PDA

View Full Version : Opinion Pools for USA and Iraq



m98tcs
08-04-2003, 09:23 AM
I hope my tiny opinion could be channeled to the world. I believe if this debate could be propagated through positive respondances, we could encourage more rasional thinkings.

I have comments on President Bush Decisions in fighting Iraq or Saddam Hussein as he claimed he is.

The terrorist events happened in WTC 11 Sept are defined as:

There are organisation/individuals who do not like certain US government's leader/action, which have terrorised/killed innocent USA citizens as a method to make sure USA governement will change their leader/actions. Though they just want to remove the USA government or action, but they have no choice but to do that in order to achieve their objectives. I think the doing is wrong as there is so many coutnries leaders condemns the happenings.

Then, now the War against Iraq are named as:

There are organisation (USA/UK)/individuals (Bush/Rumsfeld) who do not like certain Iraq government's leader/action, which have economically sanction/killed innocent IRAQ citizens as a method to make sure IRAQ government will change their leader/action. Though they claimed that they have no intention to kill the civilian, but they have no choice to do to achieve their objectives. I get confuse as so many countries leaders do nothing and say nothing on it.


I would like to raise world wide opinions on how USA/UK people or government is perceived, any different between the so called "IraqWar" on IRAQ by Coalition forces and the so called "terrorist" attack by AlQaeda as mentioned above. In my opinion, the only difference is the former one do it openly as they know there is no body stronger than them and able to stop them from doing so, and the latter have to do it quietly because they can only achieve their objective without having known by their much stronger oppositions.

empress_julz
08-04-2003, 04:42 PM
hi mt98cs.

you said, " There are organisation/individuals who do not like certain US government's leader/action, which have terrorised/killed innocent USA citizens as a method to make sure USA governement will change their leader/actions. Though they just want to remove the USA government or action, but they have no choice but to do that in order to achieve their objectives. I think the doing is wrong as there is so many coutnries leaders condemns the happenings. "

i don't think that is a very accurate description. osama bin laden and the al qaeda's objectives include the annihilation/destruction of the US government in entirety. that is a long run goal.

on the short run, they are looking at getting the US out of taliban and muslim rich areas. this may be desirable to them, but considering the brutalities the taliban exact on those who oppose them as well as towards their treatment of women, i'm for the US sticking around such places.

you are right though on the fact that their actions should be condemned - they targeted innocent civillians, which should never been done.

on your second major point : "There are organisation (USA/UK)/individuals (Bush/Rumsfeld) who do not like certain Iraq government's leader/action, which have economically sanction/killed innocent IRAQ citizens as a method to make sure IRAQ government will change their leader/action. Though they claimed that they have no intention to kill the civilian, but they have no choice to do to achieve their objectives. I get confuse as so many countries leaders do nothing and say nothing on it."

firstly, i don't think the US, UK and many other countries around the world merely 'dislike' Iraq's government. the distrust for Iraq runs deeper than that - Iraq had invaded two of it's neighbours (Iran and Kuwait) and continuosly broke UN security resolutions with regards to surrendering and declaring it's weapons of mass destruction, right to the last limit. I think a more accurate description would be to say that the coalition viewed Iraq as a potential risk to international peace, security and stability.

I don't think there was an expectation for the Iraqis to change their leader Saddam Hussein - they do not have an active democracy of any sort, and ousting him would be impossible - there are simply no means to fight off his military force.

The statement, "Though they claimed that they have no intention to kill the civilian, but they have no choice to do to achieve their objectives.", troubles me a great deal. I do not think the US or the UK as well as the coalition have any intentions to kill civillians whatsoever - that has never been the case. Most unfortunately, civillian casualties will be incurred - this has never been in doubt. but the killing of civillians has never been the primary, ancilliary or any objective whatsoever on the part of the coalition.

as for american superiority militarily, we may complain at the moment about it. but do put your mind to debate within itself, what the world would be like without such a strong counter balance to the possibilities of extremism, other nuclear powers, etc. would it really be a better place?

///Ej

Voter
09-04-2003, 02:01 PM
I think both USA and Iraq are two great countries, but both their presidents are the thirstiest for blood. When the Russian convoy was attacked, US said "no bad intention intended"! When civilians are murdered, they say it's expected of a war. They have waited for 12 years to disarm Iraq, but could'nt wait for another month for the inspectors to conclude one way or another. So is Sadam! What is the real hidden agenda of each of the presidents? Both are Satans! We have Dowenger protecting Bush for all his bloody actions and speaks like Ramsfeld, and others upholding Sadam like bin Laden. Woe unto mankind who stay away from God, and both Bush and Sadam blemishes God/Allah by using His Name for their war criminal acts.

m98tcs
12-04-2003, 12:17 PM
EJ,

thanks for your opinion.

First of all, if we consider the real threat of world like your stand, USA make even bigger mistake....

No matter which country, who is selling weapons to Taliban.... should be condemned, please recalled who was selling those weapons to them..... So, please don't try to conclude USA or Russia or etc, for their inteference to any other country or suporting any other country in the world is "possible" good deeds..... As following the so call Geneva convention, "Murder of other country leader" and "Interfering the dignity of any country" is prohibited.... USA do both....

Just like i can't argue with u what will be so good if there is no Bush... or if there is no Saddam.. i think u can't prove to me what will be so bad if there is no Bush or Saddam neither.... Your opinion in fact is a function of news u received, education u received and facts u see. Most of the people may not travel to Iraq to see what had really happen there, so your opinion now is solely based the news and education u received, how u know the news/message or the education u get from media/government is not highlighted at one side?

Tell me wrong if u think the killing in iraq is right at this moment.

empress_julz
12-04-2003, 02:17 PM
i have learnt that in life there is little to do with "wrong" or "right, it is unfortunately a mere case of "the lesser of the two evils".

i think it is most unfortunate iraqis are sacrificed in this war. they have found no weapons of mass destruction either, contrary to their intelligence reports. my real opinion is that there will be greater chaos without the US.

smaller countries would not think twice about going out of hand and invading neighbours, bigger countries will have no qualms about pointing nuclear guns elsewhere because hey, there is no one to police the world.

but you're thinking that killing iraqis is the primary and sole objective of the US. i'm merely saying that they don't want to kill the civillians, it *happens* because it is war.

///Ej

pcyeoh
12-04-2003, 05:18 PM
I would rather see a massacre of a thousand innocent people to prove that the US is wrong than a holocaust of a million later to prove that they are right after all. Period.

empress_julz
12-04-2003, 08:29 PM
pcyeoh, you're implying that there will inevitably be millions of deaths due to the US's attitude. also, the impression you're giving is that the US can be likened to that of nazi germany, which is far from the case.

the deaths are ancilliary and mostly accidental. i do not think the word 'massacre' has any part in this. the US isn't going out to kill innocent ppl, they are unfortunately the victims of a campaign against others.

i do have a dislike for the US's foreign policy at the moment but i would not go so far as to wish death on a thousand, or million people to merely "prove a point".

i would instead hope that the US understands the repercussions and responsibilities involved when it takes such a stand, and abstains from the unnecessary use of it's power.

and also, maybe the next time around the american ppl could elect a better president.


///Ej

m98tcs
14-04-2003, 09:37 AM
EJ,

From your statement:

"i don't think that is a very accurate description. osama bin laden and the al qaeda's objectives include the annihilation/destruction of the US government in entirety. that is a long run goal. " How u know this statement is true ?

"you are right though on the fact that their actions should be condemned - they targeted innocent civillians, which should never been done." I agreed on what u say here, but if this statement is referred to USA, it is exactly right too.


"firstly, i don't think the US, UK and many other countries around the world merely 'dislike' Iraq's government. the distrust for Iraq runs deeper than that - Iraq had invaded two of it's neighbours (Iran and Kuwait) and continuosly broke UN security resolutions with regards to surrendering and declaring it's weapons of mass destruction, right to the last limit." - Please study how and why Iraq have to fight this two country, and who is behind to support Iraq at that time.


" I think a more accurate description would be to say that the coalition viewed Iraq as a potential risk to international peace, security and stability." Is this statement justify a war? if this does so, Israel show be vanished in this world. Japan no longer exist too.

"I don't think there was an expectation for the Iraqis to change their leader Saddam Hussein - they do not have an active democracy of any sort, and ousting him would be impossible - there are simply no means to fight off his military force." I understand there are a lot of country do not practise the so called "democracy"...... please study what is the bad side of democracy too..... Bush can kill civilian of other coutnries by using the same democratic system they have..... The point here is, Human mind does matter, just for an example, if u just watch CNN now without any other foreign news channel, u will feel that "all army and all bomb dropped in Iraq" are the most sacred thing they ever do. So, public opinion and democratic system become something u can manipulate easily nowadays, the key point here is ppl nowadays do not really observed the real thing, and like/tend to rely on medias only.

" I do not think the US or the UK as well as the coalition have any intentions to kill civillians whatsoever - that has never been the case. Most unfortunately, civillian casualties will be incurred - this has never been in doubt. but the killing of civillians has never been the primary, ancilliary or any objective whatsoever on the part of the coalition." exactly what i have said in the first post, when u kill civilian, u always said u have no choice. If one day, the same situation happened to u, please tell me if u should reserve a choice not to be killed.

"as for american superiority militarily, we may complain at the moment about it. but do put your mind to debate within itself, what the world would be like without such a strong counter balance to the possibilities of extremism, other nuclear powers, etc. would it really be a better place?" ---- Please insight yo your mind how u conclude to this idea? first, there is no evidence to tell u without USA, the world will be so bad. Everytime USA do something to other countries, they always make sure everyone know this is very serious situation, without them, the world is going to the end. If u watch too much of this "THe Independence Day movie", the syndromn u will have is u don't even want to step out from your house if they is no American out there.

As i have said, our opinion nowaday is basically a function of the news, education and fact u see. I would say 90% of our time is facing 4 side of walls..... so, what else we see beside the news and the values plunging into your brain since u are a kid? I can bet with u, most American now think that their army is rescuing the world. and most Asia/others think US army is jeopardizing the world to the end day. Why there is so much different???? if u think truth could be prevail by USA? and the so called USA democratic system is not manipulatable and not speculatable??

jericho
14-04-2003, 12:28 PM
Everything or issue always look simple from the outside. But the truth is much more complex than the eyes meet or the way you alway believe/think.

Life is not as simple as you may think even with the rules and law of democracy or any other type. Rules and law are man creation.

joker2107
14-04-2003, 01:39 PM
smaller countries would not think twice about going out of hand and invading neighbours, bigger countries will have no qualms about pointing nuclear guns elsewhere

2 wrongs.
1 - depends on who the smaller country is. if sri lank atries to lick india, or spore wants to take over msia, the invaded should not expect much help from the big bully boys.
2 - think they really wanna show off their nuclear arms now? they aint the only ones with them terror weapons. smqall fries like pakistan and nkorea are simply waiting for the chance to let off their steam. nobody dares move agst isreal. etcetcetc

consolation : there aint no world police and no big bruder aint scared of no one.

empress_julz
14-04-2003, 09:00 PM
Mt98cs, I will address several of your main questions:

1. "i don't think that is a very accurate description. osama bin laden and the al qaeda's objectives include the annihilation/destruction of the US government in entirety. that is a long run goal. " How u know this statement is true ?

I know it is true because it is what he said in a televised interview to al-jazeera. The al-qaeda consider America “The Great Satan”, amongst other things. They are also vengeful as to the US’s position with Israel. The short run goal is to eliminate the US’s presence abroad, notably in the Middle East as well as Asia.


2. "you are right though on the fact that their actions should be condemned - they targeted innocent civillians, which should never been done." I agreed on what u say here, but if this statement is referred to USA, it is exactly right too.

The US does not target civilians, it never has done so. Their targeting is directed only to the military and terrorists, not civilians. Civillian death is accidental, but it is not an objective of the US. Unlike al-qaeda which directly attacks civilians – in the same televised broadcast, osama called upon his followers to not only attack military and embassy positions, but places Americans frequent abroad.

The US on the other hand, as I have mentioned repeatedly, has never, ever targeted a civilian or civilians.


3. "firstly, i don't think the US, UK and many other countries around the world merely 'dislike' Iraq's government. the distrust for Iraq runs deeper than that - Iraq had invaded two of it's neighbours (Iran and Kuwait) and continuosly broke UN security resolutions with regards to surrendering and declaring it's weapons of mass destruction, right to the last limit."

- Please study how and why Iraq have to fight this two country, and who is behind to support Iraq at that time.

Just so you know, the coalition forces do not comprise of merely two countries, Australia, Poland, the Czech republic have considerable forces present too. Therefore you could say that Iraq is fighting off "more than two" countries. Indirectly, almost fourty other countries are supporting the US from an intelligence perspective. (Pentagon)

As for support for Iraq, no country ever expressed it. All, whether they be members of the security council or ordinary members of the UN wanted to go through diplomatic routes, but none ever expressed so much as “support” for Iraq, like what you claim. That is too far fetched.

Let us not get into another lengthy debate about this, but the primary reason as to why Iraq had faced military intervention was because of their inability to account for weapons of mass destruction, contravening UN resolutions and ceasefire agreements post-Kuwait invasion from twelve years back. (678,687,1441)


4. " I think a more accurate description would be to say that the coalition viewed Iraq as a potential risk to international peace, security and stability." Is this statement justify a war? if this does so, Israel show be vanished in this world. Japan no longer exist too.

Israel is coming under heavy scrutiny, and as I have mentioned in other posts, they should be heavily sanctioned because of their incursions in the West Bank.

And if you recall correctly, Japan is the only nation that faced the wrath of the nuclear bomb, both in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They both “vanished” and Emperor Hirohito declared defeat and surrendered to the then coalition forces.

And Joker, on my point that if there is no balance of power smaller nations will get out of hand, this is a proven historical and sociological fact. Wars and boundaries are always about balances of power in the region. 1795-1945 in Western European wars and civilisation for instance, is solely based on balances of power in the region.

Conclusion: If you don’t have a counter balance, one will go out of hand. Genghis Khan had no counter balance, neither did the Ottoman empire when they first expanded.

And your point on smaller nations not fearing the influence of America is wrong. No one wants to end up like Cuba, don’t for a second think any nation would put it’s people through that. Malaysia for all it's "opposition" to the US still sends Badawi to soften the US Ambassador for even our leaders know we cannot afford to anger them in any way.

At this point Turkey for instance, has yet to enter Northern Iraq to fight off the Turks simply from fear of the US. Hence my point, smaller countries would not dare to invade, point guns, spoil the peace and the stability of the region lest they piss the US off and spoil their interests in turn.

///Ej

joker2107
15-04-2003, 08:39 AM
The US on the other hand, as I have mentioned repeatedly, has never, ever targeted a civilian or civilians.
another joke or a wish?

whatever. we all know the stupidity of the americans. and that extends to their aim. and recognition of targets.

when they shoot non military personnel its out of self defence. 'fraid of suicide bombers. how 'bout the dozens of residential houses flattened by their bombs? and the hotel where internaitonal journalists were putting up in (remember that the testimony of occupants of the hotel disputes the american version). to cut the long story short, the chinese embassy in ex-yugoslavia suddenly grew legs and ran into the path of american missiles. oh these sickos, they not only are so very stupid, they try to make you say you are stupid too. #@$%^*&%#@!!!

u really think bush is basking in glory now? i'd rather think is grape shaped organs are shrinking really fast. i can imagine that soon he'd become a recluse like sh cos any tom dick and harry who crosses his path or get within reach of him is probably a suicide bomber. and white house, pentagon, capitol hill, foreign missions, statue de liberated.....

i don't wanna be an american for another 10 generations to come, hopefully by then the evils of the early part of this millenium are forgotten.

m98tcs
15-04-2003, 09:51 AM
Dear EJ,

Your weakness is very obvious, and this is the reason why i have made this post. To most American and to u too, i have to remind u that please be very very careful on the information u received!!!! Again, your opinion/vote is a function of the fact, news or education u received. Without too much fact u see by yr own eye, please watch out the news and education u received. And also, please differentiate what is right/wrong, instead of twisting your brain too much to mix up right/wrong to benefited/unbenefited issue.


"I know it is true because it is what he said in a televised interview to al-jazeera. The al-qaeda consider America “The Great Satan”, amongst other things. They are also vengeful as to the US’s position with Israel. The short run goal is to eliminate the US’s presence abroad, notably in the Middle East as well as Asia. "

Are u understand Arab people well enough ? may be u should make fren with some Arabic, ........


"The US does not target civilians, it never has done so. Their targeting is directed only to the military and terrorists, not civilians. Civillian death is accidental, but it is not an objective of the US. Unlike al-qaeda which directly attacks civilians – in the same televised broadcast, osama called upon his followers to not only attack military and embassy positions, but places Americans frequent abroad.

The US on the other hand, as I have mentioned repeatedly, has never, ever targeted a civilian or civilians. "

Again, killing is killing. especially when u kill and not in defending position. Why so much excuses ? If one day somebody kill u because they want your country free from Marphia activities and be cleaned from corrputions..... whatever reason, is that an innocent people should bear the responsibility of their country leaders... just like the innocent people in 911. (they basically bear the cost of action of US government/leaders too)


"Just so you know, the coalition forces do not comprise of merely two countries, Australia, Poland, the Czech republic have considerable forces present too. Therefore you could say that Iraq is fighting off "more than two" countries. Indirectly, almost fourty other countries are supporting the US from an intelligence perspective. (Pentagon)
As for support for Iraq, no country ever expressed it. All, whether they be members of the security council or ordinary members of the UN wanted to go through diplomatic routes, but none ever expressed so much as “support” for Iraq, like what you claim. That is too far fetched. "

This is the thing make me confuse.... finally, i think u basically mix up between "Right&Wrong" and "Benefit&Disbenefited". Please observe carefully what is Turkey deal in supporting/not supporting US..... THis is common sense to people that most countries (or may be all countries) who support US is because of the "secret" or "non-secret" deal they have, though it may not be true............ But u know this is the real reason why so many volunteer Jihader, and Protesters around the world to say no to war. (some people say US do it for OIL, somepeople say for Cleaning out Muslim, somepeople say Imperialism, the actual reason, in fact: all they fear is something not right in human value: Killing for no justifiable reason!!!!)



"Let us not get into another lengthy debate about this, but the primary reason as to why Iraq had faced military intervention was because of their inability to account for weapons of mass destruction, contravening UN resolutions and ceasefire agreements post-Kuwait invasion from twelve years back. (678,687,1441) "

Another joke to let u know as below:

For those who want to go to war, if they found WMD in Iraq, sure they want to kill , if they don't find WMD means Iraq is hiding the WMD, they want to kill too, just like what happen right now. Either way there is a war.

But for those who don't want to go to war, if they found WMD in Iraq, we just need to destroy the WMD, if they don't find WMD, means Iraq have no WMD, and Iraq should be released from all kind of harrassments. Either way there is no war.

What is the use of so called "weapon inspector"???


"And if you recall correctly, Japan is the only nation that faced the wrath of the nuclear bomb, both in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They both “vanished” and Emperor Hirohito declared defeat and surrendered to the then coalition forces. "

May be the history/education u have is different from what i have read. To tell u what i understand here, the atom bomb is just a triggering factor for Japan to surrender to US (if u know Japanese good enough, u wont think they will surrender just because the two bomb dropped if they are still strong to fight in the region), because very soon, and they don't want to surrender to Russia/China.... it will much worse to surrender to China/Russia.



"Conclusion: If you don’t have a counter balance, one will go out of hand. Genghis Khan had no counter balance, neither did the Ottoman empire when they first expanded. "

Are u mean US need a counter balance? if this is, i have totally agree with u. Especially when Bush is manipulating the US democratic system now.

"And your point on smaller nations not fearing the influence of America is wrong. No one wants to end up like Cuba, don’t for a second think any nation would put it’s people through that. Malaysia for all it's "opposition" to the US still sends Badawi to soften the US Ambassador for even our leaders know we cannot afford to anger them in any way.

At this point Turkey for instance, has yet to enter Northern Iraq to fight off the Turks simply from fear of the US. Hence my point, smaller countries would not dare to invade, point guns, spoil the peace and the stability of the region lest they piss the US off and spoil their interests in turn. "

Please be very careful to your weakness, whether there is any balance or not........... Killing is still not justifiable in this case, and u may not see how some countries is the world is so worst, in fact US may have to bear some responsibility too.

It is human nature to scare to stronger arm. However, please differentiate what is right or wrong first. If US has do thousands right (i don't means the example u show above is right), does not means that they can do what ever they want........ Killing civilian is absolutely prohibited for what ever reason. The worst thing US do is sanction the countries, where the people are suffering for 12 years, and kill them at the end of the day. They claimed they are not intending to do so......... But killing means killing. Please make it very clear, Killing is a crime, please don't kill people just to let u release from the fears (for stupid reason such as no terrorist if i kill them), or to entertain u (news at night from Bagdad), or it will piss off US if i say killing is wrong, or............

I have to reemphasize............... Violence will never been stop by another violence. And killing is not right, even when it is benefitted to someone or it can cure somebody fear, when they become ignorant/stupid, they said it is right.

empress_julz
15-04-2003, 06:51 PM
Mt98cs,

1. Dear EJ,
Your weakness is very obvious, and this is the reason why i have made this post. To most American and to u too, i have to remind u that please be very very careful on the information u received!!!!

- What goes around comes around. My advice to you is that which you said above.

- And it is not a "weakness" merely because the opinion is different.


2. Are u understand Arab people well enough ? may be u should make fren with some Arabic, ........

- You sound like you have a lot of Arabic friends.

- I have a few Lebanese, Palestinian, Jordanian, UAE nationals, Iraqi, Turkish and Saudi friends who speak Arabic fluently. None of them profess anything positive about saddam or osama, if that's what you're suggesting. Why, do you have to speak Arabic to have an opinion on osama?

- I will be learning Arabic later in the year.

3. Again, killing is killing. especially when u kill and not in defending position.

You used the word "target" in your earlier posts. If you're "targeting civilians" it's very different from "accidentally killing them". Which is why in murder cases you have five different degrees in murder and manslaughter, not just "murder". The US does not "target civilians", this is clearly inaccurate.

4. (with regards to the coalition members) This is the thing make me confuse.... finally, i think u basically mix up between "Right&Wrong" and "Benefit&Disbenefited". Please observe carefully what is Turkey deal in supporting/not supporting US.....

The Turkish are allies of the US, but did not provide for troops. They are not in the coalition forces. At the moment they provide supplies and military bases, that is about it. I don't understand the "right&wrong" "disbenefited etc etc." thing you're talking about.

5. But u know this is the real reason why so many volunteer Jihader, and Protesters around the world to say no to war.

If you're a jihad suicide bomber, or a "jihader", it's ironic you're against war. And I do know about the protests, I am a protester myself here in Italy where I currently reside. No to the war is a definite, I do prefer the diplomatic route. But I won't go so far as to tie things in the way you do, that's all.

6. What is the use of so called "weapon inspector"??? (and on your point on weapons of mass destruction)

As I mentioned time and time again in this forum, Iraq had violated twelve years of cease fire agreements as well as UN resolutions. They failed to cooperate with weapons inspectors till less than 6 months before the war. That is 11.5 years of no-cooperation. So you could say that the weapons inspectors were almost useless.

7. May be the history/education u have is different from what i have read. To tell u what i understand here, the atom bomb is just a triggering factor for Japan to surrender to US (if u know Japanese good enough, u wont think they will surrender just because the two bomb dropped if they are still strong to fight in the region), because very soon, and they don't want to surrender to Russia/China.... it will much worse to surrender to China/Russia.

I think what you studied and what I studied for my Cambridge GCSE history is a bit different. China and Russia were not focused on the Japanese during that period. I never heard of Russia and China coming into play in the surrender of Japan.

Although China vehemently hated Japan, Russia was focusing it's energies on the US, the beginning of the cold war block. There was no question about surrendering to Russia or China.... The Japanese got a hold of a good part of South East Asia and there was no chance of them leaving. The only saving grace was the fear that an atom bomb would destroy Tokyo and the rest of Japan, which prompted Hirohito's surrender.

8. Are u mean US need a counter balance? if this is, i have totally agree with u. Especially when Bush is manipulating the US democratic system now.

Which is why a strong EU is essential.

9. Please be very careful to your weakness, whether there is any balance or not........... Killing is still not justifiable in this case, and u may not see how some countries is the world is so worst, in fact US may have to bear some responsibility too.


A difference of opinion is not a weakness. A flawed opinion is. The concept of "balance of power" is as I mentioned, sociological, historical, economic and political. One country would fear going out of hand as they may be sanctioned by another.

And as for the killing part, yes, some countries do worse and the US has to bear the brunt. Which is why the international community is pressurizing the US into coming down hard on Israel.

10. I have to reemphasize............... Violence will never been stop by another violence. And killing is not right, even when it is benefitted to someone or it can cure somebody fear, when they become ignorant/stupid, they said it is right.

I agree with you in entirety.

///Ej

m98tcs
15-04-2003, 08:33 PM
EJ,

i think it is fruitful to talk to u. and thanks alot for your opinions. In fact, i would like to get more ppl involved and see how they reply to the first statement.

From my first post, i try to use Terrorist = USA statement. There are 3 points lead to the statement i made.

The problem: The suffering of innocent people, and iraqi people.

(The cause)
First, Some reasons are driving this war happened (OIL, Fear, Hatred, Intelligence reports?? which never been exposed/solid enough etc)..... The war is rationalised, and the democratic system is manipulated. To ensure such an invasive action hopefully could bring an end to this fear/ the so called terrorist attacks. Obviously, it is reversed.

(The happening)
Second, how dare we justified ourselves to kill ppl or negligence of live for whatever reasons. Just imagine how u have a gun/knife in your hand to kill somebody live ....... how dare a mindful/behaved man can do that?

(The result)
Third, at the end of the day, American almost do exactly the same like terrorist, in terms of the results they produced!!!!

I hope to encourage more debates............ Please join and spread this debate, especially for American (only they themselves can stoptheir own wars now) as well. As i would say 90% of our time is facing 4 sides of wall.......... plus Medias nowadays are gradually manipulated/highlighted on one side, for profit/company earning purposes or for government or patriotism purposes. Here, i hope the debate provide the chance to see how other ppl think. And also to see why some news never been heard before??

Just ask why and how to the news we received, we may probably find the agenda behind the news SENT to us. PARTICULARLY AT THIS TIME. (this is the so called "weakness" on what i mean to u so far) U may think that it is just a different in opinions, to me it is part of the results of news received in different agenda behind the opinions, subsequently the opinions produced, subsequently the actions on. And to the point where it mix with some manipulators/individuals, the result could be serious with current democratic mechanism/loop holes.

The evidence here is, most American say Bush do the right thing, most ppl in some countries say Bush probably is the greatest evil compared to others. Why there is so much different??

m98tcs
15-04-2003, 08:59 PM
Dear EJ,

"The Turkish are allies of the US, but did not provide for troops. They are not in the coalition forces. At the moment they provide supplies and military bases, that is about it." May be u know what benefits Turkey get by doing so, i think the political and economic concerns is driving to an allies status for Turkey.


"No to the war is a definite, I do prefer the diplomatic route. But I won't go so far as to tie things in the way you do, that's all. "

I feel disappoint and really irritating and most of the time i am cursing badly when i see ppl get killed for stupid reasons, either it is 911 or war in Iraq. But the causation between the killings can tell us that no body is 100% right/wrong. Our beliefs and normal virtue values are heavily challenged here.

"As I mentioned time and time again in this forum, Iraq had violated twelve years of cease fire agreements as well as UN resolutions. They failed to cooperate with weapons inspectors till less than 6 months before the war. That is 11.5 years of no-cooperation. "

May be i suggest u to study why Iraq want to invade Kuwait and fight Iran? And how Iraq have a dictator like Saddam Hussein? And Osama ? And please be sure that there are "suspicious" American/UK interfering along the process. And also why this UN resolution was drafted, it is related to how UN is operated as well. If the resolution is good for Iraq/Human kind, why it is violated by Iraq, yr logic may tell u it is all because of Saddam, right?? I can tell u that American / UK may need to bear some responsible for not doing the right thing in the beginning.

U may not like my idea/implication, but there are news we received here, may be not exposing to yr side......... so, can u see the danger in getting news with certain agenda, differents in opinions/news sometime can tell the danger we are going to face in future.

empress_julz
15-04-2003, 09:14 PM
nobody in politics is good, be it the US, iraq, or even malaysia. most countries have hidden agendas, some worse than others.

mt98cs, if you like debate so much, you can check out www.michaelmoore.com .he is american but is a strong critic of the current administration.

at the moment i'm living in a country where there is virtually no censorship. i do get the side from the US, the european, asian, iraqi and malaysian perspectives to things.

if you ask me, they ALL have hidden agendas.

sure, debates are good, but before i go so far as to comment and criticise the US on their actions, i prefer to look at home in malaysia and see where we can improve. we certainly have a long way to go.

///Ej