Latham or Howard? (1 Viewer)

[Rorix]

Originally posted by .:b-me:.
well, according to you, a lot of the reasons that apply to the us attacking iraq apply to zimbabwe.....if you're going to attack, attack consistently. but, since zimbabwe doesn't have the same tactical advantages if attacked, they go free.

Well, some, but not all. But EVEN IF they all applied, there is no logical argument to state that just because the Coalition invades Iraq, they must invade Zimbabwe. One front at a time.

this was not a peace keeping mission. it was a war. there is a disticnt difference.

Both sound like military action to me!

i'm sure prisoners have been killed after or linked to torture. but its hidden by the media. the media often misrepresents the truth.

Because the media has been covering up the prisoner abuse scandel and all....

flirting??? hehehe....has anyone ever flirted with you before....

and come on...my sig says i think i look like a funny muppet. do you really want a pic of that?

I'm just demeaning you

 

[Rorix]

Originally posted by asha_ramirez
If you had read newspapers like The Australian you would realise that there have been alleged cases where suxually humiliating Iraqi women and then releasing them has lead to their death.

Link?

There was one case where a woman was forced to expose her breasts, which has allegedly led to her dissappearance and supposed death.

Link?

Woman in Iraq have been killed by their family for less than what has been inflicted on them by American Soldiers.

Link?

There has also been the rumour of a note which has escaped the Abu Ghurayb prison were iraq's are being held, which has evidence of women being sexually humiliated; the rumour of this alone is grounds for a woman to be shunned by society and killed by her family to save their name.

Link?

Maybe you should read more about the issue before denying its existance?

I'm not denying the existence. I'm just asking for some proof, as I can't recall any of the incidents you have mentioned. Anyway, even if they are true, the abuse was carried out by a rogue group of soldiers, and it's not a widespread tactic from the Coalition forces. And besides, just because a violation of rights has led to death, doesn't mean that human rights are more important than life anyway (which was what the whole argument was about first)

In the clash of cultures (this refers to what I have said above about Iraqi women) death is used as a means to purify said human rights violations.

So what? Are you trying to tell me rights are more important than life?

No-one thinks this. If they did, the only way they could be sure their rights were not violated would be to die. These people you're talking about have had their rights violated, and chose death as opposed to living with what they felt was a sense of (I guess) shame. Pointless.

Practice what you preach and kill yourself, or concede the point.

I don't support the war, and I was unaware that my views were the issue here, whether or not you agree with them they are not going to change. I am really 'stubborn' yes, only because I believe in what I am saying, regardless of your views.

Why are you posting then? You posted points, I rebutted them, you picked one as you were (seemingly) unable to argue any of my other rebuttals. This shows your beliefs not to be founded on some sort of factual basis, but rather an emotional one. You continue to argue about facts! Why?

 

[asha_ramirez]

I stated that the information was in The Australian, not everything I read is online.

I think rights are an important part of life.

Not a widespread tactic from the Coalition forces? Please, whoever it was commited by, whether you see it as a tactic of the Coalition forces or not, it still occured, and probably still is occuring.

If you can, get a hold of Wednesday June 23rd's (from memory) edition of The Australian, and all your questions will be answered as to my 'proof'. [Factual basis, rather than an emotional one]

We have opposing views, which is not to say either are incorrect or correct. I am not arguing about facts, I was making a point in regards to something I read in a newspaper... Get a hold of that if you want to know. I'm sure you can find it as some sort of 'link' online, if that suits you better.

 

[Rorix]

Originally posted by asha_ramirez
I stated that the information was in The Australian, not everything I read is online.

Well, as far as I know, the Australian puts its articles online. But nevertheless, you seem to know enough of the details to search for an appropraite news story - surely the Australian was not the only media source in the world to report this?

I think rights are an important part of life.

If they are an important part of life, they are a part of life, thus cannot be more important than life. Which is what I've been trying to say.

Not a widespread tactic from the Coalition forces? Please, whoever it was commited by, whether you see it as a tactic of the Coalition forces or not, it still occured, and probably still is occuring.

Yes it occured. I doubt very much it is still occuring - this is blatent speculation. If it were still occuring, something would leak. If it were wide spread, we would hear about it from more than one prison. These things have a way of getting out.

[Factual basis, rather than an emotional one]

I was referring to your entire argument here. Out of all my rebuttals to your points, you've singled out one. By emotional argument, I meant all those other points which you haven't responded too.

We have opposing views, which is not to say either are incorrect or correct.

Yes but I can explain the case for my view - you cannot do the same.

I am not arguing about facts, I was making a point in regards to something I read in a newspaper

You're referencing a newspaper article trying to tell me that rights are more important than life, because an Iraqi woman allegedly died as a result of alleged abuse - but you've already conceded that rights are merely a part of life, thus can't be more important.

So, I must question


What is your argument?

 

[asha_ramirez]

Originally posted by Rorix
You're referencing a newspaper article trying to tell me that rights are more important than life, because an Iraqi woman allegedly died as a result of alleged abuse - but you've already conceded that rights are merely a part of life, thus can't be more important.

So, I must question


What is your argument?

I did not state that rights are more important than life.

In regards to the Iraqi women, this is not the article I want, but it is another one I have read.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0528/p01s02-woiq.html

Happy now?

 

[Rorix]

I said

No-one values human rights above death. Otherwise they'd kill themself to prevent their human rights ever been violated.

You disagreed.

I'll read your link tomorrow.

 

[neo o]

I'd rather die, then die knowing that i don't have the right to life.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Human rights before life?

One of the most basic human rights is the right to live? If you commit suicide then you're taking away you're greatest right.

 

[thorrnydevil]

Originally posted by asha_ramirez
WMDs? Don't even try... They never existed... how about America's nukes.. yeah lets start with that one.

Are you serious!!! What are you on you fool. I think you'll find that the evidence is strongly against you. In Saddams dictatorship, 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis and Kurds were slaughtered by mustard gas, sarin gas, cyanide, anthrax and ricin. But no!!! These aren't weapons of mass destruction! Obviously, you don't know the facts on the issue so shut the hell up before you embarras yourself further.

 

[Rorix]

Originally posted by thorrnydevil

Originally posted by asha_ramirez
WMDs? Don't even try... They never existed... how about America's nukes.. yeah lets start with that one.

Are you serious!!! What are you on you fool. I think you'll find that the evidence is strongly against you. In Saddams dictatorship, 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis and Kurds were slaughtered by mustard gas, sarin gas, cyanide, anthrax and ricin. But no!!! These aren't weapons of mass destruction! Obviously, you don't know the facts on the issue so shut the hell up before you embarras yourself further.

While I agree with your sentiment, I think you'll find she (he?) has already clarified their meaning here.

 

[asha_ramirez]

Originally posted by thorrnydevil

Originally posted by asha_ramirez
WMDs? Don't even try... They never existed... how about America's nukes.. yeah lets start with that one.

Originally posted by thorrnydevil
Are you serious!!! What are you on you fool. I think you'll find that the evidence is strongly against you. In Saddams dictatorship, 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis and Kurds were slaughtered by mustard gas, sarin gas, cyanide, anthrax and ricin.

Yes I (she =P) have already clarified my meaning.
Millions of innocent people have been killed throughout history (by use of these, or similar methods), not just in Iraq. If you want to talk about gasing people refer to Hitlers attack (attempted anielation (sp?) on the Jews as well.

Originally posted by thorrnydevil
But no!!! These aren't weapons of mass destruction! Obviously, you don't know the facts on the issue so shut the hell up before you embarras yourself further. [/B]

No they aren't the WMD's that Bush (etc) were refering to, that is biological warfare.

 

[Rorix]

Originally posted by asha_ramirez
Millions of innocent people have been killed throughout history (by use of these, or similar methods), not just in Iraq. If you want to talk about gasing people refer to Hitlers attack (attempted anielation (sp?) on the Jews as well.

Yes, Hitler's treatment of the Jews was horrible. I think you'll find that this was covered in a section of the 20th century known as "World War 2" , however.

No they aren't the WMD's that Bush (etc) were refering to, that is biological warfare.

WMD = nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. While there is not real consesus of the required scale for a WMD (for example, if I had a cold and went to Japan, surely this wouldn't classify as a biological attack), WMD can either refer to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

 

[TheBirdMustFly]

I think there are to many ppl in this forum that are just like john howard and have the attitude 'lets follow bush blindly into another vietnam' Since when do america have the right to come in and be the world's heros. And people have quoted what Saddam has done, well even so, it's about how Bush and Howard went about it, lying to people. Sure Saddam is an evil guy and we got him so why arn't we outta there, coz of oil. The people don't even want us there.

 

[Rorix]

I think there are to many ppl in this forum that are just like john howard and have the attitude 'lets follow bush blindly into another vietnam'

Vietnam was a proxy war. Iraq isn't Vietnam. If Howard and Bush and I all happen to be concerned with global security, it makes sense that we'd all be in favour of the same thing.

Since when do america have the right to come in and be the world's heros.

Probably about since they became the sole superpower in the world.

And people have quoted what Saddam has done, well even so, it's about how Bush and Howard went about it, lying to people.

Oh really? What lies? You know 'lie' means that you actually know the truth but you decide to tell a different story, right?

Sure Saddam is an evil guy and we got him so why arn't we outta there, coz of oil. The people don't even want us there.

We aren't out of there because Iraq is not secure, Mr Latham. We aren't there for oil, there's a thread explaining this already in this forum. And you'll find that the Coalition's position has been 'if the government asked us to leave, we'd leave' - they haven't asked so we haven't left.

Why is it that the uninformed tend to gravitate toward the left?

 

[neo o]

I think there are to many ppl in this forum that are just like john howard and have the attitude 'lets follow bush blindly into another vietnam'

I think there are way too many people in this forum that just buy into what the SMH feeds them. btw, Vietnam was a different war, with a different purpose.

And people have quoted what Saddam has done, well even so, it's about how Bush and Howard went about it, lying to people.

Bush and Howard acted upon intelligence. I don't see how that's lying.

The people don't even want us there.

When was the last time you chatted to the people of Iraq?

 

[TheBirdMustFly]

I think there are way too many people in this forum that just buy into what the SMH feeds them. btw, Vietnam was a different war, with a different purpose.



Bush and Howard acted upon the intelligence. I don't see how that's lying.



When was the last time you chatted to the people of Iraq?

I think there are way 2 many ppl who listen to Bush and Howard

The evidence that the ppl don't want them there is the fact that more ppl have died since they claimed 'mission accomplished'

Geez, Vietnam was none of the US's business they did it for 'global security' and they lost, but there was no takeover of communism.
In Iraq, it was none of the US's business, and they walk in like the kings of the world, can u see the connection, both wars arn't the US's business

 

[Rorix]

I think there are way 2 many ppl who listen to Bush and Howard

You think.

The evidence that the ppl don't want them there is the fact that more ppl have died since they claimed 'mission accomplished'

Well, I'm sure some people don't want you here either. Does that mean you should leave? No. The Coalition will leave when the government asks it to leave, or when the job is done.

BTW: That is possibly the worst reason for withdrawl of ALL TIME. In every war, at least some of the population preferred the old rule. If we followed your logic, the French would be saying "viva le Hitler!".

Geez, Vietnam was none of the US's business they did it for 'global security' and they lost, but there was no takeover of communism.

The South Vietnamese asked for US assistance. The US wanted to stop the spread of communism. If the government asks for your assistance, and you want to help them, how is it none of your business?

In Iraq, it was none of the US's business, and they walk in like the kings of the world

Not the US's business? Ha. Ha.

From the Saddam thread,

one with a brutal leader, one with a history of WMD use, one which openly sponsors terrorism, one which has ignored UN sanctions for a decade, one which was the home of Abu Nidal, one which invaded Kuwait, one which attempts to assassinate the US President, one which has fired every day for 10 years at the aircraft which patrol the no fly zone, one which housed terrorists involved in the 1993 WTC attack, one which openly celebrated the events of September 11th, one which houses Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi since 9/11, one which was negotiating with North Korea for the purchase of a missile system

Even if the US isn't concerned with regime change, fighting terrorism and global security, I've bolded the ones that are undeniable US business.

can u see the connection, both wars arn't the US's business

Woo! So obviously Vietnam=Iraq! I've got another few connections that are as strong as that one:

*Both involved soldiers.
*America fought in both
*Australia fought in both
*Both occured after the birth of Jesus Christ
*America had a President in both wars
*If you squint after being sprayed with mace, a Vietcong member vaguely resembles an Iraqi militant

 

[TheBirdMustFly]

The point is Bush went in there coz he though Iraq had WMD's there is no WMD's so why is he in there

 

[Rorix]

The point is Bush went in there coz he though Iraq had WMD's there is no WMD's so why is he in there

No. You are wrong.

one with a brutal leader, one with a history of WMD use, one which openly sponsors terrorism, one which has ignored UN sanctions for a decade, one which was the home of Abu Nidal, one which invaded Kuwait, one which attempts to assassinate the US President, one which has fired every day for 10 years at the aircraft which patrol the no fly zone, one which housed terrorists involved in the 1993 WTC attack, one which openly celebrated the events of September 11th, one which houses Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi since 9/11, one which was negotiating with North Korea for the purchase of a missile system

^- Just some of Iraq's offences.

Firstly, the Coalition had many goals, although the two main ones mentioned in the media were WMD and regime change. To say that WMD was the sole reason for the war would be to be an idiot.

Intelligence indicated that Iraq had WMD. Iraq had a history of having and using WMD. Saddam had refused to allow UN weapon inspectors into the country until war was inevitable. Why would Saddam behave like this if he had nothing to hide?

You don't know that Iraq didn't have WMD. You're trusting the word of Saddam.


.

 

[TheBirdMustFly]

You don't know that Iraq didn't have WMD. You're trusting the word of Saddam.

But you don't know that they do, have they found them, no.