Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 87
  1. #41  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Alright. Again, you're just being difficult.
    No, I'm not. If that makes you feel better about yourself or your views, feel free to think it, but "having faith in something does not make it true".
    White flag. I give up.
    So, you're part French?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #42  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Considering that we're not seeing the rest of the scene, you can't even say that. The guy with the gun may be just standing there.
    Based upon the position of the visible hand, that gun is definitely being aimed. Of course, that's part of standard procedure until the five S's (search, silence, segregate, speed and safeguard) have been completed.

    [The capturing forces] take care of their captives' immediate needs: You make sure they have food and water and you take care of any injuries. The Geneva Convention governs everything, but this is basically common sense.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  3. #43  
    Originally posted by MarkEagle
    Based upon the position of the visible hand, that gun is definitely being aimed. [...]
    Sure, it's being held at the ready (not any different than the national guardsmen at the airports just after September 11th were holding them for an example a layman might recognize), but I was referring more to it's not being pointed at the guy's head. For example, note the Brit soldier in the pic from the link you posted. He is holding the gun at the ready, but it's pointed at the ground in front of the white flags not at them. The guy in the Yahoo pic can quite easily be aiming at the ground beside the captive.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #44  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Sure, it's being held at the ready... The guy in the Yahoo pic can quite easily be aiming at the ground beside the captive.
    Absolutely, I agree... I wasn't implying anything else. The "perception" or "perspective" of the photo is not clear.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  5. #45  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by boardoe

    By the way, if Saddam Hussein uses those missiles to deliver bio or chem weapons against American soldiers, he will be using weapons that we supplied him years ago when the US believed that he was useful in fighting Iran. That doesn't mean the decision to do that then was wrong then (despite how it looks now), Just thought I'd highlight that and agree.
    I don't, giving chemical/biological weapons to anybody to use them on a common enemy is not the right thing to do...period.

    I find it very ironic that Iraq uses the US' weapons against them selfs... but at the same time I feel sorry for the military personal that potetially gets attacked by those weapons.. it is not their fault.. yet they get hit with it...
    I also find it surprizing that the american public isn't screaming mad that their troops could potetially be hit by chemical weapons they supplied themself...
    The world is a confusing place nowadays...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  6. #46  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    I don't, giving chemical/biological weapons to anybody to use them on a common enemy is not the right thing to do...period.

    I find it very ironic that Iraq uses the US' weapons against them selfs... [...]
    I've often seen this allegation, but I've never seen any substance to back it up. Happen to have a reliable link (as opposed to something culled from Google)? In the same show which I previously referenced a Scott Ritter statement, he stated that such allegations were false.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #47  
    Clulup,

    I think that you ahve summarized all the reasons why I am against the U.S going into Iraq. I strongly believe that the weapons of mass destruction schtick is just a smokescreen.

    Originally posted by clulup
    Why do you focus on France, that's just silly. A clear majority of the UN security council was against Bush and Blair, and also Russia and China had announced a veto. Don't try to persuade yourself it is only France, the great majority of nations, let alone their population, is clearly against this violation of international law. So feel free to add Swiss (my home country), German, Italian, Swedish (you name it) companies to your list. The list will be very long, but don't worry, just go ahead.

    We all agree that Saddam is a cruel criminal who has to be controlled, removed, killed, whatever. But in this war (like in the last) children, women, men will be killed who did not chose to be ruled by him. And don't forget: Saddam only is in power because of the US - they thought he would be usefull against Iran - but that's another story.

    Here a few questions:

    - In the last war the water supply of Iraq was a prime target of the allied forces. US scientists have revealed a detailed plan of the US administration to weaken Irak by preventing the delivery of certain chemicals used for water treatment before and during the embargo. Because of this, approx. 500'000 children have died in Iraq due to infections (UN estimation). Is that fair?

    - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby and others (unfortunately now part of the Bush administration) have never made a secret out of the fact that in their opinion, US Forces should control the Middly East (read http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...sDefenses.pdf, a product of the think tank they were part of) due to the strategic importance (oil!!!) of the region. Do you really believe Bush's target is democracy for Iraq? If so, why is the US Administration constantly on the side of dictators like the King of Saudi Arabia and other leaders of Arabic nations, none of which are democracies? If the people of these countries would vote, the would definitely vote anti-US, tough ****, wonder why? Maybe because they feel the US government acts arrogantly and exclusively supports Israel?

    - Powell claimed that UN inspectors have only found the tip of the iceberg. US intelligence has been observing Iraq von decades now, if there really are icebergs (weapons of mass destruction), why can't they bring up ANY evidence apart from some tapes and pictures of factories which were later shown to be empty, destroyed or whatever by UN inspectors. That was a very poor show, not convincing at all, but any excuse for war was ok, obviously.

    - Is a christian fundamentalist (in the way Bush seems to be one) any better than any other fudamentalist?

    - You want to be a superpower, but you don't have health insurance for a major part of the people?

    I am aware of the fact that the Bush administration is not USA in general, but the way Bush acts, the US will be a lonely place in the world soon.

    Regards,
    clulup
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  8. #48  
    One of the impetus of this war is to boost the economy and the stock markets. American administrations always use military adventures to take American's minds from things going on at home. So far it seems that the war is going as planned. Stock markets had the best week in 20 years and people are talking about the war instead of the moribund economy.


    Originally posted by KKenna
    I think in a perfect world, the number of innocents to die to remove a tyrant like Saddam would be 0. Hopefully, it's not just rhetoric that most of the invasion will be met with Iraquis giving up with their hands in the air, and no real casualties will be seen until Bagdad.

    I can't say that I'm in favor of what's going on in the middle east. This effort is simply going to be too expensive during a time when the US really needs to have the $$$ spent at home. Yes, Saddam is evil and should be killed. I'm not sure if anyone remembers the videos of him when he first came into power where he dragged out any cabinet member who ever spoke out against him into the street and shot them in the head. This guy is really bad for a a peaceful planet. However, I'm also not happy with the way our own country is being run at the moment. George Bush basically bought and cheated his way into the White House, and is using tax dollars (Billions of them) to fight an unnecessary war. What makes us think that we can solve other countries problems when we are sitting by and watching our own go to pieces ?

    George Bush is a pompus *** who's is imposing his beliefs on a lazy nation and, apparantly, the entire world. I have a 12 year old and I fear for the reparations that will have to be made in the wake of the current US aggression in the middle east. How can sending our children to die or kill the children of another nation result in peace ?
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  9. #49  
    Well I still think that the Iraqi qar is unjustified and is setting a very dangerous precedent. It makes me wonder what the U.S is going to come up with the sell Americans that they need to invade Iran or Syria or some other state they run by people they do not like.

    When the war began, the angry person in me wanted as much American casualties as possible. Now that I have calmed down, I am hoping that the casualties are minimal on both sides, and that the war ends very quickly.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  10.    #50  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    I don't, giving chemical/biological weapons to anybody to use them on a common enemy is not the right thing to do...period.
    You're missing the point. I was pointing out that the argument that somehow, because a different administration supported Iraq in a different situation, that it is wrong to go after them now. The only thing anyone can ever do is what they think is best. Those perceptions will always change and of course hindsight is perfect. Don't consider that an endorsement of using chemical weapons, it is a broader statement attacking a weak argument.
  11.    #51  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Clulup,

    I think that you ahve summarized all the reasons why I am against the U.S going into Iraq. I strongly believe that the weapons of mass destruction schtick is just a smokescreen.

    It definitely could be. The fact of the matter is, the man is not an asset to the world and his removal could be a huge plus. See my comments regarding the hypothetical murder case acquitted on a technicality.
  12.    #52  
    Originally posted by yardie
    One of the impetus of this war is to boost the economy and the stock markets. American administrations always use military adventures to take American's minds from things going on at home. So far it seems that the war is going as planned. Stock markets had the best week in 20 years and people are talking about the war instead of the moribund economy.
    Wow, I don't think I've heard a more offensive statement in all the posts here. You think American presidents send thousands of people to their deaths "always" to boost stock prices? Wow.
  13.    #53  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Well I still think that the Iraqi qar is unjustified and is setting a very dangerous precedent. It makes me wonder what the U.S is going to come up with the sell Americans that they need to invade Iran or Syria or some other state they run by people they do not like.

    When the war began, the angry person in me wanted as much American casualties as possible. Now that I have calmed down, I am hoping that the casualties are minimal on both sides, and that the war ends very quickly.
    Is it a dangerous precedent? Showing dictators their fate... It's not like we're marching on Paris (though French social capital is lacking in the US these days).
  14. #54  
    Originally posted by yardie
    the angry person in me wanted as much American casualties as possible
    Whether or not you still feel this way, the angry person in me takes great exception to this statement. The troops (U.S. and others) doing the "dirty" work of this war are merely doing their jobs. I'm certain that, if given a choice, the vast majority of them would want to avoid conflict, but that's not their decision to make.

    Whether or not I support the reasons why this war is being fought (for the most part I don't), those men and women have my FULL support, respect, and admiration. I've even got a tremendous amount of compassion for the Iraqi troops who are also only doing their jobs, albeit for a leader and regime that doesn't deserve that kind of respect.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  15. #55  
    KRamsauer,

    The think with mnost Americans is that they thing their goverment is too good to do anything wrong. Well America has done (or attempted to do) a lot of bad things over the decades in the name of American interests. I am not saying what they did was unbjustified etc., after all, they are just looking out for number one. What I am saying is that the American goverment isn't always pure and noble in their endeavours.

    Many believe that President Clinton sent tomahawk missiles in Sudan and Afghanistan a few years back to get Americans mind off the Lewinsky scandal. I read in my local newspaper a week back a suggestion by some American stock analysts and economics that a quick war may be what the economy needs.


    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Wow, I don't think I've heard a more offensive statement in all the posts here. You think American presidents send thousands of people to their deaths "always" to boost stock prices? Wow.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  16. #56  
    It is a dangerous precedent for one soverign country to invade another sovereign country. I wonder if you would have felt the same way you do now if Russia or China had invaded Iraq to "free the Iraqi people" instead of the U.S. You can bet that the U.S would be the first to say that Russia or China is violating international law etc. etc.


    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Is it a dangerous precedent? Showing dictators their fate... It's not like we're marching on Paris (though French social capital is lacking in the US these days).
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  17. #57  
    You are right. But does this make it justified? Which other non-asset will the U.S try to remove in the future? What kind of propaganda will they come up with to justify this action?

    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    It definitely could be. The fact of the matter is, the man is not an asset to the world and his removal could be a huge plus. See my comments regarding the hypothetical murder case acquitted on a technicality.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  18.    #58  
    Originally posted by yardie
    KRamsauer,

    The think with mnost Americans is that they thing their goverment is too good to do anything wrong. Well America has done (or attempted to do) a lot of bad things over the decades in the name of American interests. I am not saying what they did was unbjustified etc., after all, they are just looking out for number one. What I am saying is that the American goverment isn't always pure and noble in their endeavours.
    I read in my local newspaper a week back a suggestion by some American stock analysts and economics that a quick war may be what the economy needs.
    Regarding the first paragraph: I never said that the US is always benevolent, it's just that your assertion that war is "always" partly motivated by money seems crass. And regarding the second, the reason those analysts and such say the war is needed is because the buildup to it has been a drag--the uncertainty surrounding it all. Therefore the whole endeavor is a net zero. The only reason the war is seen as lifting markets is because everyone has been so afraid of the uncertainty as to not do much. By focussing on the last part of the series of events you are missing the true impact.
  19. #59  
    Originally posted by yardie
    When the war began, the angry person in me wanted as much American casualties as possible.
    Yikes! If I had any close friends or relatives over there, as I am certain some members on this board do, I would not be very forgiving of that sentiment.

    I am hoping that the casualties are minimal on both sides
    As do I.
    Last edited by K. Cannon; 03/22/2003 at 04:15 PM.
  20. #60  
    Originally posted by yardie
    [...] I read in my local newspaper a week back a suggestion by some American stock analysts and economics that a quick war may be what the economy needs.
    After personally talking with just such an analyst this past week, I can assure you that their actual reference is likely not to the war per se, but rather to the removal of the uncertainty. IOW, getting rid of the unknown either way would be good. The economy and stock market are con games in the most fundamental sense of the phrase.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions