SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 87
  1. #51
    Wibblesticks Gryff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Asgard
    Posts
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by URAlly


    What is the point of building WMD without the intent of killing? Do you think he is doing it for the world's health? Almost every country agrees Saddam is a mad man.

    He builds it, we build it, they build it. What difference does it make? ITS WRONG and talking about it isn't making it go away.



    What rhetoric? What the media dishes out on a daily basis? Go back to the picture posted earlier. People will believe what they want to based on opinion and not facts, or what they think they see. Talk about rhetoric.

    So the 10k or so nuclear warheads the US has got are there for killing people?

    WELL DUH!!!!!!
    In a world where the human mind
    can be programmed like a computer,
    at what point does the human soul end
    and the cybernetic machinery begin?

  2. #52
    Fine Tuned silver trophy KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,291
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Gryff
    So the 10k or so nuclear warheads the US has got are there for killing people?

    WELL DUH!!!!!!
    Are you referring that I'm stupid?

    Did I say it we were right for having it? Last time I checked, I had 0 nukes in my possession. Geesh! Another one generalizing the US.

  3. #53
    Wibblesticks Gryff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Asgard
    Posts
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So you condone Iraq for trying to develop WMD, yet dont criticise your own government for owning a vastly more powerful arsenal.

    Maybe you should try and change things in YOUR country before you go around bombing people, in the name of peace.
    In a world where the human mind
    can be programmed like a computer,
    at what point does the human soul end
    and the cybernetic machinery begin?

  4. #54
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by URAlly
    What is the point of building WMD without the intent of killing? Do you think he is doing it for the world's health? Almost every country agrees Saddam is a mad man.

    He builds it, we build it, they build it. What difference does it make? ITS WRONG and talking about it isn't making it go away.

    What rhetoric? What the media dishes out on a daily basis? Go back to the picture posted earlier. People will believe what they want to based on opinion and not facts, or what they think they see. Talk about rhetoric.
    China, Russia, France, India, Pakistan, US and the UK all have nukes, they have been used once, the point of having nukes is being able to defend yourself without actually having to fire them, to be able to make the ultimate threat to anyone who may try an attack against your country, the point of having them is not to obliterate the world, if it was we would all be dead by now.

    Many people think the world could be better off without nuclear weapons and am I one of them, but if it's wrong for Iraq to build them then it's also wrong for the US, UK, France etc.

    Okay everyone accepts Saddam Hussain is a nasty piece of work, but many people would say that about many other leaders including Bush.

    The rhetoric is that which comes out of Blairs and Bushes mouths, which claims that Saddam Hussain is some major threat to the world, despite the fact his containment over the last ten years would suggest the contrary. I agree many people will base their views on what they think they see, rather than the facts, which is precisely why Bush repeats that Saddam is a threat to the world, eventually some people will begin to believe it's the truth, despite the facts.

  5. #55
    Fine Tuned silver trophy KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,291
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Gryff
    So you condone Iraq for trying to develop WMD, yet dont criticise your own government for owning a vastly more powerful arsenal.

    Maybe you should try and change things in YOUR country before you go around bombing people, in the name of peace.
    Why don't you tell Bush that instead of directing it towards me as an individual who didn't vote for the man.

    Many people think the world could be better off without nuclear weapons and am I one of them, but if it's wrong for Iraq to build them then it's also wrong for the US, UK, France etc.
    Exactly, so what do we do about it now?

    I was going to say something else but I'm tired and will pick up on this another time. I probably need to calm down a bit before I say anything more.
    Last edited by URAlly; Nov 4, 2002 at 19:52.

  6. #56
    Wibblesticks Gryff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Asgard
    Posts
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by URAlly


    Why don't you tell Bush that instead of directing it towards me as an individual who didn't vote for the man.



    Exactly, so what do we do about it now?

    I was going to say something else but I'm tired and will pick up on this another time. I probably need to calm down a bit before I say anything more.
    We've been told a few times that its none of our business about the politics of the USA.

    As a citizen you ARE responsible if you didnt do your utmost ( in a civilized manner ), to get the person you wanted in power, if every did this, the world would be a better place, you cannot simply say its not my responsibility.
    In a world where the human mind
    can be programmed like a computer,
    at what point does the human soul end
    and the cybernetic machinery begin?

  7. #57
    Fine Tuned silver trophy KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,291
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Gryff
    We've been told a few times that its none of our business about the politics of the USA.
    Who is we?

    Originally posted by Gryff
    As a citizen you ARE responsible if you did'nt do your utmost ( in a civilized manner ), to get the person you wanted in power, if every did this, the world would be a better place, you cannot simply say its not my responsibility.
    My stance on this is that the US Gov't SHOULD butt out of everyone's business and deal with the problems we have at home. We don't need a war to disarm Saddam, but something needs to be done about him. If you think he is not a threat, well thats your opinion. I have reason to believe he is a threat, so lets just leave it at that.

    In the future, don't try to force feed what you think my responsibilities should be. I know exactly what my priorities/responsibilities are more so than you.

  8. #58
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by URAlly

    Exactly, so what do we do about it now?
    Do about what? You seem to believe Iraq is some huge threat to the world despite the fact there is absolutely no evidence of Iraq possesing nuclear weapons, most of the rest of the world simply see a dictator who treats his own people badly, but is certainly no threat.

  9. #59
    Wibblesticks Gryff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Asgard
    Posts
    442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I imagine the rhetoric will wind down soon, now the mid term elections are coming to an end
    In a world where the human mind
    can be programmed like a computer,
    at what point does the human soul end
    and the cybernetic machinery begin?

  10. #60
    Fine Tuned silver trophy KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,291
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by neil100


    Do about what? You seem to believe Iraq is some huge threat to the world despite the fact there is absolutely no evidence of Iraq possesing nuclear weapons, most of the rest of the world simply see a dictator who treats his own people badly, but is certainly no threat.
    Yes, and that's your opinion too neil. My views are different and for good reason. I'm not influenced by the media or even my own government but from personal experience which has lead me to believe he is a threat. I repeat, let's leave it at that.

    So what if there was proof? Would it really change anyone's opinion about the US? Probably not. People love to hate us.

  11. #61
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by URAlly

    Yes, and that's your opinion too neil. My views are different and for good reason. I'm not influenced by the media or even my own government but from personal experience which has lead me to believe he is a threat. I repeat, let's leave it at that.
    Well it's not my opinion it's a fact no one has presented any evidence, I'll leave it at that.

    Originally posted by URAlly

    So what if there was proof? Would it really change anyone's opinion about the US? Probably not. People love to hate us.
    If there was proof that Saddam Hussain was a threat to the world, I expect people would be a lot more sympathetic to the US governments views on Iraq.

    No it would probably not change peoples views on the US, because the wrong the US does to the poorer parts of the world is far greater than just the Iraq issue.

    People do not love to hate the US, many people hate the US government, which is something different and given the way the US treats large parts of the planet it is very understandable why hate exists.
    Last edited by neil100; Nov 5, 2002 at 10:46.

  12. #62
    ********* obeah makeda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    rollin' on dubs
    Posts
    492
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by neil100
    Well it's not my opinion it's a fact no one has presented any evidence, I'll leave it at that.
    Well, I think this is a subjective arguement. For example, Tony Blair submits his dossier of evidence for people to examine, to help build a case for why the UK should support the US. Now THIS is a fact, no? Neil, what you seem to be implying is that you don't believe his "evidence", therefor its not "evidence".


    Originally posted by neil100
    If there was proof that Saddam Hussain was a threat to the world, I expect people would be a lot more sympathetic to the US governments views on Iraq.
    This is the million dollar question. What constitutes proof that he is a threat? Is proving that he posesses nuclear weapons enough? Is proving that he is actively seeking to acquire these weapons enough? Do we need to prove that if he can acquire them that he will use them? Neil, I know that you see no reason why any country should not be allowed to posess nuclear weapons. For a moment, put this arguement aside. What, to you, would constitute sufficient evidence that Saddam Hussein is a threat?

  13. #63
    Fine Tuned silver trophy KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,291
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Gryff
    I imagine the rhetoric will wind down soon, now the mid term elections are coming to an end
    I missed this post earlier. Gryff, for once I hope you are right.

  14. #64
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by makeda

    Well, I think this is a subjective arguement. For example, Tony Blair submits his dossier of evidence for people to examine, to help build a case for why the UK should support the US. Now THIS is a fact, no? Neil, what you seem to be implying is that you don't believe his "evidence", therefor its not "evidence".
    It s not a case of wether I believe it or not, there is nothing even remotely solid in it, if it was a court case it would be thrown out for lack of evidence, you just have to read the wording too see that the dossier is empty proaganda. Here are some examples for you -

    - The Iraqi weapon programme is almost certainly seeking to enrich uranium.

    - It appears that Iraq is attempting to acquire a magnet production line.

    - There is evidence that Iraq has tried to acquire specialised aluminium tubes (used in the enrichment of uranium) but there is no definitive intelligence that it is destined for a nuclear programme.

    - If Iraq obtained fissile material, Iraq could produce nuclear weapons in one or two years.

    - It is difficult to judge whether al-Hussein missiles could be available for use.

    - Efforts to regenerate the Iraqi missile programme probably began in 1995.

    And so the dossier goes on.

    Every government that has seen the dossier (French, German, Russian) branded it is propaganda, along with the majority of the press and even members of his own government.

    Originally posted by makeda

    This is the million dollar question. What constitutes proof that he is a threat? Is proving that he posesses nuclear weapons enough? Is proving that he is actively seeking to acquire these weapons enough? Do we need to prove that if he can acquire them that he will use them? Neil, I know that you see no reason why any country should not be allowed to posess nuclear weapons. For a moment, put this arguement aside. What, to you, would constitute sufficient evidence that Saddam Hussein is a threat?
    Sufficient evidence of him being a threat, well evidence of someone being a threat is pretty irrelevent, stupidly I believe someone has to actually commit a crime before we start talking evidence and that it is actually impossible to prove what actions someone may or may not take in the future.

    If there is sufficient evidence of him breaking UN resolutions or sanctions, then he should be punished just like any other country that breaks them, which currently is not at all.

  15. #65
    Fine Tuned silver trophy KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,291
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by neil100
    People do not love to hate the US, many people hate the US government, which is something different and given the way the US treats large parts of the planet it is very understandable why hate exists.
    Yes and no. Most think we are self absorbed, arrogant, non-caring of what is happening in their countries, greedy, destructive - gun consumers, and we sit on our butts watching Jerry Springer all day. If they only knew half of us are posting on SP daily. They also think women here are vain - obsessed with our appearance, and far more advanced than those in third world countries.

    Are they right? Probably. For instance, when Bali was bombed, did America stop and light candles, wave the Australian flag, and pray for those lost? No, we did nothing for them. But on September 12, the world stood still for us.

    As far as helping other countries, individuals in this country do. It goes unnoticed when all they see on television is CNN and Jerry Springer, and the newspapers only print slanders from famous people in America. Its no wonder why they feel the way they do.

    I'm beginning to see a different view about Saddam. We shouldn't make any move without full support from the UN. Instead, America needs to take a good look at itself and start paying attention to what the world thinks of us. We are losing our greatest and closest allies. What is more important than that right now?

  16. #66
    ********* obeah makeda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    rollin' on dubs
    Posts
    492
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not saying that the US is right but at the same time, the fact people disagree with us, to me, doesn't necessarily indicate that we're wrong.

    So we wait for Saddam Hussein to nuke/gas Israel, Kuwait or Iraq before anyone acts against him, bacause until such time we don't have enough evidence? Please. My dog doesn't like my cat. Is my dog strong enough to kill my cat? I don't know. Do I let him give it his best shot before deciding whether or not to keep them separated? No.

  17. #67
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy TheOriginalH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    4,811
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So, bearing in mind the military might of the US, and the fact that agendas are questioned by almost every nation in the world, should said nations wait until the US is interested enough in them to send in the troops/bomb/nuke, or should they voice their displeasure and attack while they have the chance?

    Following your logic...
    ~The Artist Latterly Known as Crazy Hamster~
    922ee590a26bd62eb9b33cf2877a00df
    Currently delving into Django, GIT & CentOS

  18. #68
    ********* obeah makeda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    rollin' on dubs
    Posts
    492
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Following your logic...is it really in said countries best interest to attack the US because of differences in perspective on world affairs? Millitary might aside. If Europe were to come together and level the US, your exports would take a nose-dive, no?

  19. #69
    Fine Tuned silver trophy KC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,291
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by makeda
    So we wait for Saddam Hussein to nuke/gas Israel, Kuwait or Iraq before anyone acts against him, bacause until such time we don't have enough evidence?
    makeda, the way I see it; if we sit and do nothing, we are criticized. If we do something we are criticized. We are inbetween a rock and a hard place indefinately.

  20. #70
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy TheOriginalH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    4,811
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Aha, so it is about economy then?

    I thought it was to do with the alleged imminent threats (Israel/Kuwait etc)....
    ~The Artist Latterly Known as Crazy Hamster~
    922ee590a26bd62eb9b33cf2877a00df
    Currently delving into Django, GIT & CentOS

  21. #71
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy TheOriginalH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    4,811
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by URAlly


    makeda, the way I see it; if we sit and do nothing, we are criticized. If we do something we are criticized. We are inbetween a rock and a hard place indefinately.
    Uh uh, not true.

    Most nations have voiced their opinion on what should be done - by everyone, not just the US.

    The criticism is levelled at ignoring that opinion and doing things regardless of world opinion - simple really, no rock, no hard place
    ~The Artist Latterly Known as Crazy Hamster~
    922ee590a26bd62eb9b33cf2877a00df
    Currently delving into Django, GIT & CentOS

  22. #72
    ********* obeah makeda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    rollin' on dubs
    Posts
    492
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by TheOriginalH
    Aha, so it is about economy then?

    I thought it was to do with the alleged imminent threats (Israel/Kuwait etc)....
    No problem, economics aside. Again, following your logic. If countries decided to attack one another merely because of different perspectives on world affairs...lets say, again, that Europe gets together and levels the US. The US is out of the picture. Do all the remaining countries share the same perspective on international affairs now that the US is out of the picture? No. So these countries turn on each other. Who is left? No one. So clearly thats not what we're talking about. We're talking about preventing disaster, which is the reason countries don't attack each other based on different perspectives of international issues and the reason Saddam Hussein shouldn't posess a nuke.
    Last edited by makeda; Nov 6, 2002 at 10:26.

  23. #73
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy TheOriginalH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    4,811
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Different perspectives aren't the only issue though. The main issue here as I understand it is the "possible threat" posed by various countries.

    Many in the US (and I appreciate not all) feel justified in attacking pretty much whoever because of a perceived threat (which, let's be frank, is fed to them/us/whoever by a media which may or may not be controlled elsewhere) - and the possibility of danger (pre-emptive strike).

    It just strikes me (forgive pun), that the most capable country of genuinely posing such a threat, and one which has repeatedly attacked others in the last few years (in the name of freedom of course - nothing to do with economics), is in fact the US - ergo all countries that are potentially threatened by the US (which, let's face it, constitutes most of the middle and far east, and whoever dubya discovers in his under 5's world atlas that day), should, by your logic, feel absolutely justified in bombing the crap out of the states "just in case" you do attack them.

    Of course, anyone that objected to this would simply be a bleeding heart liberal who just didn't understand how action like this is needed before something happens, not after
    ~The Artist Latterly Known as Crazy Hamster~
    922ee590a26bd62eb9b33cf2877a00df
    Currently delving into Django, GIT & CentOS

  24. #74
    ********* obeah makeda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    rollin' on dubs
    Posts
    492
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by TheOriginalH
    Different perspectives aren't the only issue though. The main issue here as I understand it is the "possible threat" posed by various countries.

    Many in the US (and I appreciate not all) feel justified in attacking pretty much whoever because of a perceived threat (which, let's be frank, is fed to them/us/whoever by a media which may or may not be controlled elsewhere) - and the possibility of danger (pre-emptive strike).
    Well, is it fed to people from the news or is it fed to people by watching 4 Boeing 747's getting highjacked and crashing into buildings/the ground, in your own country. I appreciate that to many people outside of the US, "percieved threat" has a different meaning than it does to people inside the US (post 9/11). I think thats whats driving this division.

  25. #75
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy TheOriginalH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    4,811
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That was of course a very real threat - and one of the most heinous events in US history. But has precisely nothing to do with Iraq....
    ~The Artist Latterly Known as Crazy Hamster~
    922ee590a26bd62eb9b33cf2877a00df
    Currently delving into Django, GIT & CentOS


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •