nations to use planes as offensive tools in WW1.
- Moreover, French and British navies were far more advanced, by size and by technologies.
- On top of that, French and British colonial empires were far bigger. They represented almost illimited reserve of men (India, Africa).

Nevertheless:
- The German army was younger (70% soldiers were between 20 and 30 years-old, whereas France had only 30% soldiers in this age range). - The German nation was dense (80 million people), endoctrinated and ready to provide many more soldiers than Britain (conscription was a new thing to Britain) or France (where pacifism slowed down rearmament).
- The German strategy had been renewed: "obtain decision by offensive and surprise", as quoted from Napoleon, had been used by von Schlieffen in WW1 and knew a new version with Hitler: Blitzkrieg, ie. tanks supported by planes.

Much more could be said, but I think this will be enough to illustrate my point: the German nation was younger. And their victory is largely due to their youth: young population, young army, young techniques.

I like to answer questions on WW2 a lot but I don't see how this fits the Iraqi topic. Isn't it pathetic to see people still bringing back modern history to comparison with WW2. It looks like they don't know about this big thingies called 'Cold War' and 'post-Cold War'. Ahem. Would it mean they don't... know anything about those periods, neither events, consequences on world order and mentalities ?


----------



## Dime5150 (Mar 22, 2003)

People forget about what Hitler did. You say all he did was start wars and fight wars etc but nobody mentions the fact he killed over 9 million jewish innocent people. How do you talk someone out of that? Uday and his father have done some of the same stuff. Amputations, raping, murdering. Uday said himself he does not call it sex until he personally gets blood from the woman he is raping. He is allowed to do this. He is encouraged to do this. So tell me how you are supposed to stop these actions without exhibiting power and force to get it to stop and get them out?

It is really a shame to see all of you people personally attacking each other instead of going after the issues. I'm getting out of these "debates". Nothing but personal hostility.


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 22, 2003)

Toast:

Those examples are the Islamic Jihad is of individuals in the US. Sorry to say that any American citizen can buy a 50 cal weapon. State gun laws in the US are way out in left field. The nuts have scared the average hunting Joe/Jane that any sensible gun law will take away there right to hunt or protect the family (with a small weapon). Common sense is lost in most guns laws today because of polar sides scaring the rest of the people.

Plus yes it is true that the US approved the sale of bio cultures used to develop chemical/bio weapons. This was approved by someone/maybe from the top by someone is the Reagan/Bush Sr. administration. At the time these cultures are also used as medical cultures to develop vaccines. Someone in the company that keeps the cultures was fired because they so opposed the sale of those cultures but the administrations override him. It would have pissed me off too (about those sales, the point that those sales should not have taken place). The crazy thing was at the time anyone could have bought those cultures. There was no real restrictions on those sales (most sales went to hospitals, etc,). Now that was/is scary.


----------



## Perseus (Mar 22, 2003)

I am not familiar with details, but I do have some opinions.  

The terrorists of September 11th were able to commit the acts of terrorism because of their economic backing by the taliban controlled Afghanistan. This money gave them the funding they needed.  The US is trying to eliminate this money flow, and capture top wanted terrorists, to prevent such acts happening again.  

The war with Iraq claims to be a war that will liberate the people. In my opinion its hard to say what the real reason for everything is.  There are economic reasaons for the war as much as there are political reasons. 

If we sat around and waited many more years, and let Saddam continue with his actions, I believe he would definately have obtained nukes and other such bombs. This is why going to war in Iraq is important, and I support it.  However, if he had such bombs, there was no evidence that he had the technology to even reach us with those bombs. Still, I would not want to see our nation suffer. 

North Korea seems to pose a threat as well. As of now, I don't know what to think of the situation there.

If we can eliminate the ability for Iraq to obtain bombs that could destroy US cities and its allies', I think it is worth the effort.  Terrorism is a reality. It will allways be with us. Even if we didn't go to war with Iraq,  terrorists would still want to attack us no matter what.  We CAN however eliminate a country's ability to obtain weapons of mass destruction. We CANNOT completely eliminate terrorism.

-Perseus


----------



## Arden (Mar 23, 2003)

There is no more point in debating over whether we should go to war or not because we have (and we're winning).  The thing to do now is to give our full support to US and Coalition troops overseas.  Saddam committed atrocities, disobeyed and disrespected the US government and the UN, and built up and hid weapons of mass destruction from our view, and we're coming after him to either kill him or put him on trial.  He may, of course, not agree to go with this plan; Hitler was such a pansy he killed himself rather than be captured and put on trial for war crimes.

I believe Bush got us into this situation that we didn't necessarily need to be in, and he angered Kim Chong'Il with his comment of the "Axis of Evil."  Bush needs to figure out what he's doing wrong and attempt diplomatic negotiations the next time this happens, because as much as we don't want it, there will be a next time.  North Korea is itching for a fight, and the US is likely to attempt to show them who's boss, even though last time we tried that we ended up running in circles for two years.

If you want a humorous (yet highly indicative of what's to come) outlook on the war, go to http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml.  It's pretty funny and it paints the Bush administration and the war in Iraq in clean coats of satire.  At the end, you'll be saying, "You know that's what's going to happen;" I know I was.


----------



## chevy (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Perseus _
> *
> ...
> If we can eliminate the ability for Iraq to obtain bombs that could destroy US cities and its allies',
> ...



Very true. I don't know if Iraq ever had bombs that could destroy a US city, but for sure it doesn't have now. Therefore this goal is reached.

Now how can we lower the terrorist threat ? By killing and insulting a large part of the world's population ? One guy tried a "final solution" 60 years ago, with no success.

So we better end the war ASAP, and change the kind of weapons we use. Food will be much more efficient against terrorism than bombs have ever been.


----------



## toast (Mar 23, 2003)

* Perseus *: _If we sat around and waited many more years, and let Saddam continue with his actions, I believe he would definately have obtained nukes and other such bombs. This is why going to war in Iraq is important, and I support it. _

I have to disagree. First, nothing proves Saddam would have tried to obtain atomic weaponry. Second, nothing proves he would have succeeded in his enterprise. Last, on a more reflective point of view, why would he have tried to obtain atomic weapons in the first place ? Let's make a list of pro's and con's:
[+] Atomic weapons could threaten distant countries, esp. USA and allies.
[+] Atomic weapons could get rid of Israel quite rapidly.
But:
[-] Atomic weapons bring attention and fear from US governments, which is no good, as recent events confirm 
[-] You can still harm Israel with simpler weaponry 

On top of that, your statement sounds like: "This war is preemptive: we are bombing Iraq just in case thy would have obtained the A-Bomb in a few years." You must realize international relations cannot bear such an unilaterally aggressive theory.
You are somewhat right if you answer back that it's a shame: you must wait for states to act as rogues to condemn them as rogues. But that's how it goes: you cannot go to war with a country with, as only reason, a very high probability for this country to get nukes in the future.
Or maybe you can, with UN agreement. But certainly not without   

_If we can eliminate the ability for Iraq to obtain bombs that could destroy US cities and its allies', I think it is worth the effort._

I am sure everyone agrees with you on this point. However, as exposed here, there are better and peacier (does that exist ?) ways to perform this than to bomb a people.


----------



## toast (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *There is no more point in debating over whether we should go to war or not because we have (and we're winning).*



AFP/Reuters indicate three US planes have already crashed. An American soldier has thrown a grenade on his own tent, wounding 13. More to come.



> _Originally posted by arden _
> *Saddam committed atrocities, disobeyed and disrespected the US government and the UN, and built up and hid weapons of mass destruction from our view, and we're coming after him to either kill him or put him on trial.*



George Bush has done just the same:
- Disrespect of US public opinion, since elections to recent events.
- Buildup and hiding of weapons we do not suspect.

Now some are trying to kill him, some may try one day to put him on trial.



> _Originally posted by arden _
> *Hitler was such a pansy he killed himself rather than be captured and put on trial for war crimes.*



Hitler would not have been put on trial. Soldiers had received orders to kill him anyway.


----------



## chevy (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *
> ...
> George Bush has done just the same:
> ...


----------



## toast (Mar 23, 2003)

I agree both leaders share only very few criterii of comparatibility.


----------



## Arden (Mar 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast_
> *AFP/Reuters indicate three US planes have already crashed. An American soldier has thrown a grenade on his own tent, wounding 13. More to come.*


So are you saying the Iraqi military is so incompetent we have to kill ourselves to make them feel better? 


> *Now some are trying to kill him, some may try one day to put him on trial.*


I don't know if you know about this in France, but about 160 years ago, a Tippecanoe leader named Tecumseh placed a curse on the presidency.  He said that any president elected in a year ending in 0 will die in office.  Thus far, the only president to escape this curse was Reagan, and he was still shot.  Bush will have to watch out if he wants to live through his presidency; his life has had attempts, and he could be in danger if this curse decides to take revenge for Reagan's living through his presidency.


> *...peacier (does that exist ?)...*


No.  I think you mean "more peaceful."


----------



## toast (Mar 23, 2003)

"More peaceful". Yes, this sounds more correct. Thank you 

There is no curse against French Presidents. They don't need a curse, they've got Prime Ministers instead 



> He said that any president elected in a year ending in 0 will die in office.



Well, President must *elected*_first to apply to curse


----------



## Ugg (Mar 23, 2003)

Good one Toast!  So does that mean that Al Gore is going to die while in office (so to speak) at Apple?!?!


----------



## Ugg (Mar 23, 2003)

Or, does it mean that Apple is destined to take over the US govt?  

arden, tell us more about Tecumseh and his prophecy.


----------



## fryke (Mar 24, 2003)

You mean Apple would take over the US govt just to fulfill a curse so that Al Gore could die? That's strange, n't it?


----------



## Arden (Mar 24, 2003)

Actually, Tecumseh's brother was called "The Prophet."  Tecumseh merely placed a curse.  Check it out: http://wovoca.com/prophecy-shawnee-tecumseh-curses-presidents.htm


----------

