anti-war people read this! | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (1)
dariusgriffin
...and 150 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2615014
Today 0
Topics 127612
  
 
Messageboard index
anti-war people read this!
 

offline Cfern from Sacto (United States) on 2003-03-16 15:06 [#00598171]
Points: 1384 Status: Lurker



click here


 

offline Cfern from Sacto (United States) on 2003-03-16 15:07 [#00598173]
Points: 1384 Status: Lurker



"God willing, this is the end of Saddam," lawmaker Nasah
Rafoul told the 105-seat chamber. "America is coming to our
aid and the aid of all Iraqis."

these people need our help!


 

offline BILE from São Paulo (Brazil) on 2003-03-16 15:07 [#00598176]
Points: 1769 Status: Regular



lol


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2003-03-16 15:08 [#00598179]
Points: 24602 Status: Lurker



[wow, I'm totally converted. Now why doesn't someone post a
newspaper article relating to the retard GWBush executed
when Governor of TX?]


 

offline hevquip from megagram dusk sect (United States) on 2003-03-16 15:09 [#00598182]
Points: 3382 Status: Lurker



support the war.

population control AND you get to watch shit blow up.


 

offline titsworth from Washington, DC (United States) on 2003-03-16 15:09 [#00598183]
Points: 14550 Status: Lurker



one step at a time, please! you're already pro-war, maybe we
should leave your conversion to favoring the death penalty
for tomorrow!


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2003-03-16 15:15 [#00598197]
Points: 27799 Status: Regular



kill all hippies


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2003-03-16 15:15 [#00598202]
Points: 27799 Status: Regular | Followup to earthleakage: #00598197



except me


 

offline Morgoth from Stella-town (Belgium) on 2003-03-16 15:15 [#00598204]
Points: 1264 Status: Regular



Ah,

I get it. Because Sadam is a sick person and has killed so
many people, we must now kill even more innocent people?

Ever thought of the fact that America pushed the Kurds to
fight Sadam and never came to help them?

I am off course totally against the murder of 5000 Kurds,
but the war over there started thnanks to Americans. If they
would've done 15 years ago what they're up to now, this
wouldn't have happened.


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2003-03-16 15:16 [#00598206]
Points: 27799 Status: Regular



im pro bush and anti dick


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2003-03-16 15:16 [#00598208]
Points: 24602 Status: Lurker



[American Corporations are getting as impatient as the GIs
to get into Iraq and start plundering]


 

offline Charles D Ward from ASS, okay? (United States) on 2003-03-16 15:17 [#00598211]
Points: 1072 Status: Addict | Followup to earthleakage: #00598197



hippie chicks are w00t. remember Diastole?


 

offline danbrusca from Derbyshire (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 15:18 [#00598212]
Points: 4570 Status: Lurker | Followup to Morgoth: #00598204



So because nothing was done 15 years ago it should bever be
done?

Again I have to ask, what other option is there short of
Saddam leaving?


 

offline Morgoth from Stella-town (Belgium) on 2003-03-16 15:22 [#00598224]
Points: 1264 Status: Regular | Followup to danbrusca: #00598212



Never said that, just wanted to make clear that the history
of american politics is one of mistakes, just like 15 years
ago.

And further: I want Saddam to leave, totally! But I believe
that there are still other options left besides warfare.
Diplomacy isn't used to its fullest.

And again I have to ask: where does GWB get the right to
play police officer of the world?


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2003-03-16 15:23 [#00598229]
Points: 24602 Status: Lurker



[I love people who take control of other countries. It's so
noble]


 

offline E-man from Rixensart (Belgium) on 2003-03-16 15:24 [#00598233]
Points: 3000 Status: Regular | Followup to danbrusca: #00598212



check this Out !!
In 1998, Dick Cheney as chair of the White House Energy
Policy Development Group, comissioned a report on energy
surplies...

Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century,
concludes: `The United States remains a prisoner of its
energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilising influence to
the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle
East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to
threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export
programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should
conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including
military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic
assessments. `The United States should then develop an
integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and
with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with
respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition
of key allies.'



 

offline astrid-gil-botn from Londinium (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 15:25 [#00598236]
Points: 1649 Status: Regular | Followup to danbrusca: #00598212



you could f course remoive the un sanctions that have
killled and weakened more people in iraq than the chemical
weapons that dick cheney sod saddam all those years ago.
maybe then the iraqi's might fit enough to take the future
in their own hands rather in the hands of us corporate
hegemony


 

offline danbrusca from Derbyshire (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 15:25 [#00598240]
Points: 4570 Status: Lurker | Followup to Morgoth: #00598224



Bush seems to be one of the few leaders at present with the
balls to back up his words with actions.

Diplomacy has done virtually nothing to change the situation
in Iraq for twelve years. To say it hasn't been used to it's
fullest is plainly ridiculous.


 

offline E-man from Rixensart (Belgium) on 2003-03-16 15:25 [#00598242]
Points: 3000 Status: Regular | Followup to E-man: #00598233



uh, i shall add it's quoted from a thread at planet-mu.com
forum
belive it or not it's quite relevant...



 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2003-03-16 15:25 [#00598244]
Points: 27799 Status: Regular | Followup to marlowe: #00598229



who colonised the states?


 

offline E-man from Rixensart (Belgium) on 2003-03-16 15:26 [#00598247]
Points: 3000 Status: Regular | Followup to danbrusca: #00598240



i thinnk that with 1 billion$ i even I could throw saddam
away LOL!



 

offline astrid-gil-botn from Londinium (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 15:28 [#00598253]
Points: 1649 Status: Regular | Followup to astrid-gil-botn: #00598236



should ckeck b4 i send - i meant sold not sod!
britian is ultimatley responsible forthe problems in this
part of the middle east area when it devided the region
which was called persia by them - it of course aided the
setting up of israel too - who have more nuclear warheads
and breaks more breaches of un agreements than ten iraqs


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2003-03-16 15:28 [#00598255]
Points: 24602 Status: Lurker | Followup to earthleakage: #00598244



[the Irish]


 

offline danbrusca from Derbyshire (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 15:28 [#00598256]
Points: 4570 Status: Lurker | Followup to astrid-gil-botn: #00598236



Yet again I have to point out that the sanctions aren't
killing Iraqis. Iraq can sell as much oil as it wants for
food and medical supplies but chooses not to.

Lift the sanctions and you just end up benefiting Saddam
Hussein and making it far easier for him to keep importing
things he shouldn't have.

Get rid of Saddam Hussein and you make life better for the
Iraqis and get the removal of sanctions thrown in.


 

offline danbrusca from Derbyshire (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 15:29 [#00598262]
Points: 4570 Status: Lurker | Followup to astrid-gil-botn: #00598253



Well if we go back far enough I'm sure we could blame plate
tectonics for the current situation too.


 

offline astrid-gil-botn from Londinium (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 15:31 [#00598271]
Points: 1649 Status: Regular | Followup to danbrusca: #00598240



so you change the diplomacy and use other strategies not
break international law to invade a country that represents
no threat to you - there are lots of countries who starve
and kill the populations - mugabe in zimbabwe, the
government of kashmir etc - these areas aren't oil rich
however so no one cares


 

offline danbrusca from Derbyshire (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 15:31 [#00598273]
Points: 4570 Status: Lurker | Followup to E-man: #00598247



How?


 

offline danbrusca from Derbyshire (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 15:32 [#00598276]
Points: 4570 Status: Lurker | Followup to astrid-gil-botn: #00598271



What other strategies? Why does nobody ever answer this?!


 

offline astrid-gil-botn from Londinium (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 15:35 [#00598282]
Points: 1649 Status: Regular | Followup to danbrusca: #00598256



they stop basic medical supplies from coming in the country
- things needed to insure clean water and basic health
supplies etc.
they do not hurt saddam even now, they just harm the
population

the sanctions have killed millions .

do you actually understand what sanctions are ?
sanctions mean certain things cannot be bought by or
imported into a country so the things that are blocked which
include basic things we take for granted aren't allowed in -
so basically he can't sell enough oil to get these things as
they can't come in the country - are you thick or something?


 

offline astrid-gil-botn from Londinium (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 15:37 [#00598285]
Points: 1649 Status: Regular | Followup to danbrusca: #00598276



i already answered this - a political coup has been very
close before in iraq in the 90's butthe us cia fucked it
over .



 

offline Morgoth from Stella-town (Belgium) on 2003-03-16 15:38 [#00598288]
Points: 1264 Status: Regular



other strategies?

Giving the people money to rebuild their country? Giving the
children medicine?
Giving the people food? Let UN control that only food,
medicine enter the country.

All this should have been done after the first gulf war
instead of economical boycots. By the boycots, you create
anger towards those boycotting you.
If you would've supported them, you would've won sympathy.

Who knows, maybe by now Saddams governemnt would've been
overthrown?


 

offline nacmat on 2003-03-16 15:40 [#00598295]
Points: 31271 Status: Lurker



maybe if all the money USA spends in army they gave to poor
countries, to give them education and food


 

offline danbrusca from Derbyshire (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 15:41 [#00598297]
Points: 4570 Status: Lurker | Followup to astrid-gil-botn: #00598282



I think it's you that need to understand the reality of
sanctions.

There is nothing whatsoever stopping Iraq selling oil to buy
food and medical supplies. Proceeds from oil sales are also
used in many ways to improve infrastructure across Iraq.


 

offline Morgoth from Stella-town (Belgium) on 2003-03-16 15:42 [#00598298]
Points: 1264 Status: Regular



One thing to add: many years have passed since the first
gulf war, plenty of time for diplomatic negotiations.
But they have never been used to its fullest extent.
A couple of weeks after the gulf war: economical boycots, no
fly zones, bla bla bla...
U call that diplomacy?
I can very well imagine the Iraqi aren't willing to talk
with people who are giving them a hard time, whilst these
same people supported them in an other war.



 

offline Morgoth from Stella-town (Belgium) on 2003-03-16 15:44 [#00598302]
Points: 1264 Status: Regular



the oil for food program didn't start directly, only after
several years of boycotting. And only since 2 years or so
the Iraqi can export all the oil they want.

Why is it that Unicef are reporting a higher child mortality
that in other countries? Is Sadam gassing them as wel?


 

offline Morgoth from Stella-town (Belgium) on 2003-03-16 15:45 [#00598306]
Points: 1264 Status: Regular



On a lighter note:

http://www.kicken.com/funnyfiles2/www.kicken.com-bomb.sadda
m.swf


 

offline E-man from Rixensart (Belgium) on 2003-03-16 15:47 [#00598309]
Points: 3000 Status: Regular | Followup to Morgoth: #00598288



exactly...
and how shall i do it with the money you ask danbruasca,
i'll be long to explain, but you could also do it "properly"
with military forces, i didn't say i wouldn't use strong
armed forces, but common, the plan is to throw more bombs
than ever in the fewest time before the soldiers can go and
check the remainings cos that way you have nearly no
casualties from the euh "war", could you still call that a
war then... looks like a big kick in the balls and
pocket-stealing afterwards...
now i make one thing clear, i do not support germany or
france cos they act that way for the same reasons as the us,

MONEY!!! for fuck's sake they all run after it !!! MOnEY
MONEY MONEY... well don't go crazy now=)


 

offline korben dallas from nz on 2003-03-16 15:50 [#00598316]
Points: 4605 Status: Regular



Power doesn't need to reason.


 

offline nacmat on 2003-03-16 16:17 [#00598363]
Points: 31271 Status: Lurker



President Bush today said the opportunity for a diplomatic
solution to the confrontation with Iraq would end Monday,
calling it "a moment of truth for the world."


 

offline nacmat on 2003-03-16 16:18 [#00598365]
Points: 31271 Status: Lurker | Followup to nacmat: #00598363



Bush said he hopes the United Nations "will do its job," but
warned that France's threatened veto of any U.N. resolution
to authorize force means that "cards have been played."

Bush made his comments after a brief summit in the Azores
with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime
Minister Jose Maria Aznar. A British official had described
the meeting as the "last chance for diplomacy."

"No one is pretending things are other than difficult," the
British official said.

Frustrated by opposition to their hard-line stance on Iraqi
disarmament, the architects of the "coalition of the
willing" converged on Terceira, an island of the Portuguese
Azores in the Atlantic Ocean, to decide what to do next.

The three countries are co-sponsors of a new U.N. resolution
that would set out disarmament tests for Iraq with a
do-it-or-else deadline -- a resolution that even sponsors
concede has failed to garner the support it needs to pass
through the U.N. Security Council.



 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2003-03-16 16:20 [#00598367]
Points: 27799 Status: Regular



if voting made any difference it would be made illegal


 

offline Morgoth from Stella-town (Belgium) on 2003-03-16 16:20 [#00598369]
Points: 1264 Status: Regular



Bush is a hypocrite!

He is against the french for using their RIGHT of veto in
the Un, while the US themselves are the ones who most used
vetoright in the past (mostly in Israel concerned
resolutions).


 

offline roygbivcore from Joyrex.com, of course! on 2003-03-16 16:22 [#00598372]
Points: 22557 Status: Lurker



maybe instead you should click here


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2003-03-16 16:26 [#00598375]
Points: 27799 Status: Regular | Followup to Morgoth: #00598369



very true


 

offline danbrusca from Derbyshire (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 16:46 [#00598411]
Points: 4570 Status: Lurker | Followup to Morgoth: #00598298



What about all the resolutions passed by the UNSC over the
years? Are they not the result of diplomacy?


 

offline danbrusca from Derbyshire (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 16:49 [#00598419]
Points: 4570 Status: Lurker | Followup to Morgoth: #00598302



Over 3 years since limitations were lifted as it happens.
Not that Iraq seem to take advantage of it.


 

offline danbrusca from Derbyshire (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-16 16:53 [#00598424]
Points: 4570 Status: Lurker | Followup to Morgoth: #00598369



It's hard to find someone who isn't a hypocrite! After all,
people continually drag up Iraq being armed by the US when
the oh-so moral Jacques Chirac sold them a nuclear reactor.

Think about that. If Israel hadn't bombed that reactor then
Saddam Hussein would have had a nuke in 1991.


 

offline E-man from Rixensart (Belgium) on 2003-03-16 16:58 [#00598429]
Points: 3000 Status: Regular



c'mon everyone should at least agree on the fact that all
the gov involved are lying on the real reasons of their
engagment, but keep in mind that for "us" who are not
americans our economy depends on yours!!! so it's a little
bit pushing it over the edge cos it's always the UN (without
usa's money who don't give UN money since a long time) who
have to back-up after the military "tour-de-force" took
place...
so I say, USA should stop taking care of the non-democratic
countries OR do it properly and with all the non-democratic
gov worlwide


 

offline AMinal from Toronto (Canada) on 2003-03-16 16:59 [#00598430]
Points: 3476 Status: Regular | Followup to Morgoth: #00598288



how bout we fix the problem instead of only treating the
symptoms... and get rid of saddamm, then help the people
rebuild (and simply build) instead of just feeding his
people for him no matter what he does, making his insane
dictatorship artificially sustainable


 

offline nacmat on 2003-03-16 17:40 [#00598475]
Points: 31271 Status: Lurker



.


Attached picture

 


Messageboard index