Dear People,
I am totally against the attack of Iraq and would like to state the stupidity of some falling for some WWII techniques ( propaganda). I've heard people say they would like to attack but why? they wouldn't know. Powell mensioned they wouldn't attack iraq and well now there dismissing troops to Iraq. And Bush is brainwashing the American people into war is good. Isn't there a bit of resemblance of Nazi actions in order to gain attention of the people. Please think about it, and conclude it for yourself.

/LebaneseFighter smacks his own head

1. Iraq has not complied with it's peace treaty-destroy all chem and bio weapons, which he had in 1998, and verifiably destroy them

2. Iraq has harbored other antiamerican terror groups, but not Al Qaeda

3. Iraq has violated the biological weapons convention.

4. Iraq has violated the chemical weapons convention.

5. Iraq has violated 15 UN resolutions against it.

6. Iraq has violated the most recent resolution against it by
-Not allowing private meetings with scientists
-Illegaly having delivery vehicles for chemical weapons
-Not allowing overflights to monitor movement
-Not allowing scientists to leave with their familes

7. By repeatedly decieting the world by:
-A disinformation appartatus

Which

-Has suceeded in stalling the war

Which

-Has caused second thoughts to crop up among many people

including

-Yourself.

I suppose if the Fox network published a speech by George W Bush claiming that Santa was alive and well and living in Detroit where he runs a car lot and is a heroin addict with penchant for buggery... you'd believe it. I'd also guess you'd go as far as to say that you always said Santa was alive but nobody listened, and he buggered you once when you were singing in the Santa Choir... no mate that was not Santa, it was US probaganda bullshit violating you arse first!

Whilst some of your warmongering reasons are true, thy are a minority and in themselves do not constitute provocation for an illegal invasion of the said country (I-Raq).

quote:

---

Originally posted by LebaneseFighter:
Iraq has violated the most recent resolution against it by
-Not allowing private meetings with scientists

---

I think a total of ONE constitutes a minority. And it's hardly significant.

I find this intriguing...

quote:

---

Originally posted by LebaneseFighter:
-Not allowing overflights to monitor movement

---

...Given that it is not even part of the resolution.

And this is nothing short of hilarious...

quote:

---

Originally posted by LebaneseFighter:
[B7. By repeatedly decieting the world by:
-A disinformation appartatus
[/B]

---

...when it comes at the end of this post, which is a quite moronic rehash of Bush+Blair lies. And not even subtle ones, but complete bullshit of the first degree. To be fair, I don't expect the governements to prove everything they claim. But I expect them to provide some kind of proof in a matter which is both the most important thing to claim since 2001 and simutaneously disbelieved by the vast majority of the intellignt population. (obviously that does not include yourself Lebby). I notice that you are prepared to assume downright that Saddam is a liar, althoughh he has never said anything proved wrong... so he has no history of this. George W Bush however is a seasoned liar, and you believe him as if it was word of Godot.

Now second thoughts are one thing, but I have never had the thought that you assume is everyone's default thought, purely because it is the thought you had when you were first told that Saddam was evil and we don't need to prove it because it is true. Why do you expect the same of Jacob as yourself, given that you are an abnormal case of severe stupidity - and Jacob is quite probably a normal human being. I know I have never had second thoughts. I'm still on thought #1 "War with Iraq cannot go ahead until it is proven that he is stockpiling WMDs - which as of now is still an unfulfilled criteria"

New name... same IQ. (which I think it's really great how you advertise that particular figure on your name, but let me tell you, 2 is far too generous)

quote:

---

Originally posted by jacob_0:
Bush is brainwashing the American people into war is good. Isn't there a bit of resemblance of Nazi actions in order to gain attention of the people.

---

Bush is not saying war is good. He's saying it's nessissary - which is absolutly true. Saddam is a mad man and would never hesitate to bring some kind of destruction of carnage to America. If we allow him to do that, then we would end up having a war anyway.

Also, comparing the Nazis to America is extreme and immature. The Nazis had massive rallies, schools to brainwash children, and committed genocide against anyone they deemed a threat to their nation. In fact they were the ultimate example of eugenics - purging Jews, physically & mentally disabled people, Gypsies, and more from their 'bloodlines'.

Also, Hilter promoted war because he claimed that Germans were superior and in essence wanted to take over Europe so Germany could rule it.

Now show me how America even begins to compare with that...

LowLife

You see the thing is if you took time to read anything on your own or read up on waht Bush says that you dont really understand and not just his statement such as Iraq has violated the UN charter well so has America. and saying that america is becoming a bunch of Nazis thats wrong Bush is turning into Hitler remember Hitler just didnt take power and start killing jews he first worked on Brain Washing the public which bush is definetly doing and Bush will attack Iraq and bring this whole conflict up out of nowhere because one day the whole country is after afgahnistan and then Bush just decides well my daddy went to war with Iraq when he was in office so i will too. now im not trying to be a jackass bush started off as a decent president but he is very hipocrittical and believes that America can do whatever it wants whenever it wants but no other country can do so i mean if some country tries to take over another country America feels that it should intervene but after World War II we take others land to set up Isreal for teh Jews and noone says anything about it and that is hiopocracy. I as a Libertarian never think war is a good idea unless as self defense war is never good for the economy and many people die this is not good all you bush fanatics out there because tax dollars pay for the war with an already weakened economy it will pull us further into recession especially since we will have to pay for reconstruction of Iraq after the war. but if Bush doesnt want the American public to know his real reasons for going to war then so be it but any one who has any logical thought knows that its for the oil. and bush lowering taxes will hurt the economy because he is attempting to use trickel down economics which Reagen found to be unsuccesful because of greed. Bush will brain wash the American public and tell lies all day so he is turning into the next Adolf Hitler

America : The most violent peace-loving country on Earth.

oh and i forgot to mention but Saddam Hussein is a mad man? hes a jackass no doubt but Suddam wants to avoid war with America we knows he cant win. Saddam Hussein highly values his life and doesnt want to risk that with a war with America Suddam is not a mad man Bush is a mad man looking for ways to get the American people to believe that this war is a good idea. I will use an analogy here America equalls father; Iraq equalls son with a bad report card, the son doesnt want the father to see the report card due to the fact that he is affraid of the fathers reaction because he knows that he will get spanked because its not great. Saddam no doubt has weapons of Mass Destruction, but many countries due including America with one of the biggest arsenals is not the biggest. But a fundemental principal of government is to have defense for your country so if Saddam lets all weapons of mass destruction go while we dont then he leaves himself open for attack and that would make him a poor leader dont forget i do think hes a jackass but he has the responsibility to defend his country, and America should not feel obligated to attack due to the fact that he has these weapons until they are used he has them for the same reason we do intimidation

quote:

---

Originally posted by LF2:
/LebaneseFighter smacks his own head

---

I hear that if you keep doing that you actually get smarter, why don't you give it a try?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chuckstone:But I expect them to provide some kind of proof in a matter which is both the most important thing to claim since 2001 and simutaneously disbelieved by the vast majority of the intellignt population. (obviously that does not include yourself Lebby).

---

Agreement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LowLife:Bush is not saying war is good. He's saying it's nessissary - which is absolutly true. Saddam is a mad man and would never hesitate to bring some kind of destruction of carnage to America. If we allow him to do that, then we would end up having a war anyway.

---

Yes, Saddam is a "madman" with an itchy trigger finger just waiting to nuke the States. Can I ask, what source of information do you have for these assumptions? Any proof? Why would Saddam do such a thing?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frued313:Saddam no doubt has weapons of Mass Destruction, but many countries due including America with one of the biggest arsenals is not the biggest. But a fundemental principal of government is to have defense for your country so if Saddam lets all weapons of mass destruction go while we dont then he leaves himself open for attack and that would make him a poor leader dont forget i do think hes a jackass but he has the responsibility to defend his country, and America should not feel obligated to attack due to the fact that he has these weapons until they are used he has them for the same reason we do intimidation.

---

Here we go, another objective thinker, welcome! I guess you're on our side so I'll let you in on a secret, pretty much every American on Totse is brainwashed, or should I say Bushwashed. Either way, trying to hold a candid or objective debate with these people is hopeless. BTW, you will probably be labelled an "anti-American" or a "Classic Saddam supporter", but pay no attention to these labels, they just are a convenient way of these circle-jerkers disregarding what you say. And finally, try using proper punctuation, it makes posts easier to read.

P.S I just read this article here on totse, I think, if you haven't already, you all should read it.

PROPAGANDA

quote:

---

-Not allowing overflights to monitor movement

---

"...Given that it is not even part of the resolution"

Let's see, if you had read the resolution, you would realize that it cleary said:

quote:

---

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles

---

Wrong Again Chucky.

quote:

---

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution

---

We don't need another resolution for war.

quote:

---

Immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government;

---

^^^^ Iraq won't allow that either.

quote:

---

Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations

---

And again.

Part of research means you need to know the facts: http://www.bigjweb.com/michnews/2002111386437788text_of_un_security_council_reso.asp

Read it and weep chucky.

Propoganda: N

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
------------------------
Nothing wrong with that. Your post is propganda: its a one sided attack.


You must be confused with
disinformation n
Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lionhart:
Yes, Saddam is a "madman" with an itchy trigger finger just waiting to nuke the States. Can I ask, what source of information do you have for these assumptions? Any proof? Why would Saddam do such a thing?

---

Saddam is not afraid to take drastic or insane actions. For instance, the slaughtering of his own people after the first Gulf War. Many Iraqis who raised against his regime were either imprisoned or executed. Plus the slaughtering of many Kurds. Saddam even used poison gas.

And yes, Saddam does have much contempt for America. This is shown quite often when Iraqis fire on American aircraft in No Fly Zones. Saddam has developed a little courage since he 'survived' the Gulf War. Rather, we let him live...

Anyway, the point is why would a man develop WMD? To blackmail his neighbors...yes. To possibly help the Arabs out in trying to destory Israel...maybe. To supply terrorists with weapons capable to severly hurt America - a supporter of Israel...yes.

Saddam is not dumb enough to launch WMD at the U.S. himself. But what if he could do it through terrorists? Knowing what Saddam has done in the past and what he is doing now, can you honostly tell me that he would not take advantage of a chance like that?

LowLife

quote:

---

Originally posted by LowLife:
Saddam is not afraid to take drastic or insane actions. For instance, the slaughtering of his own people after the first Gulf War. Many Iraqis who raised against his regime were either imprisoned or executed. Plus the slaughtering of many Kurds. Saddam even used poison gas.

---

What would america have done if there was an armed insurgance of communsists in there territory whilst it was militarily weak (after losing a war)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LowLife:

Anyway, the point is why would a man develop WMD? To blackmail his neighbors...yes. To possibly help the Arabs out in trying to destory Israel...maybe. To supply terrorists with weapons capable to severly hurt America - a supporter of Israel...yes.

---

To equalise things up against a between a enemy state (israel) and itself so there is some parity. Israel can get away with bombing half-built nuclear reactors in your territory, wouldn't you like a bit of protection. If britain (in imperial times) came along and said you weren't allowed to build cannon so that you couldn't pose a threat to Canada, you would have told us to screw ourselves.

If Saddam was planning to give WMD to terrorist organisations, why hasn't he done it by now? He has had them for 10 years...
If saddam had any illusions about a terrorist strike weakening your tie with israel, then they died on 9/11.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LowLife:

Saddam is not dumb enough to launch WMD at the U.S. himself. But what if he could do it through terrorists? Knowing what Saddam has done in the past and what he is doing now, can you honostly tell me that he would not take advantage of a chance like that?

---

I don't know, it is impossible for us as civilians to know, being bombarded with propoganda from both sides. However if I had to go judging by his actions, I would say he would only strike against America if his regime depended upon it or if it came to be known that he did it and the arab extermists would celebrate him. However if all the arabs knew that he had a part in it so would we.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by whazat:

What would america have done if there was an armed insurgance of communsists in there territory whilst it was militarily weak (after losing a war)?

---

Well you got me there. Sadly, American policy has a bad habit of supporting non-communists, even if they are dictators. Not that communism is a good thing...

Anyway, about the Israel bit: I know that terrorist attacks won't sevre our connections with them. But Arabs hate America for two main reasons.

1)They are under the illusion that were are trying to imperialisticly impose our will and culture onto them.

2)We support Israel, probably their most hated foe.

Because of number 2, many Arab radicals would gladly try to hurt America. However, you're right in saying it probably wouldn't affect our policy with Israel.

The main point is that when all technicalities are set aside, the bottom line is that Saddam could potentially be a very dangerous man. Getting him out of the way will benifit many people from many nations.

LowLife

The other irony is if tommorow America decided to completely withdraw from the gulf, sever all relations, diplomatic and economic from israel, the terrorists would still hate us: they would say that it is impossible to redeam ourselves, its too late etc, and they would still atack us

mind you any sucessive governments in jordan, egypt, or saudia arabia will be more like the taliban...or worse if thats possible

Well for the guy who is saying the citizens are brainwashed. Cause george bush make a speech dont mean everyone believe what he is saying. An the citizens has nothing to do with who we go to war with, thats up to our commander an chief an congress.But with the Iraq situation america has the right to attack them. They broke the treaty not america if he didnt invade kuwait he wouldnt be in this situation.

Saddam is trying to avoid war, now thats a funny statement. IF he was trying to avoid war why do he continue to challenge the UN resolution. H e has been challenging the world for years, kicking the inspectors out of the country, secretly building weapons of mass destruction, but he is trying to avoid war. I dont want war but Saddam is giving Bush an Blair the ammuntion to attack. If he just live up to the treaty he could lift the sanctions that is causing his country to be 3rd world, an live in poverty.

An for the people saying what if america was in that situation, does it matter we are not in that situation. An for people talking all that propaganda crap. Here is the few facts Saddam signed the treaty, Saddam not living up to the treaty.

[This message has been edited by illprophet (edited 02-04-2003).]

I have a question for people. What was the islamic rhetoric at the time of the Mujahedin against the russians? And is there the same feeling now? I know that Chechnya is islamic, but in the wider islamic world?

My guess is that america will be target number 1 until another power threatens the region. Also unfourtunately this means that Britain will probably be target number two.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lionhart:
Here we go, another objective thinker, welcome! I guess you're on our side so I'll let you in on a secret, pretty much every American on Totse is brainwashed, or should I say Bushwashed. Either way, trying to hold a candid or objective debate with these people is hopeless. BTW, you will probably be labelled an "anti-American" or a "Classic Saddam supporter", but pay no attention to these labels, they just are a convenient way of these circle-jerkers disregarding what you say. And finally, try using proper punctuation, it makes posts easier to read.

P.S I just read this article here on totse, I think, if you haven't already, you all should read it.

PROPAGANDA

---

If you'll simply take the time to read some of freud's posts, you'll find that he is a Classic Saddam Hussein supporter, even more than you, LionFart!

quote:

---

Originally posted by freud:
Saddam Hussein is very sane.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by freud:
Saddam needs nukes to defend his wonderful people who didn't dance in the street on 9/11.

---

quote:

---

Saddam Hussein is not a radical muslim, but rather a peace loving one.

---

Freud is off his rocker. Freud is a Classic Saddam supporter. Freud is anti-American. Please, LionFart, or Freud, lay out the evidence right here that he/you is/are not.


Oh, and the propaganda thing. You are anti-American and a Saddam Hussein supporter.