American warmongers - Page 4

Bush doesn't commit genocide. If that was his intent he would have nuked the place to hell.

Come on Teen, the use of nuclear weapons would have galvanised the world and the people against the government that would be self destruction on the government (the shadow government) as it exist today.

Are you suggesting that he purposefully attempting to wipe out a people?
Nonesense, he is neither intentionally or unintentionally doing anything near genocide.
The low number of deaths in these recent wars keep being brought up and exaggerated to such an extreme.
There was a time when you feared millions of dead (if not Billions during the cold war) as opposed to the wimpy insignificant wars Bush has caused.

Not to demean the dead, but put things in perspective. These wars and genocide are on such different scales its inconceivable to compare them.

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that he purposefully attempting to wipe out a people?
Nonesense, he is neither intentionally or unintentionally doing anything near genocide.

---

You are correct in these statements. (my opinion) But like the A-bombs used in Japan, he would be tempted to do so to Bagdad (sp). To form a desisive victory over a long term war and lose of life.
So Iran & Iraq share in a glorious despot put into power to promote capitalic gains? I had not been aware that we (CIA) had been the instrument of covert actions establishing Saddam's rule . . . a little like Castro, ehh

To begin with God allows wars. He does not relish in it, but He does allow this because the hard hearts that rule. But, noteworthy is the way that the current war is actually defensive.

You say no. But over 3000 innocent civilians were lost to a tragic and impossible regime who planned that attack for many many years. Note how they trained in our achools for aeronautic information. They have cells of men here in america. They plotted murders of our soldiers over the years under the rule of Clinton. Osama Bin Laden had been practically given to Clinton, but he ignored it. Even after our men were killed in other lands by his attacks.

The regime, the training camps for Al Quieda are all located in southern Iraq. Making Saddam either a very ignorant and stupid leader who had no knowledge of what was happening under his nose, or a very cunning and exploitive hard core murderer even by association.

His country the master mind behind germ warfare. The potential to mass destroy a town by germ warfare. Either he bragged it, or he created it.

Look at the mere fact we do NOT have Osama Bun Laden. Where is he?
Since he is impossibly hidden from society, how can the weapons also be NOT hidden just as well.

As for the innocent lives in Iraq, as per the reporting I hear, and not so sure what anyone else knows, but the terrorists are the ones killing the people of Iraq. They are doing this with either suicide bombers, or bombs. They are purportedly blaming America. Again a well thought out plan. To alienate america when we need our allies.

It has been such a devised and well schemed plan, it has even divided the nation of America. Their fighting lacks organization, but the fact they are willing to fight and are willing to commit suicide shows they are brainwashed against america, and that Bin needs caught. The money that resulted in their planning efforts has been nullified by Bush. That in itself is good.

I have alot of theories, as does anyone else, why Bush would do this, but only he has the INTELLIGENCE reports to go by. Top secret and all that.

HERE IS A QUESTION I LAY DOWN BEFORE ALL OF YOU.

IS it good we had 911 happen?
And if you were in Bush's shoes, what would you have done?

(Keep in mind, you have a nation and allies to protect)

Let me add something I copied elsewhere. Because at the beginning of this thread I noticed the statement that the last war 'Desert Storm' was a waste. Or something along those lines.

WHO: Iraq versus Kuwait (backed by the United States).
WHERE: The Middle East

WHEN: August 2, 1990--April 3, 1991

WHY: A long-standing unresolved disagreement over the right to exploit certain oilfields led to border debates

WHAT: Iraq and Kuwait had already been quarreling about border discrepancies for the Rumailah oilfield as well as Kuwait's islands, Bubiyan and Warbah. Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, claimed that Kuwait's high oil production was glutting the market and driving down the world price for oil to $18 a barrel. At the same time, Kuwait wanted Iraq to repay the loans it had received during the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq wanted the debt cancelled noting that the . In hopes of squashing the dispute OPEC raised the price of oil to $21 a barrel on July 27, 1990. On August 2, Iraqi tanks invade Kuwait and take Kuwait City. The UN condemns Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and issues Resolution 660. On August 3, governments around the world freeze Iraq's assets and suspend international trend. Three days later the UN issues Resolution 661 placing a trade embargo on Iraq. On August 8, Saddam announces that Iraq has annexed Kuwait. UN Resolution 662 formed on August 10 unanimously condemns Iraq's annexation of Kuwait

Is this why people confuse the reason for the war in Iraq now for oil now?

quote:

---

perhaps i'm in a easier place to judge seeing as i am english, but there does seem to be a great deal of hypocracy in america's foriegn policy. for instance we are told by america that iraq must be disarmed, it has weapons of mass destruction and is an aggressive nation. ok, first of all it does NOT have weapons of mass destruction, and secondly the notion of america persecuting any nation for being aggressive is so far beyond hypocrytical it's laughable. i don't want to sound as if i think i know it all, but to my understanding america is the best example of a democracy in the world, in theory. the government is not supposed to be able to act against the peoples wishes. the fact that bush's mass genocide of any nation which dares to disobey him still goes on puts you the people in a bad light globally. people in england for instance, we don't hate you lot, but we are left with two options to choose from; either you agree with the slaughter of these people which is terrible, or you just won't put the effort into stopping him, which is even worse. come on yanks, stand up for yourselves, micheal moore has proved some of you care, don't let bush turn you into the butt of the worlds jokes, and into a target for the remainder of nations bush destroys.

---

The difference between a nation who uses their weapons for defense (America), and a nation who would use their weapons to over run and manipulate an entire world (Iraq) is a vast and extraordinarily marked differnce. IF a nation is allowing, or is attacking other nations, there are to be dealt with. We cannot allow the entire world peace to lie on the unknown of a leader who would think nothing of annihilating any other country or peoples. When as a rule of thumb, he destroyed his own without batting an eye.

NO one knows for certain if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not. That remains to be seen. But certainly he was bold in his DICTATORSHIP. I cannot say definitely if there are weapons or not. But his actions and his conspired actions speak for themselves that IF indeed we did take the chance of him owning them, certainly he would think nothing of using them. As he is aligned with Osama who also is conscience free.
Even though they should feel remorse and guilt, it is absent by their actions.

I believe you are incorrect on who would commit genocide. It has not been Bush, who has been aligning a free government for the Iraqi people who are now almost free to find a lifestyle you are already accustomed to, and take for granted.

Their 30 year oppresion has given NO freedom to children, women, or men. They live in fear no matter. The only ones who courageously fought in 1991, were made examples of in their own country, when 1st their children (100's) were killed before their eyes, and then they themselves were killed execution style. Because they sought FREEDOM....that which you already have.

Remember to walk in another's shoes before you decide you know.

Dreamer, you are really off with these post. (my opinion)

quote:

---

The difference between a nation who uses their weapons for defense (America), and a nation who would use their weapons to over run and manipulate an entire world (Iraq) is a vast and extraordinarily marked differnce.

---

The US involvement in WWII, is a good example of defensive war? Well may be but after the fall of nazi Germany, it was Russian and Americans who claimed the technologies and scientist. It was Americans, who completed & used the A-bomb first. It was Americans, who started the arms race and who produced the misslie defence system, by praying upon the fears of the Europeans.

quote:

---

but to my understanding america is the best example of a democracy in the world, in theory. the government is not supposed to be able to act against the peoples wishes.
--------------------------------
It was America's cold war, a war of global terrorism complete with covert operations ( underhanded and under the table) without public knowledgement to suppress any governments which did not follow their policies.

---

Do you really think that we haven't been involved in these covert actions in muslim world? Your post speak of understanding of Christianity, so you should know that capitalism and christianity are not synonymous. These actions are not the right way to do these things which is why 911 happened, we brought these things are ourselves but our government's exploiting muslims problems for their own advantage instead of working to help them overcome their problems.

"Look at the mere fact we do NOT have Osama Bun Laden. Where is he?
Since he is impossibly hidden from society, how can the weapons also be NOT hidden just as well. "
Weapons are big and weapons can't run away from you in the obscure mountain tunnels of afganistan.
The fact that NO weapons still haven't turned up is bad news for Bush as it clearly shows he either lied or acted upon inadequate information.

"The difference between a nation who uses their weapons for defense (America), and a nation who would use their weapons to over run and manipulate an entire world (Iraq) is a vast and extraordinarily marked differnce."
America didn't use its Nukes to manipulate? Nukes were constantly used as an agressive detterent against China (to help Taiwan lay claim to some insignificant coastal islands) and many offensive nukes placed in Turkey and western Europe helped cause the Cuban Missile Crisis : it raised the highest possible risk of nuclear war.

No, the US did attempt to use nukes to manipulate others, it is not only a defensive detterent.

"Their 30 year oppresion has given NO freedom to children, women, or men. They live in fear no matter."
The sad thing is that US (and Europe for that matter) supported saddam and helped him retain his power during the disastrous Iran/Iraq war.

I'm glad another dictator will go, however, Bush seems to have had no exit strategy. It looks as though there will be no democracy, no rich islamic country but only an unstable country which will know some form of dictatorship or another.

I am not as strong in politics.
I do understand the concepts however.

quote:

---

It was Americans, who completed & used the A-bomb first. It was Americans, who started the arms race and who produced the misslie defence system, by praying upon the fears of the Europeans.

---

The A bomb was a defensive employed after we were attacked on Pearl Harbor.

quote:

---

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in Oahu, Hawaii on December 7, 1941. Submarines were spotted by the U.S. minesweeper Condor about 50 yards away from Pearl Harbor, but U.S. had no idea this attack was coming. Two waves of Japanese airplanes came in a surprise air attack to Hawaii. The first attack hit at 7:53 am and the second at 8:55 am. The Japanese launched a total of 353 airplanes in the attack. A total of 2,403 people died in the attack on Pearl Harbor. There were also 188 destroyed planes and the Pacific Fleet had 8 damaged or destroyed battleships.

---

I cannot see how america is to blame for everone else's problems.
Exploited? Many times the peace talks were attempted. It will not happen, incidently, until the end times, when peace will be found in the Middle east.

quote:

---

These actions are not the right way to do these things which is why 911 happened, we brought these things are ourselves but our government's exploiting muslims problems for their own advantage instead of working to help them overcome their problems.

---

No doubt that certain leaders looked away when indeed there could have been a stop to this atrocious tragedy.


Desert Storm, and all other times America helped out other countries we were criticised for.

The scenerio is;
Country X has problems with country Y. Country Y tries to overtake X, we step in, fix the problem, and then Y conplains we totaled their land. We fix the land up, and then get ridiculed by both X and Y.
Tell me what's wrong with the scenerio. But what I find most incredulous is the mere fact we have so much freedom here, we can openly criticise our own government, but in light of the 911 I see very little criticism of the middle east, and Saddam.

I assure you, war is but a part of religion, economics, and world borders are made up of wars. Wars from the beginning of time have been the deciding factors and who is the strongest, and who is the leader.

What I mean in that is, war has always beena a part of history.
But, in almost all circumstances, america was either on the DEFENSIVE of itself (Seldom tho), or the defense of smaller countries.

BUT never has america been on the Offensive, and acted on it.
Terrorists are offensive (In several ways I add), and they will not be stopped, because america pulls out of Iraq.
That would be a very bad thing to do. Terrorists, not americans, have struck at several countries in the past decade alone killing thousands.

I am of course referring to premeditated planning to kill everyone they see as an enemy.
Americans have made errors in judgement, and accidents have occured.
That should be observed. Unintentional vs Intentional. Just IMO.

quote:

---

The sad thing is that US (and Europe for that matter) supported saddam and helped him retain his power during the disastrous Iran/Iraq war.

---

Sad thing is, we always help the underdog. But who could know we would have such a problem in the new mellenium.

quote:

---

No, the US did attempt to use nukes to manipulate others, it is not only a defensive detterent

---

America has been described as the stronger big brother. Is it not obvious, we are strong because we have to be?

quote:

---

I'm glad another dictator will go, however, Bush seems to have had no exit strategy. It looks as though there will be no democracy, no rich islamic country but only an unstable country which will know some form of dictatorship or another

---

Democracy takes time. Especially within the rubbles of a former dictatorship overcoming terrorism. It will not be an overnight sensation.
All good things take time.

Ah as you said

quote:

---

I am not as strong in politics.
I do understand the concepts however.

---

neither is your history?
Yes Japan did attack Pearl Harbor and we entered into WWII because of it.
But 2 of the 3 Axis (sp) Germany & Italy had been defeated so only the Pacific remained at war. Which the combined forces of the Allied where coming to bear on Japan.
It was decided that casualties were running to high so we dropped the bomb on civilians.

quote:

---

I cannot see how america is to blame for everone else's problems.

---

Yes then perhaps we should not be forcing our solutions upon others

quote:

---

Exploited? Many times the peace talks were attempted. It will not happen, incidently, until the end times, when peace will be found in the Middle east.

---

Being around for Nam I am may be more aware of the covert actions around the world to destabilize governments & promote revolutions in countries which don't meet our criteria.
I wonder would {will} we really have destroyed the world to get our own waywardness?

"Sad thing is, we always help the underdog. But who could know we would have such a problem in the new mellenium."
Underdog dictator who bombed his own people (yes he was being supported while he did this).
And besides, what problem? There was no problem, he was compliant to every US demand barring his leaving the country.
North Korea : there's a problem.
I'm happy to see Saddam go, but I have no illusions about how good Bush's motivations were.

"America has been described as the stronger big brother. Is it not obvious, we are strong because we have to be?"
Why do you HAVE to be strong and yet you claim no other nation has the right to be strong?
The US is hardly a big brother, that's US propaganda. The US is just like any other power today : it has and still supports autocratic regimes around the world for its own benefit (South Vietnam, Pinochet, Franco, Iran's Shah, Musharraf in Pakistan etc..).

The US only rarely uses its might for good.


Especially within the rubbles of a former dictatorship overcoming terrorism."
Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. Saddam did not support Osama. I reallly don't know why people link Iraq to terrorism.

" It will not be an overnight sensation.
All good things take time."
I was once optimistic about this war too. However, Bush has made it clear he's going to high-tail it out of Iraq. Whatever weak democracy is left in place will (like almost all poor multiethic/religious democracies) not last long. It suspect there will be some sort of civil war once the americans leave and Iraq will become another Yugoslavia.

This is my only point.

This war has been brought to you by terrorists. Whether you agree or not how it is done, or what dictator gets taken out of power and how. It is the fruition to what they brought upon themselves.

If a bully desires to attack everyone on the block, it is their right to be a bully. (As is the mindset I am seeing here)
But the victims have the same rights to defend themselves, and attack back.

This does not make the victim worse because they win.

As I stated before, Saddam and Al Queada are together.
The training camps for the regime aka Al Queada are in Iraq.

Whether they are sporting weapons of mass destruction or not is of smaller scale importance. Yes an excuse to attack, but so is the Al Queada infestation that torments the world.
And that my friends, is why we SHOULD be retaliating or else, sit back, do nothing and wait for our land to be in an onslaught on a continuous basis. THEY hate us! They won't stop. So, whom here desires to see our nation go under? Who here would not be grieved if these men who hate us, were to kill our families?

Pull out of Iraq, and see what happens.

History apparently does repeat itself.
We were attacked at Pearl Harbor, so we eventually wrought destruction on Hiroshema. Not a wonderful thing, but then again, they were wrong...sneaky!

Do not attack if you do not want retribultion...eventually.

"This war has been brought to you by terrorists."
In a sense yes, Bush could never have gone through with this war without 9/11 and the fake Al Quaeda/Saddam link.

"Whether you agree or not how it is done, or what dictator gets taken out of power and how. It is the fruition to what they brought upon themselves."
Al Quaeda is different to Saddam. So really, Saddam did not bring this upon himself. Despite his evil he complied with every US demand barring the final ultimatum.

"If a bully desires to attack everyone on the block, it is their right to be a bully. (As is the mindset I am seeing here)
But the victims have the same rights to defend themselves, and attack back."
Saddam did NOT attack the USA (or its interests) since the end of Gulf War I.

"This does not make the victim worse because they win."
The US was not picked on by Saddam.

"As I stated before, Saddam and Al Queada are together.
The training camps for the regime aka Al Queada are in Iraq. "
NONONO.
That is NOT true at all. They are saying that PERHAPS Al Quaedd and Saddam had communication between them, but its not at all true that Saddam supported Al Quaeda like the Taliban did.
Saddam = evil secular socialist
Bin Laden = evil religious fanatic
They aren't the same thing and the only thing they have in common is they hate America.

It strikes me as amazing that still so many Americans equate Saddam with 9/11 even though Bush NEVER stated this.
I doubt this was Bush's intent, but its a nice surprise for him isn't it?