To the webmaster of "The Leela Zone" website at www.leela.com.ar
The comment you made about being a "black day" that the US and Britain going to war with Iraq and calling President Bush a "warmongerer" was UNCALLED FOR and an INSULT to me as an American.
I will no longer visit your site because of your "misguided" comment. And many others will stop visiting your website too (after they see your comments). I could go on further but this is just a futurama newsgroup after all.
Dennis
going to
and
The webmaster has just expressed his thoughts about the war and the decision took by his country to attack another country. Everyone has his own opinions. I thought you - the americans - were against those who want to censor people who has different opinions than yours.
Greetings from Italy
PS - To remain in topic: did you watched "A taste of freedom" episode?
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:05:18 GMT, "Ronin" spewed forth:
Um, I didn't see him calling for censorship there.
Speaking of, did you know insulting the president is punishable by a 45,000 euro fine in France ?
So what? I don't think it's fair either...
bye
in article 6%Xea.37700$[email], Ronin at [email] wrote on 3/22/03 3:42 AM:
What is that anyway, $2?
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:34:34 GMT, petben spewed forth:
I said Euros, not Australian Dollars.
I fail to see how someone expressing an opinion about GWB being too eager for war is in any way insulting you.
A well argued and honest comment like that wouldn't stop me visiting a site.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion my friend. Especially when they are observant and in this case, right.
"DSV75" wrote in message news:[email]...
going to
and
many
I
"Kazzahdrane" wrote in message news:b5hj2a$jmu$[email]...
Whose opinions matter most, at least to me? That of the Iraqi civilains.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r
A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, RDK wrote:
Ooooo. Great story, full of anger.
I was wondering what new stories of dasterly deeds we'd be treated to this time. Especially since they used the old classic "catching babies on bayonettes" (which is a warfare legend that goes back to the Crimean War) and that now eveyone knows the "babies torn out of incubators" story was made up and presented by the Quwaiti ambassader's daughter.
-- L.Y.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:44:51 -0600, Luxury Yacht spewed forth:
Um, never once have I ever heard that atached to the Iraqis.
Oh, yeah, it was the first big story to come out of occupied Quwait. You understand I'm not making any statement for or against the first Gulf War, but I believe people should make decisions based on the truth, not sound bites.
-- L.Y.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:44:24 -0600, Luxury Yacht spewed forth:
Dunno how I missed it...but then I've never heard it attached to ANYONE. The Japanese Art of Flying Baby Machine Gun Practice for sure, but....
I'm sorry, I missed how your opinion is the "correct" opinion. Could you explain to the rest of us how that works, please?
Actually, it's a misinformed and wrong statement, but he has every right to make it. If it really bothers you, don't frequent this site anymore. That's YOUR freedom of speech.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
http://www3.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=843722
amen
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:19:02 GMT, "Ronin" spewed forth:
Yes, amen to no context or confirmation.
Yes, amen to no context or confirmation.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:08:37 GMT, "Ronin" spewed forth:
Aaaah, Al Jazeera. So refreshing to have an unbiased source *snicker*
Anyway, thanks for trying to break the amazing news that civilians die in wars. I'm sure everyone is shocked to find that out.
in article [email], Rev. Bleech_ at [email] wrote on 3/31/03 12:42 PM:
Yeah, FoxNews is obviously a better source for unbiased reporting *snicker*
With this football game style coverage , it's good to be reminded that people actually die in war, not just civilians. It's not all pretty fireworks and children being handed candy bars.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:23:17 GMT, petben spewed forth:
Er, show me one instance where I cited or applauded Fox News.
I don't think anyone actually FORGOT.
in article [email], Rev. Bleech_ at [email] wrote on 3/31/03 3:57 PM:
Show me one instance where I said you did. This thread is not about you you, stop being paranoid. LOL
No, they just do their best to IGNORE IT.
On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:22:56 GMT, petben spewed forth:
OK then, show me where ANYONE in this thread did so.
Fantasy.
in article [email], Rev. Bleech_ at [email] wrote on 3/31/03 9:11 PM:
After you show me where ANYONE claimed Al Jazeera was unbiased.
Yes, you do seem to live in one.
On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 16:24:29 GMT, petben spewed forth:
I never claimed they did...but then again, I didn't swing in saying "oh....OH YEAH ?!?!?! WHAT ABOUT AL-JAZEERA ?".
Please, just deal with the fact that you thought I might take it as some sort of insult and it didn't work.
If that were true, you'd be dead.
in article [email], Rev. Bleech_ at [email] wrote on 4/1/03 12:17 PM:
That wasn't my intent at all despite your delusions of self importance. My point had nothing to do with you. You made a point that Al Jazeera was a biased news agency in an attempt to discredit the validity of that picture. My point was they are not alone in their bias, with Foxnews as an example. Perhaps I should have included MSNBC, CNN, and BET as well. Get it now? Once again, this isn't about you. Sorry you took it that way.
Nice.
My point was pretty simple. You'd rather not look at that picture, even taking steps to dismiss it's validity. You know it to be true, but you'd rather not see it, as it causes you discomfort. I think if we are going to take this kind of action, then we need to see all the results - good and bad. If you have your own business, you don't just look at the profits, you have to take a look at the losses as well.
On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 21:42:21 GMT, petben spewed forth:
You lose, get off my property.
My lord, what an amazing newsflash that other networks are biased.
It causes me none. http://www.goatse.cx causes me discomfort, this does not.
It's a tough old world, dude.
in article [email], Rev. Bleech_ at [email] wrote on 4/1/03 3:25 PM:
???
As valid as your point that Al Jazeera is biased.
Obviously, that's why you've taken this much time out of your life to respond to it.
Must be when you need to find sites like that for fun.
I'm done. I tried to have an actual conversation, but you seem predisposed to have a flame war. Enjoy.
On Wed, 02 Apr 2003 00:09:05 GMT, petben spewed forth:
Which actually had some relation to the conversation at hand.
Um, I'm responding to *you*, Junior.
I'm not the combative one here.
On or about Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:23:17 GMT, petben made the sensational claim that:
Hey, they're "balanced". At least if you have another tv showing CNN on the other end of the table.
Bush's war is an insult to *me* as an American. Yes, Saddam Hussein needs to go -- but it is *extremely* important that we use our position of power to set an example of civilized behavior. The weapons inspections were working -- they just needed more time than three months, as the inspectors said *from the beginning*. Anything we do *needs* to be done with the sanction of the international community -- otherwise we're just overgrown vigilante thugs. What happens now when Pakistan decides that they need to launch a first strike on India -- clearly an imminent danger to them? They can say "well, if the US can do it, so can we". We have a moral responsibility to the world to demonstrate the *real* power of liberty and democracy.
Remember, one of our strengths is our ability to dissent.
I personally would have been happy to see them continue with the inspections. The cost of increasing their numbers tenfold would have been a pittance compared to the cost of the war , and with them in place any threat that Saddam represents (I do agree he is a threat) is put on hold until they determine the existance of these weapons and can justify the war.
"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message news:b5i05n$290urj$[email]...
I agree that Saddam is a dictator, but I am not sure how he is a threat. He attacked Iran, but the US supported him in that. He invaded Kuwait for stealing Iraq's oil, and was quickly put back in his place by UN forces. That was nearly 12 years ago. Links to al Qaida have not been shown, and besides most of the people involved in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia (Which is another dictatorship the US supports.)
On 22 Mar 2003 15:13:10 GMT, [email] (Matthew Miller) spewed forth:
The international community ? Cameroon and Gabon and Lichtenstein have no right to dictate American policy.
American policy has no right to include offensive war.
Leons Petrazickis import java.lang.disclaimer;
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 22:43:59 -0500, Petrazickis spewed forth:
Thank God no one shared your beliefs back in the 40s.
"Rev. Bleech_" wrote in message news:[email]...
I think you'd better hit those history books again. In the 40s America was attacked first by Japan, and Germany and Italy both declared war on us _before_ we declared war on them.
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 06:01:55 GMT, "A.C." spewed forth:
...and I'm certain we had no intention whatsoever of entering the European theater until they did.
Rev. Bleech_ wrote in message news:...
We didn't; while Roosevelt wanted to enter the war, the majority of Americans wanted to remain out of it.
On 23 Mar 2003 10:53:57 -0800, [email] (A.C.) spewed forth:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpearlharbor.html
"But antiwar sentiment was waning quickly, especially in the wake of German U-boat attacks upon American vessels. In September, a poll showed 67 percent of the American public felt the United States should risk war rather than allow Japan to grow more powerful; 70 percent felt the United States should risk war with Germany. Many in Roosevelt's cabinet and the press felt that the President would have no difficulty in getting a declaration of war against Japan following the breakdown in peace negotiations in late November. But it was Roosevelt who refused to push the issue, instead waiting for Japan to make the first move."
Uh, if by "Roosevelt wanted to enter the war" you mean "Roosevelt was opposed to getting involved" then you would be half correct.
And also if by "the majority of Americans wanted to remain out of it" you mean "the majority of Americans wanted to get involved" then you would be totally correct.
This war does set a new precedent. It is pre-emptive, not reactionary. You can debate the pros and cons of such a war. I happen to agree with the new policy fervently. I don't give a rat's ass about France, Germany or Russia. They have no role in dictating American defense policy. In short, they can go fuck themselves.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
in article [email], Rev. Bleech_ at [email] wrote on 3/22/03 8:37 PM:
Actually, they did. We didn't get into WWII until we were attacked.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:40:13 GMT, petben spewed forth:
We were never attacked by Germany until after we declared war on them, and were never attacked by Italy at all.
Well, that would be incorrect (though I still agree with your initial statement). Germany (aka Hitler) declared war on us first. I believe it happened right after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. And Germany never really attacked the United States duruing WW2 as we had no interests within their reach at that time (not that they weren't trying: V2).
"Jason Saslow" wrote in message news:[email]...
statement). Germany (aka Hitler) >declared war on us first. I believe it happened right after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. And >Germany never really attacked the United States duruing WW2 as we had no interests within their
German u-boats sunk American ships right off the US coast.
Good point. I stand corrected.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:38:48 -0500, Jason Saslow spewed forth:
Not quite true...many many merchant ships sunk just off the coast and a few incidents of firing on land targets from submarines (for example, they fired on the Dow Chemical Plant at Fort Fisher, NC....but the shells sailed harmlessly overhead and into the river)
Good point. I stand corrected.
"Jason Saslow" wrote in message news:[email]...
You may find it more comfortable to sit down when reading the newsgroups, unless your monitor is mounted really high.
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Rev. Bleech_ wrote:
I think to properly understand Petrazickis' point you have to understand the difference between "offensive" and "defensive." You also have to know a little history.
-- L.Y.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:00:41 -0600, Luxury Yacht spewed forth:
Yes, my opinion that I believe America *can* have a right to include offensive war means I know nothing of history.
Thanks for the sad attempt at reviving this mostly-dead thread though.
The outside world has no right to dictate American defense policy. If you do not agree with our actions, remain neutral.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
in article [email], Chris� at [email] wrote on 3/23/03 12:33 PM:
The sheer irony of this statement says it all.
Must have missed it. Explain again how it's ironic that the US protects itself?
"Jason Saslow" wrote in message news:[email]...
itself?
Right, so you're under the impression that if the US left Hussein alone to do as he wishes that once he had the capability either through nuclear, biological or chemical weapons (which he is in fact close) he would NOT attack the US.
Ignorance is bliss, my friend...
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:47:17 -0500, Jason Saslow spewed forth:
99.99999% sure he wouldn't. Doesn't mean he might not sell them to someone who WOULD though.
in article [email], Jason Saslow at [email] wrote on 3/24/03 12:39 PM:
Let me repost the original statement for clarity:
"No one can tell us what to do, so if you don't like like it, do as we tell you."
Get it now?
Not really. Isn't the US standing neutral with respect to France and it's dealings with the Ivory Coast? Shouldn't we expect the same from them in return?
in article [email], Jason Saslow at [email] wrote on 3/24/03 1:43 PM:
So 2 wrongs do make right? I'm not trying to argue right and wrong, only that your earlier statement was ironic.
Wasn't my statement. I only asked because I didn't see the irony. I see what you're saying though. I guess I just disagree. No biggie...
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 15:33:15 -0500 (EST), [email] (Chris�) wrote:
Soo... when the US decides that *your* country is next up for a preemptive regime change, you just remain neutral?
But the US have the right to dictate everybody else's policy? Mind you, the United Nations isn't just Cameroon and Gabon and Lichtenstein. The UN rejected plans for attack over and over again, because THEY WERE GETTING RESULTS. So Bush says "the UN has failed"? How many times has the US used *their* power of veto in the UN? Lots. Now France threatens to use theirs for once, and the US says the UN has "failed". Failed in being a toy for the US interests? Well, cheers for it failing! The excuse for this war is that Iraq didn't desarm, so it has violated UN resolutions. What *is* the US doing now, if not violating UN resolutions, then?
As Putin put it -- "If we allow international law to be replaced by "the law of the fist" whereby the strong is always right and has the right to do anything and in choosing methods to achieve his goals is not constrained by anything, then one of the basic principles of international law will be put into question, and that is the principle of immutable sovereignty of a state". I say it more simply -- attacking somebody just because you can when peaceful negotiation is working is just plan WRONG.
I maintain what I said @ TLZ -- this attack shouldn't have happened. Things were finally turning out right, the UN inspectors were getting results without blood being spilled, and this attack ruined everything. It's not just "evil iraqui soldiers" that are dying. IT'S PEOPLE DYING OUT THERE, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE! People with hopes and dreams and families. People just like you and I, even if they don't have the same comforts or culture, they're still people who are dying and can never be brought back.
On 22 Mar 2003 20:03:05 -0800, [email] (Leandro Pardini) spewed forth:
Straw man.
No, the UN rejected plans for attack over and over again because France utterly refused to even consider the notion and hung its' veto power over it everytime.
The UN has been a sputtering failure nearly since its' inception. It exists now for one reason : to try and convince tiny shitsplat countries that the US, UK, France, China, Russia, etc. actually give a shit what they think.
Failed in taking any manner of decisive action on the issue in 12 years. Failed to be anything but a high school debate club. Failed to be anything but a fucking joke. This is an organization that put Libya at the head of its' human rights committee and, ironically enough, Iraq at the head of its disarmament conference. An organization that fails to differentiate between dictatorship and democracy in its' ranks. An organization that considers Yemen and Syria's opinion just as worthy as Switzerland and Portugal's. Fuck the UN.
FOR GODZ SAKE WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hmm... you seem to forget the words coming from the US government that amounted to saying that whatever the UN voted (and this was way before France was demonised for daring to exercise a veto that the US has used more than any other of the big five in the past) they would go it alone if needed, despite the vote of the UN. It's funny that you have a selective memory, but probably typical. Just face it, your wacky president, and our pathetic prime minister, lost the argument at the UN whatever blame you want to give to France.
Oooh, look, it's the French boogeyman! Better run.
I do tend to agree with this (not the childish reference to smaller countries, though). However, maybe you should look in the corridors of the White House about this failure rather than Cameroon or somewhere.
How many dictators has the US sponsored in the past? Wasn't your government in the '80s supporting Saddam when he was attacking those "evil" Iranians? Seems that you, yet again, have a selective memory.
I suppose you'd not be taking the piss if it were about 911, eh? People are dying out there, but I suppose that doesn't matter to a brave armchair general.
Graham
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 10:52:43 +0000 (UTC), Graham spewed forth:
Selective my ass. Whatever foolishnes the US got up to at the UN, France is just as responsible for short-circuiting a diplomatic solution.
Why bother ? France is the only country in the world where the boogeyman runs from YOU.
Childish but true.
"There is only the failure of America and the Great Benign Other"
Stop building strawmen for a few minutes and point where I ever suggested they DIDN'T. If you want to discuss selective memory, then lets' discuss the fact that France AND Russia CONTINUED to have lucrative oil and weapons deals with them even after the Gulf War.
Hrm, an attack targeted entirely at helpless civilians vs an attack target entirely on the Iraqi leadership....yeah, valid comparison *thumbs down*
BWAHAHAHAH. For the record, I opposed this damn war.
Still people are dying in Baghdad, even helpless civilians. But, I suppose they're "evil" Iraqis, so don't really count.
Yeah, alright, if you say so.
Graham
On or about Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:08:10 +0000 (UTC), Graham made the sensational claim that:
That's because Saddam likes to put his military stuff next to places like hospitals and schools. So when they get bombed, he can parade the civilian casualties around and scream how inhumane we are.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:08:10 +0000 (UTC), Graham spewed forth:
There's gonna be a damn forest of straw men around here before long. Hope no one lights a match.
Yup.
I still say it's rich of you to simply focus on those issues of the UN, which are, admittedly, inconsistent in their nature, yet ignore the history of US diplomacy with brutal dictators, like that with your present fixation, Saddam. You say fuck the UN, but maybe I'll ask you what you think of the US in that case?
As for France and Russia, well yeah, maybe they've been profiting off Iraq for the last twelve years, but I still don't see how that justifies a war. It may explain further why France and Russia are opposed to it, but it still doesn't make the argument against war any less sound. Anyway, I still think it's rich that you point to France and Russia when I can point to Oliver North. :P I could go on with US inconsistencies of this nature, but I'd end up typing here for days. ;) Sure, it's history, but history does have a tendency to repeat itself.
Anyway, enough of this, I have to go out and buy some French cheese and Russian vodka. I think I'll hold back on the Freedom Fries, though. :P
Graham
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:30:53 +0000 (UTC), Graham spewed forth:
Pardon me for not covering the full scope of American diplomacy 1793 to the Present while commenting on the UN.
That they often make incredibly boneheaded decisons in choosing the ally of the moment. But hey, even Churchill climbed into bed with Stalin for awhile.
sigh. *watches as a virtual army gets up and dances about singing about getting a brain from the Wizard*
Nope. But it does make the idea that these governments are pursuing this stance for any humanitarian reason completely and utterly laughable.
But dude, calling them Freedom Fries deals a MORTAL BLOW to the French !
Well perhaps your understanding of the situation is a bit skewed. The US isn't at war with Iraq because France and Russia are getting sweet deals from them. I can't even begin to imagine where you got that impression...
<SNIP>
Two words: Ivory Coast. Let me know when France comes to the UN for a "resolution" to deal with those matters in which they are doing precisely what they claim the US is doing in Iraq.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains!!!"
Ummm... OK. English is your first language, right?
Ditto to my previous question.
Graham
That has got to be the worst defense to a position I've ever heard or read. You're backed into a corner so you claim I can't formulate a sentence. Very adult of you. What's next "yo mamma so fat"?
Don't bother replying if you're not going to address the points made.
I'm more worried how you came to those conclusions about what I was arguing. But, I suppose in these times, anything's on the agenda.
I suggest you reread what I wrote and then rephrase your questions in a more relevant and serious manner.
Have a nice day.
Graham
Ah, now that I've pointed out your poor attempt at avoiding the issue, you proceed to another tactic in which you claim I am now neither relevant nor serious.
I included the exact unaltered text to which I was responding. There is no other way to interpret what you said when I responded. Don't want to continue discussing the issue you raised, fine. Don't try and make it seem like I'm the one changint the topic.
LOL! I'd treat you more seriously if you actually responded to what I really said rather than what you claim I did. If you can't be arsed to actually read what I said and make an *honest* response to it, then I can't be arsed with a proper response towards you. Anyway, seeing you haven't got the point, and seeing we're boring the others out there, I'll save your time and say that you really need to look in the mirror first before declaring another ugly. Think about it, it's free advice.
Graham
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:51:43 -0500, Jason Saslow spewed forth:
And this thread has what MUST be the worst line wrap I've ever seen.
OK, I'll be a little more fairer in my response, even if I don't see why I should. Can I ask where I suggested that the US and UK is at war against Iraq due to anything that Russia and France are up to in that region? Maybe this is why I questioned your comprehension of the English language. Could it be that I was simply saying France and Russia's call for a peaceful means to solve this situation was the right course, even if it was due to their economic interests in Iraq? Just because they have an interest in the region, doesn't necessarily make them wrong.
Also, notice that I didn't treat the Rev in the same way as you... simply because he challenged what I actually was arguing, not what he thought I was arguing.
Again, what has this got to do with my reply to the Rev? Can you illuminate me further before claiming I'm backed into any corner. You flatter yourself.
It would also be more honest of you if you quoted all the relevant parts from me, rather than cut up the sentences to skew my words in your favour.
There, is that a better reply now?
Graham
No offense, but you say "more fairer" and then two sentences later actually question my understanding of the English language?
You said it right here:
"As for France and Russia, well yeah, maybe they've been profiting off Iraq for the last twelve years, but I still don't see how that ["that" in proper English context referring to your statement "France and Russia profiting off of Iraq"] justifies a war."
Well, would a valid point of view; however, that's just not what you said.
Uh... OK. There doesn't appear to be a difference in what Rev "argued" and what I "thought you were arguing" based on the similar responses we both gave to your aforementioned point; however, you seem to feel there is one.
It's clear we're not going to reach a middle ground on this and you're going to argue tooth-and-nail that what you posted was not what you actually meant and you'll probably continue to question my understanding of English while you post with poor grammar and spelling. So I'm just going to stop here...
I said "fairer", I didn't say "fair". Learn English.
Maybe if you read the whole post, *including what I quoted from the Rev*, you'd see the context in which I set those words. Let me remind you below with the paragraphs before the offending paragraph..
Now, let's carry on with what you quote from me, plus more.
Any moron with a decent command of the English language would be able to deduce that what I was talking about wasn't what you were claiming I said: that the war was being fought because of the interests of France and Russia in that region. Context is everything. Is it getting clearer now? *knocks on Jason's head*
Yeah, OK, if you think that. *sigh*
Then I suggest you go back to infant school, or even sue your teacher for doing a bad job.
Yeah, quit while you're behind. :P Seriously, you have a problem with understanding the English language and using it adequately, then accuse me of your shortcomings. Rich! :D
One other thing, format your posts properly, or is that also beyond you?
Graham
HELLO! The UN has failed! The UN had TWELVE YEARS to get results. We don't need "permission" from the UN for protection from terrorists like Saddam and Osama. Even if "peaceful negotiations" if you even call it that, was progressing, Saddam would still eventually attack those he considers "evil", in fact he has already attacked the United States by funding the terrorists responsible for the attacks on 9/11. This war IS necessary to protect our freedom from insane people like Saddam, so that 9/11 will not happen again. The US troops there are fighting for our freedom and I praise them for the sacrifice they are making so that people like you and me can live freely. Bush did all he could to avoid war (like giving Saddam 48 hours to get out of Iraq and giving the UN plenty of time to search for weapons)
Don't you realize many many innocent people in Iraq are dying BECAUSE OF SADDAM? The war is also to free the Iraqis from these tortures and executions Saddam has put on his OWN people. Saddam even ordered his troops to execute US soldiers captured by blowing their heads off and then just leaving their bodies to rot. You call THAT "peaceful"? Saddam is a bigger threat to us than this war. Saddam needs to be stopped ASAP! It saddens me to think anyone could be anti-war at a time like this.
Clearly TLZ is anti-war, anti-American.
[email] wrote:
Have you got something interesting to say or are you in rant mode?
Graham
in article [email], DSV75 at [email] wrote on 3/23/03 2:26 PM:
Okay, fair enough. But since most funding for Osama's terrorist operations come from Saudi Arabia, most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi's, and the Saudi's still house large numbers of Osama's people and facilities, why aren't we attacking them?
BTW: There has been no official link between Iraq and the 9/11 attack established. There has been much supposition to that effect however, but no actual proof. We do have substantial proof vs the Saudi's.
*Snip*
Get over your cheap self. This country is founded on the ideals of free speech. We are allowed to disagree, Senator McCarthy.
Can I also add that I know of many Americans who are anti-war. What does that make them?
TLZ's words by some of its webmasters (including myself) aren't there to bash Americans, but to bash the current road that the *government* of that country has taken in world affairs concerning Iraq... no, concerning all of us in this world.
As you indicate, Senator McCarthy confused opposition to government policy with being un-american. It's unfortunate that his spirit seems to still live on in some quarters. However, it's also good to see a few people in the States who won't give that kind of crap any quarter.
Anyway, Futurama is a satirical show, so why shouldn't it attract some political thought from its fans.
Graham
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:57:02 GMT, petben spewed forth:
If I had my way, we would be. Bunch of snivelling toadies at best over there.
This is actually the first time I've ever seen anyone buy the idea that Iraq was. I'm so disappointed.
in article [email], Rev. Bleech_ at [email] wrote on 3/24/03 12:42 PM:
Why aren't we, though? I think I know the answer, but I'm not sure you do.
Was what?
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:44:38 GMT, petben spewed forth:
Because they are considered allies for some utterly incomprehensible reason and we'd lose an airbase besides.
Was having anything to do with September 11th. Not your post, a previous one you were responding to.
in article [email], Rev. Bleech_ at [email] wrote on 3/24/03 4:12 PM:
The reason is not so incomprehensible: $$/Oil
Thanks for clearing that up.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:30:31 GMT, petben spewed forth:
Which really isn't that big a deal because we can get oil from elsewhere.
You are absolutely 100% correct. This I still can't explain and despise the fact that we're turning a blind eye to that matter. Oil is really the only thing I can think of as a reason for this. It's unfortunate and despicable; however, that aside, I still believe what we're doing in Iraq is justified. Too bad we won't be going after Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Turkey, Iran, etc. next...
Well, there is, really; however, it's kind of a weak one. I forget the guy's name, but someone involved in carrying out the planning met with Hussein a few weeks before the attack took place. That much has been proven; however, no one knows the contents of the discussion. Circumstantial? Yes. Does anyone really think they were talking about last week's cricket match over high-tea? No.
[email] wrote on 3/24/03 12:53 PM:
Give it time. I'm sure we'll need some new villains come election time. Why no North Korea? Not Muslim enough? (Sorry, that probably wasn't fair, but it did catch me as odd as they are by far the country that poses the biggest problem.)
It was proven he met with someone in Hussein's inner circle, not Hussein himself. It makes little difference though. I do have a hard time basing a war on what "might" have been said in a conversation, however. I heard Castro called Putin the other day. I bet they weren't talking about planting daisies either.
The truth is I'm still a bit on the fence about this whole situation. I believe Saddam is a bad guy, no doubt, but I would have liked some actual proof of bio/nuclear weapons production and a wide base of international support. If the administration can be so adamant that the evidence is there, why couldn't they just show it? Seems the international community was begging for some actual proof, and we failed to provide it.
Iraq is currently an easier villian to identify at this point in time. North Korea is certainly a larger threat; however, the average US citizen is not familiar with what's been going on over there and when last we were, there was a very unpopular war going on in which we pretty much lost and tried to claim it was a tie...
I can't imagine anyone really wants to get involved with them again, when the last conflict there is still fresh in everyone's mind.
Good question. I believe that Iraq never permitted inspectors to get anywhere near anything that could be considered proof. I know there were manuals and booklets on their weapons programs from which dozens of pages were missing, but that doesn't really prove anything. Just proves they're hiding something.
I think once the dust settles in Iraq we'll find a whole bunch of proof or we'll find nothing and it will be based upon that, that people make their final judgements on this issue.
Strangely enough, I'm almost hoping that they find nothing because I'm not terribly fond of Bush (and never was); however, weapons aside, the genocide going on over there for decades, to me, warrants what the US is doing there.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:16:18 GMT, petben spewed forth:
Of course, the entire non-North Korean world would probably be unified against them if worse came to worse. Even China is none too happy with the idea of Jong throwing nukes around.
This is the only solid argument I've heard from the anti-war crowd.
I can give you a partial answer: $$.
The Saudis have both political parties in their pockets: the Rebublicans are controlled by their oil money, the Democrats are influenced by Islamist (terrorism supporting) organizations like CAIR. Meanwhile the Arabs accuse the _Jews_ of all people of controlling America...
When the US can shrug off its addiction to fossil fuels and simulateously stops accepting the bogus "Islam is a religion of peace" mantra, the Saudis will be screwed
On 26 Mar 2003 08:37:12 GMT, [email] (Gyumaoh) spewed forth:
Gotta have something to turn to first though. *grumbles and kicks at the ground, remembering all the early speculation about the Segway's propulsion system*
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:29:48 GMT, Rev. Bleech_ went upon the mount and spoke thus:
And that won't happen because Big Oil wouldn't stand for it...
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 11:27:47 -0500, Mirror Spock spewed forth:
No, Big Oil would still have mad revenue coming in. Hydrogen-cell cars or somesuch isn't going to destroy demand for oil.
And anyway, I'm quite certain big oil would want to buy into whatever alternative emerges as soon as possible.
"Rev. Bleech_" wrote in message news:[email]...
So you're saying you're against a world democracy? What do you favor then?
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:26:31 GMT, "That Guy" spewed forth:
When the rest of the world is democratic, come ask me.
"Rev. Bleech_" wrote in message news:[email]...
What do you mean the "rest of the world"? Do you think the USA is a democracy?
in article FcHga.8$[email], That Guy at [email] wrote on 3/27/03 10:15 AM:
What's the quote from Ghandi?
"Democracy is a great idea,..."
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:15:01 GMT, "That Guy" spewed forth:
Far more of one than the average third world shithole whose opinions are so valued.
<SNIP>
12 years, my friend... They had 12 years to comply with weapons inspectors. Hussein forced the inspectors out in 1998 after *7 years* of the same garbage we were getting before they went in. What makes you think that Hussein, after 12 years of getting away with this crap, was just "suddenly" going to comply?
In those 12 long years, have you any idea how many of his own people Hussein has brutally murdered while we stood idly by and did nothing (not including the suicide bombers he paid and to blow up busses in Israel along with subsequent casualties)?
Well, let's see what the weapons inspectors *themselves* say, since neither of us are there. From the BBC:
"We had made rapid start," he said. "We did not have any obstacles from the Iraqi side in going anywhere. They gave us prompt access and we were in a great many places all over Iraq."
....
"I somewhat doubt that when (the Security Council) got the resolution last November they really intended to give under three-and-a-half months for inspections," Mr Blix said.
This is off-topic here so I'm not going to reply further. Plenty of newsgroups where this is an appropriate debate.
On 22 Mar 2003 19:43:02 GMT, [email] (Matthew Miller) spewed forth:
Mr. Blix also stated that they were being "uncooperative".
Right, but if Miller included that part, then he wouldn't have appeared correct in what he deemed his last contribution to this off-topic thread. So you can see why it wasn't included...
in article [email], Jason Saslow at [email] wrote on 3/22/03 10:56 AM:
Do you?
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:37:10 GMT, petben spewed forth:
Human Rights Watch has it up somewhere on their site (IIRC) if either of you are actually interested.
in article [email], Rev. Bleech_ at [email] wrote on 3/24/03 12:43 PM:
I am. I ask because I'm pretty sure you were referring to the mustard gas attacks that took place on the Kurds back in Bush Sr's run at president. I'm just wondering why we're using this a reason some 12-15 years later when it wasn't good enough back then? And why it's not good enough for the numerous African nations that have practiced genocide in the past 20 years?
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:50:59 GMT, petben spewed forth:
Because it's now an unacceptable threat to *us* instead. While the threat level of Iraqi WMD is debatable, this war is less about their particular weapons than making an example of Hussein.
Ask the UN.
in article [email], Rev. Bleech_ at [email] wrote on 3/24/03 4:13 PM:
It is? 15 years later? On US soil? We're claiming Iraq has breached weapon agreements because their missiles can go 70 miles instead 60. That's not even remotely close to being capable of reaching the USA.
I thought we already made an "example" of Afghanistan? How many examples are we going to set, and who are we making these examples for?
Why, we're not listening to them anymore, remember? The whole question revolves around why are we justified in going to war *without* UN backing?
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:46:35 GMT, petben spewed forth:
Being close to reaching the US isn't the issue; being in the hands of an unstable dictator who isn't above selling them to people like Al-Qaeda or Hamas is.
Nope. They went into Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda.
Before you seemed to think they were the solution to *Iraq*, why not *Africa* too ?
in article [email], Rev. Bleech_ at [email] wrote on 3/24/03 8:33 PM:
Fair enough.
So who are we setting an example for? I thought it was for nations that support Al-Qaeda? And why couldn't they see what happened to Afganistan for that example?
You seem to be avoiding the question. If you think the genocidal tendencies of the Iraqis is motivation enough for the US to act alone, why isn't it enough for us to go into the African nations that practiced the same?
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:30:27 GMT, petben spewed forth:
No, Iraq is an example for dictators who would build this stuff knowing full well they shouldn't. The Taliban wasn't an example so much as something in the way/
Well, one reason might be that Afghanistan, like Yemen, didn't have that much government to begin with (i.e. once you get out of a couple of major cities, they pretty much cease to exist)
I don't.
Hundreds of thousands, my friend. If you were paying any attention at all to news coverage when we started bombing Iraq (this time), just about all they were talking about were the chemical attacks on villages that killed five thousand at a clip.
in article [email], Jason Saslow at [email] wrote on 3/24/03 12:56 PM:
If you paid any attention to the news, you would realize that's not "new"s at all. In fact it happened back in George Sr's term in office (1988). And not to diminish the horror of the gas attacks on the Kurds, but it was about 5,000 killed by gas and closer to 12,000 total people dead in the attacks.
Here's a link http://www.krg.org/reference/halabja/index.asp
BTW: With the Turks entering Iraq from the North (without the USA's blessing), there is little to no chance these people will be "freed' by the US led invasion. In fact Turkey has claimed the only reason they are entering the conflict is to prevent a Kurd state from forming on their border.
Right, those are just "a few" of the Iraqi people who were killed by Hussein and/or his sons. It by no means, ended there...
in article [email], Jason Saslow at [email] wrote on 3/24/03 5:13 PM:
There is no evidence at all of the further mass killing of Kurds since those 1988 attacks. The Kurds are generally protected by American pilots in a section of Northern Iraq covered by the "no fly" zone (the main reason it was established) and have been since the Gulf War. To use genocide as the crux of the argument for invasion requires some proof that it's occurring now. Not 15 years ago.
That's the crux of the issue.
The UN had 12 years and did nothing about Iraq.
The UN will do nothing about the US if this war lasts 12 years
The only one who will defend the US is the US. (A lot of good the UN did against Al-Qaeda... before or after 9/11)
To be absolutely blunt, we the US will do whatever the fuck we feel is necessary to defend our country and the naysayers of the world will have to be content with registering their complaints on their fansites.
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Jason Saslow wrote:
A common bit of incorrect propeganda. The inspectors were withdrawn when we decided to attack.
Yes, he is a bad man. Especially since he attacks other contries without provocation.
-- L.Y.
I'm sorry, had it been 12 years or not? Was it not 7 years of the same BS before the inspectors "left" or were "forced to leave"?
Matthew Miller wrote:
Was it an example of civilized behaviour to sit around watching genocide unfold in Rwanda and Bosnia?
They relied on sanctions and a credible threat of force. The sanctions are already said to have directly resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children and the threat of force was about to expire because...
...in a couple of months time it would have become impossible for the US to invade because of the extreme temperatures.
I should imagine they'll think twice, given that both countries have a nuclear capability.
Dave.
"DSV75" wrote in message news:[email]...
going to
and
many
I
Yeah, really. When will people LEARN that "warmonger" is sufficient and that the EXTRA "er" is Not Needed?
Hmm.. *Sniff* what's that? *sniff* i smell a... TROLL! :D
in article [email], DSV75 at [email] wrote on 3/21/03 10:10 PM:
Let's see. The webmaster of the Leela Zone makes off topic posts on his site, so you're going to get back at him by making off topic posts here?
It's a free country. You can both say what you want, but hypocrisy makes me laugh.
Just curious, did the site take a "stance" on 9/11?
Where is "ar"? Argentina!?
The webmaster has a right to free speech, but it's a rather foolish place to exercise it; it obviously will offend many visitors to the site.
USENET is a better place for these kind of discussions... just not this newsgroup
On 26 Mar 2003 09:07:48 GMT, [email] (Gyumaoh) spewed forth:
Well, if you don't like it, don't go there.
I bet you have a big 'ol American flag decal on your huge SUV, and have proudly voted Republican since you were 18.
-- L.Y.
On 22 Mar 2003, DSV75 wrote:
In article , [email] (DSV75) wrote:
If you support Bush and the Pentagon, you aren't an American, you're an evil, cowardly, loser pussy, and a traitor both to this country and to humanity, and you deserve to be treated accordingly.
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:18:26 -0800, "Greg K." spewed forth:
TROLLFIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, anyone who supports Bush and US troops over in Iraq SUPPORTS America. As long as you at least support US troops making the sacrifices they're making for us, you still support America (even if you don't agree with how Bush is handling things.)
Should I dare say whose side GregK is on, based on his comment?
GregK, whose side are you on anyway? Saddam is the evil, coward, and traitor to his country, not Bush or anyone who supports him.