Black Hand Posted March 22, 2003 http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3 listening to this increased my lifespan up to five years, heres a short summary as to what the content is... "Well, um, like, I think we shouldn't go to war because like, Justin Timberlake says we shouldn't, and that um, that Soldum guy, that he's not so bad, he's just like, misunderstood" 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted March 22, 2003 I agree with that little girl. She seems silly, but play back Bush's speech, and check out what is more retarded. As for people being against the war, that is millions of people with various specific reasons as to why. They don't have to share reasons, all they have to do is get together and take some form of action. Anyway, you fail it, someone brought that MP3 up on the poll thread already. 0 Share this post Link to post
doomedout Posted March 22, 2003 Peter Heinemann said:About the news about Napalm: I do believe this, in the first Gulf War, the US troops burried prisoners of war alive, using carterpillars, that´s not a story, they just wanted to get rid off them fast, I have seen photographies of the exhumed bodies and there were former US soldiers talking about it. I don´t know how much the position of the french were influenced by economical reasons, but - really: Hurrah for the "Coalation of the Refusing"! First of all, who said anything about any war being pretty. War is insanity personified. Given a face. There is no war that is free from these heinous acts. So pointing fingers at USA napalm is okay from a humanitarian perspective, but like makes no sense in the long run cause shit happens. Secondly, the coalition of the refusing, or whateverthefuck you want to call it, are equally as bad. Everyone is in it for money, when was foreign policy chalked on norms which embraced other ideals? It is always about national interest. Those bastards will see more loss in a War because of NATIONAL interest, and quite frankly there is nothing wrong with that. 0 Share this post Link to post
fodders Posted March 22, 2003 Peter Heinemann said:... I have seen a woman on TV, a black coloured young woman (pretty one), who told that she fully supports her good president. Only Peter could get horny in the middle of an anti-war rant :P 0 Share this post Link to post
fodders Posted March 22, 2003 doomedout said:Secondly, the coalition of the refusing, or whateverthefuck you want to call it, are equally as bad. Everyone is in it for money, when was foreign policy chalked on norms which embraced other ideals? It is always about national interest. Those bastards will see more loss in a War because of NATIONAL interest, and quite frankly there is nothing wrong with that. And the coalition of the bullied and bribed are as good? And the desperate attempt by the US to make its present coalition resemble the alliance of 34 nations which contributed tens thousands of troops in the last Gulf War in 1991 is unravelling. Afghanistan BRIBED Depends heavily on military assistance from the US. Its country is torn apart by tribal warlords. Aid from Britain and America is vital for restructuring the ravaged land. Albania BRIBED Incredibly poor country with refugee crisis following the Kosovo war. Depends heavily on Western aid. Australia BLIND Tony Blair used the country to announce for the first time his intention to topple Saddam Hussein in March 2002. Aussie PM John Howard, right, has been one of Britain's closest allies. Has sent a 2,000-strong force of SAS troops, fighter jets and warships to the Gulf. But more than two thirds of Australians oppose involvement in any war without UN approval. Azerbaijan/GeorgiaBRIBED Desperate for aid,trade,and cash for the war on terror Czech RepublicBRIBED Desperately needs to develop trade links with Britain and America. Has sent non-combat troops specialising in chemical warfare decontamination in response to US request. Poised to join the EU next year and must keep relations with Britain tight. DenmarkBullied The Danish government is sending a corvette and a submarine, - but dropped plans to deploy ground troops because of weak parliamentary support. Colombia/C AmericaBRIBED Colombia, El Salvador and Nicaragua all receive generous anti-drugs funding from the US. Eritrea/EthiopiaBRIBED These are two of the poorest, most war-torn countries in the world. The bitter rivals each want US backing in a boundary dispute and need US aid to fight a massive famine. HungaryBLIND and BRIBED President Ferenc Madl, has allowed the Iraqi opposition to train on its territory. Hungary is also involved in massive oil deals with the US. It is part of a new wave of countries joining the EU in 2004 and its relations with the West are vital for that course to be completed. IcelandBLIND One of the 12 original members of Nato's Security Council. Fully supports military action, despite massive protests from within the country. ItalyBLIND The country's right-wing government, led by Silvio Berlusconi has been behind Britain and America every step of the way. But the Vatican said it was deeply pained by the outbreak of war and deplored the interruption of efforts to bring about peace. Italy has offered logistical help and use of military bases and ports under long-standing Nato commitments. JapanBLIND Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has given his moral backing for Washington. South KoreaBRIBED Has depended heavily on the Yankee dollar for the massive restructuring of its infrastructure. But even more important than that, it needs American muscle as protection against its nuclear-capable neighbours in the North. President Roh Moo-hyun admitted fearing that war with Iraq could hit relations between North Korea and the West. Baltic statesBRIBED The crumbling economies of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are desperate for funding from Britain and America through the United Nations. PhilippinesBRIBED President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, right, said Manila gave political and moral support, adding: "We are part of the coalition of the willing." But the country depends on America for military support and muscle to fight terrorism. PolandBRIBED President Aleksander Kwasniewski agreed to deploy up to 200 troops in the Gulf region, to perform non-combat roles supporting any US-led offensive. He also signed an open letter in support of the US. There's a reason he loves America - Poland is the first former communist state to join Nato and is among the 10 countries which have qualified to join the European Union in 2004. MacedoniaBRIBED Did not exist at the time of the last Gulf War and is among the world's smallest nations. Needs friends such as Britain and America as well as more funding for its depressed economy and services. NetherlandsBLIND The Dutch have sent anti-missile batteries to Turkey. SpainBLIND The strongest ally of the US and Britain. Has promised the use of its Nato bases for a strike on Iraq. Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, right, appeared side-by-side with Blair and Bush at the Azores summit last week. RomaniaBRIBED Has offered a small military contingent, but it is unlikely to see any action. Romania is desperate for its support to be repaid with increased trade with Britain and American - as well as continued aid. TurkeyBULLIED and BRIBED Has reluctantly pledged support but President Ahmet Necdet Sezer criticised the US attack, saying the UN Security Council process on Iraq should have been allowed to finish. Washington abruptly withdrew its carrot of a £10billion aid package to Turkey after the pro-Islamic government frustrated the US's military build up. SlovakiaBRIBED A leading member of the countries which are using this process to boost their own standing, Slovakia has offered troops on a non-combatant basis but expects financial rewards in return. United KingdomBLIND Washington's chief ally, committing 45,000 military personnel, planes and warships. UzbekistanBRIBED Receives assistance from the US for fighting drugs and terror. Silent Partners SAUDI Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Oman have refused to associate themselves publicly with the coalition. Israel has publicly supported the war, but America does not want it linked to the coalition. 0 Share this post Link to post
spank Posted March 22, 2003 Oh boy, a "lost" missile just hit an Iranian oil refinery. 0 Share this post Link to post
doomedout Posted March 22, 2003 fodders said:Rant So what is your point? Bribed or self inclined -all have the same underlining impetus:- Self Interest. Face it, in situations like these, there is no silver lining. There is the bad, the ugly, and the repugnant. 0 Share this post Link to post
Disorder Posted March 22, 2003 fodders said:NetherlandsBLIND The Dutch have sent anti-missile batteries to Turkey.Well, probably my government has done a little more than that, because I'm watching a pressconference by Tommy Franks and his colleagues from Australia, Brittain and some other countries. And guess what, Jan Blom (Dutch General, IIRC) is there aswell. I can't see why they would put him up there if our country has only sent Patriot-missiles. 0 Share this post Link to post
Disorder Posted March 22, 2003 spank said:Oh boy, a "lost" missile just hit an Iranian oil refinery. That was a very smart missile, it had his own will ;) 0 Share this post Link to post
fodders Posted March 22, 2003 Disorder said:Well, probably my government has done a little more than that, because I'm watching a pressconference by Tommy Franks and his colleagues from Australia, Brittain and some other countries. And guess what, Jan Blom (Dutch General, IIRC) is there aswell. I can't see why they would put him up there if our country has only sent Patriot-missiles. Dutch Secretary of Foreign Affairs Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told Radio Netherlands 20 March 2003 the Netherlands policy of only providing political support would not change.We're already doing a lot, of course. I refer to the fact that we have sent patriot missiles to Turkey, that we have given 'strong host nation support', as it is called, to the United States. Directly active military involvement in the war has not been the position of the Netherlands government, and will not be the position of the Netherlands government." Hear for yourself 0 Share this post Link to post
Sharessa Posted March 22, 2003 Why would support of Brttain help countries establish themselves in the EU? 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted March 22, 2003 doomedout said:First of all, who said anything about any war being pretty. War is insanity personified. Given a face. There is no war that is free from these heinous acts. So pointing fingers at USA napalm is okay from a humanitarian perspective, but like makes no sense in the long run cause shit happens. What is that supposed to mean? The "war" itself is a "positive" act (i.e. an action in itself and by itself) that is judged, supported, financed or refused by peoples and organizations all over the world, and everything done to put it in effect is considered by the peoples participating in it or witnessing it. If you commit criminal acts, you'll be punished or at the very least partially defamed (making your cause much less acceptable.) So how could it not make sense to point out that the "war" is fought in an unacceptable manner? I can't even call it "war" because of the irrational disparity between the contestants; one of the two is the greatest superpower on earth, the other basically has little sovereignty as it has been effectively disarmed and has heavy economic sanctions applied to it... and add to that the insane reasons given for the attacks. I only see state terrorism applied by on the Iraquis and on all the countries in a position to argue with the US. The use of banned warfare material only accentuates this further. doomedout said:Secondly, the coalition of the refusing, or whateverthefuck you want to call it, are equally as bad. Everyone is in it for money, when was foreign policy chalked on norms which embraced other ideals? It is always about national interest. Those bastards will see more loss in a War because of NATIONAL interest, and quite frankly there is nothing wrong with that. Are they? In your economy, what would you rather have, monopolies and concentrated hegemonies hogging the key resources and doing cheaply as they please with them and then selling them with huge gains for themselves for a high cost to others or a more varied economy where various groups bid for those resources and a relative degree of sovereignty over such resources is possible? If you leave aside why this "war" is fought, duh, it'll just be "hey who's cooler, these yanks or those arabs...?" You won't really have nothing to judge by, cause there's nothing to judge if you're not observing what is happening. 0 Share this post Link to post
Black Hand Posted March 22, 2003 I think I will answer that mans question in the mp3 file above, How will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq? It won't These people who all live on different sides of the planet would rather have everyone in your country killed then run the risk of listening to George Bush. I am the only one who has even mentioned Saddam’s name on this entire page, I guess all you anti war pacifists are getting really off the track with your pathetic excuses for why one country supports another. What I find the most unnerving is that no one cares about the civil eons in Iraq the one and only argument that holds any water. It’s good to know that all these countries are proceeding with the war whether some quakes from Duckland or whatever like it or not. and to think I was the one who was against this thread in the first place. 0 Share this post Link to post
dsm Posted March 22, 2003 May I ask a question directed exclusively at the Americans? How do you Americans explain why the US government doesn't just order their CIA agents to assasinate Saddam (and his sons), instead of starting this waste of human lives? I mean, if the US government really wants to rid the world of Saddam and help the Iraqi people as they claim, why doesn't it do it the surgically accurate way instead of dropping bombs in areas where several civies lead their daily life? 0 Share this post Link to post
fodders Posted March 22, 2003 Black Hand said:What I find the most unnerving is that no one cares about the civil eons in Iraq the one and only argument that holds any water. English please? 0 Share this post Link to post
Shaviro Posted March 22, 2003 dsm said:How do you Americans explain why the US government doesn't just order their CIA agents to assasinate Saddam (and his sons), instead of starting this waste of human lives? I mean, if the US government really wants to rid the world of Saddam and help the Iraqi people as they claim, why doesn't it do it the surgically accurate way instead of dropping bombs in areas where several civies lead their daily life? 1) Assassinating Saddam is just one of the things which needs to be done. The whole regime has to go! 2) Saddam kills more civilians every year than this war will! 3) They are carrying this out the most surgically way possible! 0 Share this post Link to post
fodders Posted March 22, 2003 Shaviro said:3) They are carrying this out the most surgically way possible! Tell that to the little 5 year old boy with shrapnel in his head.It sure was "surgical" to remove the lump of metal from his brain today! 0 Share this post Link to post
dsm Posted March 22, 2003 Whoa! Shaviro is leading a double life! Normally, he seems like a Dane, talking the language fluently (even with all the Anglecisms that are so common nowadays). But on the other hand, he's an American citizen, otherwise he wouldn't attempt to answer my question directed at Americans. 1. And you suppose the CIA couldn't do something about the regime? 2. How do you know? Oh yeah, you heard that through TV didn't you? Did you know that TV is full of propaganda? 3. How the Hell can you believe that? They pretty much seem to be dropping bombs on the most heavily populated areas dammit. 0 Share this post Link to post
Shaviro Posted March 22, 2003 fodders said:Tell that to the little 5 year old boy with shrapnel in his head.It sure was "surgical" to remove the lump of metal from his brain today! There is always collateral damage! 0 Share this post Link to post
Little Faith Posted March 22, 2003 Still, even though I ain't american I will ask: Do you really believe CIA agents possess so godly skills as to penetrate deep within the country of and murdering a mad, but vigilant dictator? And still, do you really believe that removing Saddam Hussein would make the Baath regime just go away? 0 Share this post Link to post
Shaviro Posted March 22, 2003 dsm said:Whoa! Shaviro is leading a double life! Normally, he seems like a Dane, talking the language fluently (even with all the Anglecisms that are so common nowadays). But on the other hand, he's an American citizen, otherwise he wouldn't attempt to answer my question directed at Americans. I don't really care who you direct your questions to. This is an open forum and you ought to know that. 1. heh. So the CIA should take out 60.000+ men? lol 2. uhm. It's a well documented fact that Saddam has people in the Iraqi towns who's job is to kill everyone who does not support Saddam. 3. These missiles are directed at the Regime's buildings. They hit precise within 1m. 0 Share this post Link to post
fodders Posted March 22, 2003 Shaviro said:There is always collateral damage! There is no collateral damage if you stay the fuck away from illegally attacking a country that isn't attacking you! 0 Share this post Link to post
Shaviro Posted March 22, 2003 fodders said:There is no collateral damage if you stay the fuck away from illegally attacking a country that isn't attacking you! heh. I'm pretty glad the US put a stop to the nazies. 0 Share this post Link to post
fodders Posted March 22, 2003 Shaviro said:3. These missiles are directed at the Regime's buildings. They hit precise within 1m. IRAN is only 1m away from Baghdad? 0 Share this post Link to post
Shaviro Posted March 22, 2003 fodders said:IRAN is only 1m away from Baghdad? 1 out of 1500(or so?) missiles got lost. 0 Share this post Link to post
fodders Posted March 22, 2003 Shaviro said:heh. I'm pretty glad the US put a stop to the nazies. The nazi's were attacking American shipping, it WAS 3 years before America joined the war against the nazis after all. 0 Share this post Link to post
Shaviro Posted March 22, 2003 fodders said:The nazi's were attacking American shipping, it WAS 3 years before America joined the war against the nazis after all. They believe Saddam and his regime supports terrorist cells. 9/11. 0 Share this post Link to post
fodders Posted March 23, 2003 Shaviro said:1 out of 1500(or so?) missiles got lost. How precise is the word precise in your book? 0 Share this post Link to post