• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Knute Snortum
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis
  • fred rosenberger

Can we discuss this .....

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Do not want to start new thread. I want all filth to be in one place.
US wanted to librate these people
From the page :
The predominantly Sunni Muslim area provided strong support for Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s Baath Party.
Looks like Saddam was chosen by public. [yes, I am wrong]
I am sorry to say that but some where US foreign policy is wrong. OR US citizens are not being shown the true color of world.
I might be wrong as whom so ever I talked everyone has prasied US[talking abt my personal life]. But could not answer the questions I asked.
I wish I am wrong.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1551
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

And that is My question, I want to live in gutter. Let me live in gutter. Why do you care about my being best?


US is going to let you vote for gutter. The iron fist of a brutal regime does not let people have any choice about their lives. It just kills anybody that objects to its whim. If a person wants to eat ginger, why you won't allow them?

Why does the US need nuclear plans,weapons?


Because we don't want to live in the gutter under the iron fist of a Stallinist dictator.

Someone was telling that Iraq was dangerous to US and for its security


AW When Iraq threatens Iran, Isreal, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and anything else it can gobble up, US interests are at stake. Do really think that if Saddam had been allowed to capture Kuwait his greed would have been satisfied?

Which countries should be allowed to be Nuclear power ?

Any country that did not sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. And, any country that is not restricted by UN sanctions not to be able to buy sophisticated military technology from greedy-shortsighted nations.

I will be really happy if anyone can provide me one reason why did US attack or why does one support this attack.


In a foregone era, a country in the position of the US would simply conquer the gulf region and plunder it at will. No? Why does the world think the US should not rape the gulf region of its oil? If morality prevents the US from raping Iraq, morality prevents Saddam Hussein by the same gesture.

I belive that in war only winner matters.


I don't quite understand your point here?
When US dropped bomb on Japan in 1945, it was a different world.
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
I belive that in war only winner matters.

Then why are you complaining about the US attack on Iraq? So next time the US will use nukes and you won't have a problem with it?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

I never talked abt who is more dangerous.
I think you are confusing me with someone else.
I am writing this without looking my any previous posts. One can go and check it out.


Younes wrote: I think that US was far more dangerous to Iran than was Iraq.
Since you responded to my response to him I assumed you agreed with him.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

If a person wants to eat ginger, why you won't allow them?

I will allow, and say that person to earn first then think of eating ginger.
I want to eat Chicken Ginger tonight. Will you give me for free ?
we don't want to live in the gutter under the iron fist of a Stallinist dictator.
I beg your pardon but I am not sure what do you want to say.
I think Saddam was dictator of Iraq.
OR are you Iraqie ?
Do really think that if Saddam had been allowed to capture Kuwait his greed would have been satisfied?
Hardly anyone opposed that war.
Any country that did not sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. And, any country that is not restricted by UN sanctions not to be able to buy sophisticated military technology from greedy-shortsighted nations.
What does this gaurantee.
Today most of the world[or part of world] sees US as greedy-shortsighted nation. [for shortsightness please visit the link I provided in my last post] So US should not posses Nukes :rollingeyes:
If morality prevents the US from raping Iraq, morality prevents Saddam Hussein by the same gesture.
Very true no one is debating on this.
But now when US is raping diplomatically this region obviously some will make shout diplomatically.
I don't quite understand your point here?
Its very simple point, In war only winner matters.
Imagine if US had lost this war.
When US dropped bomb on Japan in 1945, it was a different world.
When Saddam killed its own people it was diffrent era.
When Saddam became ruler, it was different era.
I am not very sure what is your point?
War is war, it does not has different world or time.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So next time the US will use nukes and you won't have a problem with it?


If its war, very true, I wont mind.
and thats why I advocate to have Nuke.
Who itself posses nuke does not have right to say others to not to have it.
Either no one has nuke else if you have capability then have/make/buy it.
Then why are you complaining about the US attack on Iraq?
I am asking the legitimacy of this war.
If you are agree that it was illegal. I have no problem.
Lets end this.
[ April 29, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Till now I am very disappointed that no one could give a single meaningful reason for the war.
By "meaningful" do you mean a reason that you personally feel is valid? Isn't it up to the person who feels threatened to determine in their mind whether or not that threat is valid?
1) It has WMD.
How does US affected by it.

We do not want to see his WMDs proliferated. As his ties to terrorism are well known, proliferations was a real threat. Not only did we not want to see these weapons used in terrorist activities against ourselves, but we did not want to see them used against Israel as the results would totally destabilize the region.
We did not want to see those weapons used directly against his people or others in the region. He has shown that he will use them against his own people, and he has shown a willingness to lob missiles at others in the region. If I remember correctly, he was seeking missile technology that would have enabled weapons to reach Europe. A dangerous dictator who has himself shown a willingess to use these weapons is not somebody we are willing to live with.
2) Ruler was dectator.
Why to interfere in internals matter?

Morally we should destroy every ruthless dictator on the planet. As that is not feasible, we will be happy to take out the ones we can. Genocide is not merely an "internal matter". Such an attitude is what allowed Hitler, Pol Pot, Slobodan Milosovic, Radovan Karadzic, and all those guys free to do their thing.
3) It has link to terrorist organisation.
No prove has been given to media. And what ever given were proved to be forged.

This is blatantly not true. There is so much definitive proof of ties with various terrorist organizations that I will leave you to do the search yourself. Hell we arrested Abu Abbas trying to flee Iraq just a couple of weeks ago.
4) He was threat to US.
Really I dont understand how it was threat to US.

See my first answer.
Now, when US has full control over Iraq, did it could find any weapon?
Now when US has full control and could not found any weapon. How were US was expecting UN inspectors to provide proof of WMD in 2-3 weeks and thats is also when Saddam was ruling.
Does not it look ridiculous now.

We expected the Iraqis to comply with the UN resolutions, which should have taken only a couple of weeks. Despite what some plike to pretend, the mission of the inspectors was not to play Inspector Clouseau searching for hidden WMDs in a country the size of California. Their mission was to verify Iraqi claims. That mission was a failure due to Iraq's continued non-compliance and the failure of the inspectors to verify Iraqi claims.
As we now have to play hide and seek to find these weapons, it will take some amount of time. Oddly enough the Iraqis didn't leave many large signs stating "Hidden WMDs Here".
What's funny is this whole WMD thing is the only thing the anti-coalition/pro-Saddam faction have to grasp at. What's even funnier is most of these people insisted the inspectors needed more time to find them, but now insist that the US should be able to find things right away.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
What's funny is this whole WMD thing is the only thing the anti-coalition/pro-Saddam faction have to grasp at. What's even funnier is most of these people insisted the inspectors needed more time to find them, but now insist that the US should be able to find things right away.


For rest of post I will reply later. But I also find this funny.
What's even funnier is most of these people insisted the inspectors needed more time to find them, but now insist that the US should be able to find things right away.
Yes, I was advocating to give more time to UN inspectors before war.
I wish, atleast by now US should have understood, why people were shouting to give more time to UN.
Now one must understand why UN should have given more time in Sadaam regime and should have gone for war with consent of UN.
AW outcomes are infront of your eyes. Call those iraqies cheater.
In Urdu I will say 'Ehsaan Framosh'.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
For rest of post I will reply later. But I also find this funny.


For the time being.
Its well documented.
No, I have not read it thorougly.

Isn't it up to the person who feels threatened to determine in their mind whether or not that threat is valid?


If I have a gun/knife or any thing which can harm, everyone will say that I can be threating for a person who is armless.
No one can deny that.
One need not go to market and bribe someone to say that I am threatning.
To fear, one need solid reasons, If one says that he fear from Ghost[which does not has physical appearance].
Yes, here mind plays a major role.
Eveyrone one was curious to see the ghost or proof of ghost.
[edited to give the source of above link.
Actually I was looking for proof of ties between Iraq and terrorists.]
[ April 29, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Now one must understand why UN should have given more time in Sadaam regime and should have gone for war with consent of UN.


We now know that we would never have gotten UN approval since the French were on Iraq's side. We now know that France was sending top secret briefing information to Saddam right before the attack. We now know that France and Russia were illegally selling wepaons to Iraq right up to the time of the attack.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
For the time being.
Its well documented.

From that site:

The only way that we can effectively work to undermine the belligerency of corporate rule, current U.S. foreign policy and the like, is to transcend such differences and unite in a common struggle for true democracy.


Actually I was looking for proof of ties between Iraq and terrorists
I've already posted links in previous posts.
Abu Abbas, mastermind of Achille Lauro hijacking, captured in Baghdad
Saddam's weapons chief seized as link to al-Qaeda established
Iraq pays suicide bonus to entice new bombers
Suicide Bombers Flocking To Iraq?
Report: Recruits Flowed to Iraq Via Syria
Iraqi linked to Bush snr held
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Abu Abbas, mastermind of Achille Lauro hijacking, captured in Baghdad
From the link:
- his American captors are sure to grill him about his ties to other terrorists and Saddam, who sheltered Abbas for years.
RK: Not yet proved.
Saddam's weapons chief seized as link to al-Qaeda established
From the link:
if they are proved genuine.
If the discoveries are proved to be genuine,
It is not clear if the meeting with bin Laden ever took place.
RK: Not yet proved.
Iraq pays suicide bonus to entice new bombers
From the link:
during which supporters of President Saddam handed out $500,000
The US will also be keen to use President Saddam's provocative intrusion into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as another reason for its planned military strike on Iraq.
The Saudis used to give $4000 to the martyrs, but now it depends on public donations.[but still money comes from Saudi] Saddam Hussein's $25,000 is a message to those who might offer themselves as martyrs that their families will be supported - they have wives and children and some of them are very poor."
RK: It was a money for Palestinians who died in Palestine-Israel conflict.
Then US is also giving aid to Israel. Is US giving money to Israelies to die ?

Suicide Bombers Flocking To Iraq?
RK: that is Headline
Inside:
thousands of Muslims who say they are ready for martyrdom have flocked to Iraq since the U.S.-led war began.
He asserted that Iraq would support anyone willing to stand up to U.S. and British forces until they leave.
RK: BTW by providing this link, what one wants to convey?
Report: Recruits Flowed to Iraq Via Syria
From the link:
"There is good anti-terrorism cooperation with a narrow focus on al-Qaida," a Western diplomat recently told NewsDay. "We're still as far apart as ever about the presence of Palestinian militant groups in Damascus and Syrian support for Hezbollah."
RK: It was about Syria or Iraq :confuse: . Looks like you wanted to highlight this:
These suspected operatives were charged with routing scores of Muslim holy warriors through Syria to terrorist bases operated by both al-Qaida and Ansar al Islam, whose camp in Iraq was recently overrun by U.S. and Kurdish forces.
RK: Not yet proved.
Iraqi linked to Bush snr held[/QB]
From the link:
Kuwaiti authorities broke up the plot, and the explosives that were to be used were traced to Iraq.
The United States retaliated in June 1993 by firing 23 sea-launched cruise missiles at the headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service.
But US officials were unable to corroborate those reports
While senior US officials have said they have no evidence of an Iraqi connection to the September 11 attacks
I feel really sorry to inform that none of resources prove any ligitimacy of the war.
AW I give up.
What is called pre-emptive, is also called offensive.[one of the meanings of offensive: Unpleasant or disgusting especially to the senses]
It is the case of giving punishment before one is proved guilty.
That is also in the name of establishing democracy. I dont think in any democratic govt. anyone is given punishment on the basis of thinking or belief.
It happens in dictatorship, where if dictator thinks that one is guilty, he will give punishment. He does not need any proof. His concious mind/belief is only proof.
Having said all this, I want my this post to be last post or if anyone wants to delete this thread can delete.
As I can argue on the base of solid proof, but I can NOT argue on the base of belief.
I can fight with human, but I cant fight with ghost.
AW thanks for input.
 
All that thinking. Doesn't it hurt? What do you think about this tiny ad?
Sauce Labs - World's Largest Continuous Testing Cloud for Websites and Mobile Apps
https://coderanch.com/t/722574/Sauce-Labs-World-Largest-Continuous
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!