PureBasic Forums - English

Codemonger wrote:Good point freedimension, i happen to be watching news and seen 911 happen live when it happened. I'll never forget it. To americans this is the most tragic thing ever to happen. To third world countries this happens every day, take Suddan for instance.

And IRAQ! That is exactly what we are trying to do there - get the bad people out! Yes innocents die, yes it is horrible, yes I wish it were avoidable. WE are fighting for THEIR freedom! If anyone thinks we are making money on this deal I'd love to point to the BILLIONS of dollars and thousands of American lives we've already put up..

It looks like it was the religous vote that gave Bush his victory.

I think the problem is that America's evangelicals actually want Armaggeddon to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Armageddon

Yes, in the past, only religion or nationalism (which is another religion) was used by dominators to get masses.

I didn't know about that masochistic character (of those north-americans who voted to Bush).

I have currently 2 fears: one is Bush, and the other is North-Korea.
I hope China knows how to treat that REAL world current problems I see.

I can't believe I'm answering this but well, here we go.

Karbon wrote: You should not be so quick to assume that. Whomever said death and destruction was a good thing anyway? What of the hundreds of thousands of people Saddam and Saddam's military killed over the last 30 years? What of them?

Excactly, he did for over 30 years with arms made in the US, France and Germany (yes, I'm very ashamed of that, believe me) and men trained by the CIA and the whole world looked away. 30 years and as soon as it's getting unprofitable he has to been removed, but for what reason? Human rights, naw, nobody would swallow that after THIRTY years. Terrorism? Yes, that's good - but the Iraq has no relevance to terrorism at all. Well, 9/11 changed it all. Now every arabic country was considered a posible thread why not take advantage of that?

You really don't get it, do you. We aren't there to take over Iraq, we are there to change the region. Too long have the dictators of old been in power. It is about FREEDOM. You know, the same thing the world did for YOUR COUNTRY not all that long ago.

You're not serious there, are you? Not that long ago the country that once was there where now my country is ATTACKED other countries and did some very evil things I'm not very proud of. But here it is again: we striked first. Iraq didn't, at least not in 2003. And unlike in Germany after 1945 no one came and helped the iraqi people.
Thousands of children died each month (and still are), starving because of the blockade politics the western world put upon the iraq.
If the US really want to export democracy they still have a long way to go. I think they should start in saudi arabia, a regime that is not 2 pence better than the iraqi one was.

Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11.. They started the war in 91, though, and Saddam's goverment held the Iraqi people under his boot for decades thanks to the inaction of others. Saddam used WMDs on his own people, invaded or enguaged in war with almost every neighbor Iraq has.

You forgot to mention that he used these WMDs long before 1991 in the first gulf war (the one Iran-Iraq were the US fought on the side of Iraq).
Back than nobody complained. Furthermore, it's until now not clear who really killed the people in Halabja. There is strong evidence that the poison used was a cyanide-based one (used by the iran), and not mustard gas that was mainly used by the iraqi. Also there was a battle in that area at the time, so there is the possibility of an accident too.

The UN (you know, then, right?) authorized military force against Iraq to enforce resolutions passed and did NOTHING.

Perhaps they did nothing because the Iraq did nothing since 91?

These aren't the dark ages and this war isn't one of the Crusades. Get off it.

So why is GWB acting just like that:
"God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him. Now I am determined to solve the Middle East problem if you help. Otherwise the elections will come and I will be wrapped up with them."
"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."
"The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them."

You tell me EXACTLY when and how he lied to anyone. You forget that we aren't alone in this fight and that our CONGRESS AND SENATE were the ones that authorized the action in Iraq. Perhaps our intelligence was wrong, but there is a VERY big difference between being wrong and a lie.

Well, the US have experiences in telling truth from lie, right: "I had no sexual relationship to that woman"
GWB constantly is lying, you only don't want to see that.

Iraq had and USED WMDs in the past and there was some evidence that they were trying to build or buy others (see UN inspector reports).

You read them? You've seen the manipulated satellite footage the pentagon presented?

Once you go read Kyoto and realize what it would mean to us from an economic standpoint you can come back and we will discuss it.

Yeah, it's alway about money, isn't it? One question: in about twenty years, what do you think can you buy for that? Air to breath? Perhaps a tree? Laughing children?

It was a useless treaty aimed at punishing the US while letting the world's biggest polluters off the hook (Mexico, China, India).

Perhaps in future they will be, at the moment the world's biggest polluter per head are the US.

Psychophanta wrote:I have currently 2 fears: one is Bush, and the other is North-Korea.
I hope China knows how to treat that REAL world current problems I see.

Only that North-Korea yet doesn't have nuclear weapons.
But take a look at Pakistan (allied of guess who...?) and India. They already do have the bomb. There is swelling a conflict that is about to encroach to the rest of that region too. Much more explosive than north korea.
But also I doubt that Pakistan, India or North Korea could reach the western world. They don't have the means to.

freedimension wrote:

Only that North-Korea yet doesn't have nuclear weapons.

If North-Korea shouldn't have nuclear weapons, Bush administration wouldn't went to Chinese government to consult "What to do with North-Korea 'problem' ".

If North-Korea shouldn't have nuclear weapons, i wouldn't have fear.

(Sorry my bad english)

Let's hope Kim Chong-il never will, but at present there are more imediate dangers like I said before.

To be honest, I doubt that Kim would attack the US, the country that delivers all the movies he loves and collects. That would be pointless, wouldn't it? What about India then? No, they have bollywood. China? Too big.

I'm trying to be objective here ... Americans in general like to think they are fighting the righteous fight all the time. The wars are always caused by other people, not them, and they are only there to do good, not evil. Look at Korean War, Vietnam War, Cuba, Iraq war(s) etc..

War of ideologies:

communism (russia) bad democracy good - war of ideologies
taliban bad democracy good - war of ideologies
north korea bad democracy good - war of ideologies
iraq dictatorship bad democracy good - war of ideologies


On the serious side:

Karbon mentions war of '91 and uses Sadam Hussein as a catalyst to argue why Iraq war is valid. Did the American public even know who Saddam was before '91, or even where Iraq was located on the map ? The answer to that is a simple big fat 'NO', same goes for vietnam & korea. I'm not saying Karbon's convictions are wrong, we all agree that Saddam is a bad man, it's just that an ideological war is always in the name of just cause, and either side is always 'Just' or 'Righteous' in their own eyes. This dates back thousands of years so it's hard to get past, but closer our future I think the Native Americans (Indians) were a considered savages and brutal people by the spanish and british and then Americans (even Canadians) and we waged war against them based off our ideologies. So the question is who is America, that you can dictate world policy ? Where Americans really that mad at saddam in lets say 1990, where they just soo pissed off that they had to kills thousands of civilians in the name of righteous American values. NO.

Then answer is: Kuwait was invaded, they asked America for help, America has interests in Middle East (oil, Israel, stability). And so they wen't to war. Saddam being a dictator is a dumb reason to go to war. And no oil interests are not a bad thing either, as some liberal people like to think. Oil is what turns the world, and no-one wanted saddam to control the oil in mideast.

Now that sounds more like the truth as opposed to using the old opressed people of Iraq excuse. It's not a bad truth in my eyes, I would send troops out for national interest such as preserving the worlds energy market. But American public needs to get angry, so they make saddam into a tyrant and the public loves it, they buy into it. This is called propoganda.

Freedimension wrote

I doubt that Kim would attack the US, the country that delivers all the movies he loves and collects.

Over all p0rn ones

tsts, you spelled that false. In forums it's spelled pr0n, didn't you know

freedimension wrote:You're not serious there, are you? Not that long ago the country that once was there where now my country is ATTACKED other countries and did some very evil things I'm not very proud of. But here it is again: we striked first. Iraq didn't, at least not in 2003. And unlike in Germany after 1945 no one came and helped the iraqi people.

I find it "funny" that the war in iraq is now sold as war for iraqis. That is just the fall-back.

Anyway, the reason why germany wasn't reduced to an agricultural country was plain and simple that a bigger threat existed: Russia.

The reason, why Saddam was a good friend of the west and especially the US was: Iran

The Taliban were supported by the west (can anyone spell Stinger?) when Afghanistan was occupied by Russia.

And so on and so on. Nothing wrong with it. That is how politics work and to a certain extent have to work. Selling this stuff as help in the name of humanity is a bit thick. Or dumb. Or both.

Perhaps Bin Laden won the election.

I favor Bush, over Kerry any day of the week, interesting that it wasn't terrorism or security on top of the list, but "moral values".

Inner wrote:I favor Bush, over Kerry any day of the week, interesting that it wasn't terrorism or security on top of the list, but "moral values".

Ah. So, which morality won?