Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » eggmac the pacifist
|
|
| eggmac the pacifist [message #7503] |
Tue, 18 March 2003 18:15   |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Commando no. 448 |
Where is eggmac? ( ")(" )(,, )( ,,) I am shooting that tanks while they exit the war factory but it is him who will have to destroy them.
Well let's see where are the weak points.
Ok second post in the topic. Kirby has resorted to racial discrimination to ease his frustration. This type of frustration fueling his arguements clearly shows that his arguements will be influenced by this and thus lose some credibility. I don't feel we should communicate with each other over more serious matters with such rage behind us.
But then again *sigh* who cares we have so many people that act out of anger.
I will not involve myself further until I see eggmac make some results. 1/4 my participation was based on helping eggmac.
If you are wondering about the other 3/4s. 1/2 was a chance to get my fill of good discussion. 1/4 was to share my veiws.
|
Spare me your liberal "Let's talk it out for months at the U.N. and not get anything done" B.S.. By the way, "French" isn't a race. It's merely a weak, pacifist, wuss culture that refuses to help the very nation that has rescued it TWICE from it's nieghbors, becuase it was too pathetic to save itself.
Nothing gets done by the weak in this world. They are usually the first to die. Serve your country, have someone point a real weapon at you, and then tell me your theories on "Peace". Ever had 300 missiles pointed at your ship by Iran, with an itchy trigger finger? I have. Ever breathed in the smoke from oil fires that make the sky black in the middle of the afternoon? I have. Ever had to wear chemical suits for hours on end? I have.
Spare me.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eggmac the pacifist [message #7519] |
Tue, 18 March 2003 18:47 |
 |
K9Trooper
Messages: 821
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
We found a topic that ACK and I can agree on 100%  
I asked this question on WW forums and it got deleted.
How many of you have been a victim of terrorism, lost a loved one to war, have been in a war or even served in the military?
I can answer yes to almost all of these questions.
I am a Desert Storm Veteran, served 8 years in the US Army Reserves with 2 of those years active.
I am a fire fighter. I have been for 11+ years. Fire Fighters are a family. Whether we know each other or not, we all grieve when on of us falls. September 11, 2001 was a very sad time in US history. We lost 3000 people in an unprovoked attack. 10% of those that died were fire fighters people that devote their lives to saving others, no matter what the dangers. When one of us falls, the whole fire fighter community across the country hears about it and mourns the loss.
Now tell me again why you think the US attacking Iraq is illegal. Iraq has long supported terrorism. Even to the point of giving money to the family members of suicide bombers in Israel. That in my book is supporting terrorism. Iraq has used WOMD on his own people. Is that not a crime? Well I guess to a Nazi it is not a crime.
As for France, please explain how a country, whose current president had Saddam as a contributor to his election fund, can be impartial. France is no longer an ally of the US. IMO France is now an enemy of the US. No war is clean and no war is fair. But war is a fact of life. Egg and all of you Anti-American dreamers your intentions for peace may be sincere, but you're aiming you anger at the wrong country. Iraq has played Europe like a cheap violin.
R.I.P. TreyD. You will be missed, but not forgotten.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eggmac the pacifist [message #7530] |
Tue, 18 March 2003 19:34 |
eggmac
Messages: 51
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| K9Trooper |
Egg and all of you Anti-American dreamers your intentions for peace may be sincere, but you're aiming you anger at the wrong country.
|
No, I am not an Anti-American. Standing up for peace is not anti-americanism. Criticizing Bush's policy is not anti-americanism.
Sure, the regime in Iraq must not be tolerated. The assmuption that Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction must not be tolerated. But whatever threat Hussein might pose to the rest of the world, it is not grand enough to justify a war.
| Quote: |
I feel America is justified in protecting it's citizenry and intrest
|
True, very true. But is a war on Iraq really a defensive war? Does it serve for the protection of US citizens? In my view, it does the contrary.
There are no troops of Iraq standing at the border of the USA, whereas the opposite is the case. There are no links of Iraq to 9.11. Iraq does not have any military power or any possibility to attack the USA. Iraq is controlled and supervised for 12 years by the UN and there is no evidence that weapons of mass destruction are still possessed by Saddam Hussein.
Many things can be assumed, Iraq does not pose an objective thread to the USA. The media try to evoke those feelings, of course, but objectively speaking, Iraq has no possibility to threaten the USA in any way.
The USA is the most powerful nation and has the greatest influence on the world. Even the horrible attacks of september 11th do not pose a real threat to the USA, the terrorists were able to kill 'only' 3000 people (don't get me wrong, that sounds really horrible), which is, in numbers, not much compared to any other collateral damage. So there is no threat against the USA. Your children are relatively safe, your families are.
But, on the other hand, the children in Iraq are not. They have to go through the horror of war. The civilians there will have to suffer. I cannot imagine that anybody wants that to happen. I think we all can agree that this is something that should be avoided.
Some of you say that it could not have been avoided but I am convinced of the opposite. If the real goal was to find weapons of mass destruction then the UN inspectors were the right means to do so. If the goal was to disarm Iraq then supervision of the UN would be the only legitimate possibility. If the goal was to get rid of Saddam Hussein then one must have judged him in the international court of war crimes. Or hell, one could have even just assassinated him if it would be really neccessary. But none of that happened. This war is not about promoting democracy. It is not about freeing Iraqis from a dictatorship. This war is about power and influence, like any other war is as well.
What really scares me is that the world is more and more divided into black and white. Like Bush said "Either you're with us or against us". This sentence has a really great impact. How can smaller countries know that they are not next on US war agenda? If they do not comply to US demands, they have to fear a military intervention. Now you may say that these countries then will stop to feed terrorism and that the world will be safer. But terrorism evolves without the help of any countries, it evolves due to extreme hatred. And after the war in Iraq, new hatred against the USA will evolve. It will have a huge impact on new generations of arabs and of the third world countries. Thus, each war will produce much more terrorism than it can erase.
It is not credible that the US government wants a war in order to remove the dictatorical regime of Saddam Hussein. Pakistan is a military dictatorship with no free speech. It is supported by the US. Ukraine is a quasi-dictatorship, Kazakhstan is a dictatorship, Turkey commits crimes against humanity (ethnic clenasing of Kurds), they are close partners to the US. Saudi-Arabia is ruled by a dictator backed up by the USA. Not to mention dozens of governments in Africa. So for me, the assumption that Bush wants a war for humane reasons only is very much not credible.
| Quote: |
Nothing gets done by the weak in this world. They are usually the first to die
|
The most important democratic principle is that every minority is equal to others and must be protected. The state has the only legitimation to use violence, we are far beyong the idea of the 'survival of the fittest'. Your assumption would fit into the stone-age, but we are hopefully civilised people and not animals after all. On a political level, only the UN has the legitimation to decide on military actions against other countries. Anything else is a violation of international law. If every country would do whatever it likes then we would fall back to pre-WWII-times (which we maybe did already).
P.S.
| Quote: |
Who's going to really understand the destructive power of something unless it is released in an environment where it can prove its worth?
That's the point, that's why we dropped them on their civilian cities.
|
It is a shame to read something like that. Your argument is 100% identical with the argument of Osama Bin Laden.
|
|
|
|
| eggmac the pacifist [message #7535] |
Tue, 18 March 2003 19:49 |
eggmac
Messages: 51
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| K9Trooper |
As for France, please explain how a country, whose current president had Saddam as a contributor to his election fund, can be impartial. France is no longer an ally of the US. IMO France is now an enemy of the US.
|
How can you say so?
1. I do not belive that Saddam funded Chirac's election campaign as this sounds REALLY very incredible. Prove me the opposite. I do believe that this might have been stated in the US media but, at the moment, they are completely biased.
2. France disagrees on a particuliar issue. That does not mean it is opposed to the USA in any other way. Just because there are different opinions does not mean that a friendship should be lost, or even more, new rivalties arise.
3. Don't you think 'freedom fries' is just so incredibly rediculous? Say what you want, but what is now going on in the US is a very dangerous kind of national racism.
4. To come back to 1): In the early 1980's Saddam Hussein was backed up by the United states of America until 1988. Only thus was he able to maintain his power within his country. The US was interested in Iraq starting a war with Iran, which they actually did. So, in a way, USA has made its own 'Frankenstein'-monster. Same is true for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Their putch was funded by CIA-money. Even worse: In the late 1970's Al-Quaida and Osama Bin-Laden was funded by the USA becuase they were fighting against the Soviet Union. "The foe of my foe is my friend". But obviously, such actions can backfire very quickly 
Please do not judge nations and people just due to some rumours or subjective impressions.
|
|
|
|
| eggmac the pacifist [message #7556] |
Tue, 18 March 2003 20:53 |
|
K9Trooper
Messages: 821
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I wish I could remember the article, but both The Washington Post and The New York Times had posted stories about Iraq donating money to Chirac. Note: BOTH papers are major Anti-Bush.
Your comment #3. I agree. The name change from French Fries to "Freedom" Fries is lame. BTW what do you call American Cheese?
France has been selling Iraq equipment to make WOMD, as well as weapons. France has a vested interest in its banks in Iraq.
Back to #1 France also supported and gave weapons and money to Iraq in the 1980's. The US stopped when they realized the path Iraq was going. France kept on going. Did you know France was selling weapons to Iraq during the first Gulf War? My question on that is what was the credibility of France then?
Iraq gassed its own people AFTER the First Gulf War! They are a threat.
Remember Iraq launched SCUDS against Israel in the First Gulf War. That was an unprovoked attack. Again you say Iraq is not a threat. Iraq threatened to destroy Kuwait 2 weeks ago for backing the US. They also went as far as to call Kuwait a rouge state of Iraq that will be put back in its place. Hmmm. What could that mean? Again, Iraq is not a threat! Iraq had 12 years to disarm. They have had France block any attempts to seriously search for the weapons. Any time something big came up it was France to discredit the claim. Even when the proof is right there. France had publicly stated they deal with Iraq in weapons. They a comfortable with it because they know the weapons are pointed at someone else. I wonder who that someone else is? Again, Iraq is not a threat.
You never answered to my comment about Iraq giving money to the families of suicide bombers against Israel. Is that not supporting terrorism? Thus making Iraq a terroristic nation.
Iraq is more dangerous now than what it was 12 years ago. I think Iraq has a nuke and France knows about it, because they sold them the equipment to make it.
Oh, isn’t funny how the US Department of Defense announced to Germany that the number of American troops there would be reduced drastically, and German politicians freaked out telling the US that we are needed there? If you don’t need us, why do you cry when we want to remove some troops?
R.I.P. TreyD. You will be missed, but not forgotten.
|
|
|
|
| eggmac the pacifist [message #7567] |
Tue, 18 March 2003 22:31 |
|
K9Trooper
Messages: 821
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
THE 65 PERCENT supporting action against Iraq compares with a previous high of 60 percent last month and in October 2002.
Thirty percent were opposed to action in the latest survey, conducted Monday after President Bush gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq. That’s about average for the series of polls taken since April 2002, but the percentage of those “not sure” hit a low of 5 percent.
Tim Russert, NBC’s Washington bureau chief and host of “Meet the Press,” said the Bush administration believes support could reach 70 percent after the president addresses the nation in the event of war.
Among Republicans polled, 88 percent back war, Russert noted, but more surprisingly a majority of Democrats — 49 percent to 43 percent — also support the president’s strategy.
In their sights; What the military will be aiming at
An Army family journal
Urban combat
CONFLICT AT A GLANCE
U.S. special forces already inside Iraq
Saddam on TV in uniform; first time since 1991 war
France, Russia, China and the Vatican blast U.S.
U.K. legislators defeat antiwar motion; 3 in Blair government quit
Turkey reconsiders helping U.S. troops
U.N. inspectors pull out of Iraq
CONFLICT AT A GLANCE
U.S. special forces already inside Iraq
Saddam on TV in uniform; first time since 1991 war
France, Russia, China and the Vatican blast U.S.
U.K. legislators defeat antiwar motion; 3 in Blair government quit
Turkey reconsiders helping U.S. troops
U.N. inspectors pull out of Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
By gender, 70 percent of men and 60 percent of women back the president — a narrower gap than in previous polls as more women show support for Bush.
Asked if the United States should take more time to try to resolve the conflict diplomatically, 61 percent favored military action now. Thirty-three percent favored more diplomacy.
Russert said the strong support for a strike now reflects the Bush administration’s success in portraying France as being “obstructionist” at the United Nations, where the United States failed to win backing for military action from key members of the Security Council.
• Complete MSNBC coverage
• The latest from Baghdad
• Latest on deployments
• Top defector disappears
• Video coverage from NBC
• Blog: Army family's journal
• Encarta: Detailed Iraq map
Latest from Newsweek
• Zakaria: Arrogant empire
• Powell in the bunker
• Britain's Blair sweats it out
• WashPost: Special coverage
Despite the strong public backing, Americans are fearful of a terrorist backlash, according to the poll. Fifty-two percent believe the threat of terrorism would increase, compared with 55 percent in the two previous surveys.
The telephone survey of 506 American adults was conducted by Hart/Teeter and has a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.
Take the NBC/WSJ survey
What's on MSNBC TV?
Tuesday prime time: The Showdown with Saddam
• On "Countdown: Iraq": The commander-in-chief has spoken, and now 300,000 troops in the Gulf stand poised for war. Watch "Countdown: Iraq" for complete analysis on the showdown with Saddam. Tuesday, 7-9 p.m. ET.
• On "Hardball": Facing the threat of a devastating U.S. onslaught: Is there a chance Saddam's forces will fold without a fight? Plus, in the face of war, former Secretary of State Alexander Haig weighs in on what's next for America. "Hardball," 9 p.m. ET
R.I.P. TreyD. You will be missed, but not forgotten.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eggmac the pacifist [message #7586] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 00:54 |
 |
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Duke of Nukes |
you idiots make this out to be a black and white issue.
|
It is rather black and white. I'm sorry you lack the clarity to see that.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
| eggmac the pacifist [message #7587] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 00:54 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Duke of Nukes |
| Aircraftkiller |
How were pacifists proved correct? No major war has ever been prevented by pacifists.
|
Dude...it's called India...ever heard of a man called Ghandi? I hate to say it ACK...but you just fucked up. The Indian Revolution was a war fought by pacifists...and guess what...they won.
Also the Cold War...the Policy of Containment...just thought I'd mention that
And the Vietnam war was ended by pacifists...it wasn't prevented due to jackass's like you who dont question the American government...good thing too...because...well...the Vietnam war was a completely just war...and it's a good thing we won it too...
|
Explain to me again how the Indian war was a major war, and how much of a role do you think Ghandi has in controlling India's nukes right now?
The cold war worked because of mutually assured destruction that was based on the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, and the resulting economic collapse resulting from that resolve to destroy the enemies of the United States of America.
The Vietnam war was NOT ended by pacifists. While they certainly cranked up the pressure, the resignation of Richard Nixon, and the unwillingness of the people of South Vietnam to defend themselves ended that war.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eggmac the pacifist [message #7596] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 01:12 |
|
NeoSaber
Messages: 336
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Duke of Nukes |
and South Vietnam defends themself to this day...why do you think it's still an independent country? Why do you think that there's a buffer zone between North and South?
|
Wow, that is about the most... its just so... wow.
NeoSaber
Renegade Map Maker at CnC Source
Animator/Compiler/Level Editor/Object Rigger/Programmer for Red Alert: A Path Beyond
|
|
|
|
| eggmac the pacifist [message #7602] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 01:26 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Duke of Nukes |
and South Vietnam defends themself to this day...why do you think it's still an independent country? Why do you think that there's a buffer zone between North and South?
|
I was wrong about Johnson, I reversed the two, but you are a complete idiot, and offend all history students with the quote above.
See below:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/vm.html
How is that two separate countries?
Dumbass pacifist.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eggmac the pacifist [message #7609] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 01:39 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Duke of Nukes |
You assume too much. Once you have lived without the freedoms that YOU are now taking for granted...you can talk to me...untill that time...dont talk like you know more about what it means to be free
|
What an "experienced" world traveller. :rolleyes:
I have been to no less than 15 countries in my travels. I refute your "testimonial".
Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eggmac the pacifist [message #7619] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 01:49 |
Smurfette
Messages: 4
Registered: March 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I am seeing both sides of this debate, and asking myself a few questions:
What happened to Bush saying, right after 9/11 that we were going to find bin Laden and bring him to justice, no matter what? As a resident of NYC, who saw the terrible events on 9/11 firsthand, I'm very concerned about how Bush seems (to me) to have given up on finding bin Laden.
In my opinion, that is Bush showing indecisiviness (sp?) ~ I see it this way: since we couldn't find one person (bin Laden) that we KNOW is a terriost, we KNOW wants to kills as many American people as possible, he seems to have changed his attitude and now it's dissarm Iraq, don't worry about bin Laden. Is Bush going to enter us into a war with Iraq, killing thousands of people; and then decide that since France was supporting Iraq, lets go to war with them? Then after we have killed even more people, will he decide that another country is a threat and go to war with them? I'm also concerned about that, as that could be considered the start of another world war. Are we, the United States of America, going to become as dictorial as Hitler was in WWII? (in this case, will the mentality be that since the government of the country might support terrorism, everyone who lives there does too? And then maybe everyone who was born, or grew up in these countries, do they support terrorism too? And yes, I have seen the US government bias against people like this recently ~ I have a friend who came here from Pakistan as a baby, and after 9/11 he was held for about a week and questioned by FBI officials on his whereabouts and his alligencies ~ this was all legal and official because his name is similiar to one of the terrorists in one of the planes). Who's to say that Pakistani and Iraqi people living in our country won't be held by our government when the war is going on, or after the war has been happening for awhile? Again, this is just something that is going through my brain, not actual fact...but I'm stating it because it's something I believe could possibly happen.
Yet, on the other side of the coin, is there more to Bush's decision than that? Is bin Laden maybe hiding over there? Does the US government have difinative proof that Iraq has WOMD, or that Iraq as a country (not just the dictator and militia) is supporting terrorism? There is most likely more going on over there than the press and the general population is being told.
I read a article when Bush was first elected where he (Bush) stated that by the end of his first term he planned on the US entering a war. He didn't say what country he planned on going to war with, but by the tone and manner in which he stated this, I got the idea that just about any country would do. Are we entering this war because we feel threatened by Iraq (as a country) or because Bush just wants us to go to war?
PS
About the topic of the Atomic Bombs being dropped in Japan. Does anyone know that the US flew bomber planes over those civilian cities every day for about a month, getting the civilians comfortable with the thought of bombers going by overhead? Then one day the planes actually dropped a bomb on them, killing thousands of people.
|
|
|
|
| eggmac the pacifist [message #7620] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 01:50 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Duke of Nukes |
| KIRBY098 |
I have been to no less than 15 countries in my travels. I refute your "testimonial".
|
I've lived in 2 others...I didn't say anything about how many I've been to. I've been to every continent except Antartica. Pray tell though...why did you visit these 15 countries?
|
I was on liberty while forward deployed defending Kosovars, Bosnians, Kurds, Shiites, and Herzegovinians from dictatorial agression in third world nations.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 27 08:17:58 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01099 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
