Topic has more than 25 posts. Pages: First 1 2 3 4 Last

Barrett 385 posts 04-09-03 15:07 Reply	You're losing the point. This is not _only_ for defensive reasons. They have defied the UN for 12 years. Hussein has murdered half a million people and will continue to murder more unless he is stopped. This is not first strike at all.
Nigrud J 48 posts 04-11-03 02:19 Reply	I was talking about defense of the US, and wasn't saying that the war is only for defensive purposes. Regarding UN violations, I'll quote alfabettezoupe: "i mean after all israel has been in violation of over 60 violations including invasion of neighboring countries and have been for over 30 years. they have an established nuclear program they're not afraid to use and no one is doing a thing to stop them."
Barrett 385 posts 04-11-03 19:09 Reply	israel isn't led by some psycho who kills hundreds of thousands of its OWN people.
alfabettezoupe 11 posts 04-13-03 04:01 Reply	"israel isn't led by some psycho who kills hundreds of thousands of its OWN people." then you know nothing about israel i'm afraid. jews and israeliis are actually in the minority in israel. within the next 20 years palestinians will most likely not only control the government but will probably have one of their own elected head of israel. sharon has ordered thousands of palestinians and palestinian symathizers in israel to be killed or forced to live in ghettos similar to concentration camps. he happily bombs the west bank whenever he feels like it, killing thousands of innocent men, women and children. and in case you try to make the point that palestinians somehow deserve this... you're missing a crucial point. the land where israel now exists is palestine. you may be kosher (excuse the pun) with the un just giving the land to the jews, but the people of palestine weren't. and i honestly think it's very hard to blame them. furthermore, arafat is not a dictator. he is not a terrorist. and he was the first leader of any country or group to give aid to the americas in wake of 9/11 by donating blood immediatly. do you honestly have any idea what israel is doing? they're not standing there minding their own business and racking up un violations. do you not understand that they have invaded countries with no provocation and have refused to remove their troops? or that fact that they're refusing to comply with the resolutions against them? let's just look at what violations israel is in violation of: 1. Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid" 2. Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people" 3. Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem" 4. Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions" 5. Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria" 6. Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control" 7. Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees" 8. Resolution 248: "... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan" 9. Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem" 10. Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250" 11. Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital" 12. Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation"" 13. Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation" 14. Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport" 15. Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan" 16. Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem" 17. Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon" 18. Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem" 19. Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon" 20. Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon" 21. Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon" 22. Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem" 23. Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon" 24. Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon" 25. Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon" 26. Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon" 27. Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty" 28. Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon" 29. Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon" 30. Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon' 31. Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces" 32. Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention" 33. Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon" 34. Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories" 35. Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program" 36. Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon" 37. Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return" 38. Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians" 39. Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention" 40. Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'" 41. Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'" 42. Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors" 43. Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility" 44. Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith" 45. Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon" 46. Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops" 47. Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon" 48. Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in" 49. Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon" 50. Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon" 51. Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut" 52. Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters 53. Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw" 54. Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops" 55. Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians 56. Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention 57. Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians" 58. Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians 59. Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians 60. Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount 61. Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations 62. Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians 63. Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return 64. Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians 65. Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return. do you not understand that there are other evils in the world to take care of first? that we need to worry about our own wellbeing as a nation? i really do feel sorry for you. you've been brainwashed by the media.
alfabettezoupe 11 posts 04-13-03 04:05 Reply	"I have to disagree. I think we have some degree of control over Afghanistan." most political analysts, many military experts and even some members of the bush administration admit we have no control over afghanistan. the taliban is alive and well there.
alfabettezoupe 11 posts 04-13-03 04:15 Reply	"And where did you get the idea that the taliban is back in power? are you over there doing heroin?" no i'm watching the news and reading the papers. the bbc reported on it. so did the guardian. cnn. msnbc. fox news. and on and on and on. for the sake of argument let me explain this for you... extremist muslim terrorist groups operate in units called cells. no one group ever knows what the other groups are doing. you just do your part. it is IMPOSSIBLE to take out the group by taking out one or two factors. for example. you have cells a, b & c. cell a's target is to control country x. cell b's target is to bomb the airport in country x. and cell c's target is to take out country x's communication systems. each cell is governed under one group of people. if cell a is taken out for some reason cell's b & c will not stop their missions (they didn't know what cell a is doing or who was in it). the leader of the cells at that point will merely appoint new people to make another cell a. the cells will still be operating independently. i'm really scared of your 'knowledge' on this subject. you don't have any. everything you say is just something rattled off to you from the tv. i'm not saying i'm an expert on the iraqii situation, but i would say i'm more qualified than most to speak on this subject. i'm not only a graduate of the george washington university where i studied international relations and law but i was a congressional scholar. my father graduated from college with degrees in politics and geography (concentration: the middle east). my boyfriend works for the oil industry. i've grown up with this. i've studied it. i've lived it. i've breathed it. what have you done besides preach what fox news tells you?
Barrett 385 posts 04-13-03 06:06 Reply	schooling says absolutely nothing on what you know about a subject. the educational system is pure liberal so obviously your views are slanted that way. Most conservatives are conservatives because they actually think for themselves, they don't listen to the opinions of their communist teachers.
Dexter345 677 posts 04-13-03 14:08 Reply	alfabettezoupe, since you are pointing out Israeli UN violations, would you be for a war with Israel? Or would you be against it as much as you are against the war with Iraq? And uh, Barret... I think it's about time you shut up. -Dexter345-
huge crayon 41 posts 04-13-03 18:50 Reply	Agreed with Dexter on Barrett needing to shut up. However, he does have a point when he says most teachers (er, college professors, rather) are "very" liberal as opposed to conservative. But to call them communist is out of line. Students do need to recognize that not everything their professors is true. But when you do get pounded with blatant leftist ideas without any conservative ones, more students do tend to go liberal. Ever notice how as people grow older, they become more conservative?
AcDecMan 111 posts 04-13-03 20:01 Reply	liberal teachers?? Nearly all of mine are conservative and the majority of the students in class are conservative or not-intelligent-enough-to-know-the-difference. And these are honors classes - the naivity (is that a word?) is strong.
Dexter345 677 posts 04-13-03 22:04 Reply	She said college professors. And it's true that the majority of college professors are liberal. And the word is "naîveté," I think. -Dexter345-
Barrett 385 posts 04-14-03 01:12 Reply	AcDecMan, you have to realize that they say they are conservative to propagandize the situation. My european history teacher from last year claimed to be conservative, but he was literally a communist. I remember him saying "i think we need to go in and liberate Iraq", and now i'm talking to students in his class who say that he thinks it's outrageous that we're doing it. that's what I call basing your opinions on what the opposite party is doing.
Xathien 1255 posts 04-14-03 18:47 Reply	More like naïvete, as far as I recall.
Darcy 88 posts 04-14-03 23:46 Reply	“I realize it is in the best interest of your communist party to Bash conservative politics at all costs...” "Most conservatives...don't listen to the opinions of their communist teachers." Heh, yup, we're all just commies...all just want the state to run all the means of production...bloody idiots don't even know what communism is. And yes, shutting up is good.
Barrett 385 posts 04-15-03 04:34 Reply	then tell your leftist friends to stop saying "right winged" every time they refer to a conservative.
Dexter345 677 posts 04-16-03 07:04 Reply	Did you seriously just post that? You basically said, "Hey left-wing people! Don't call me right-wing!" -Dexter345-
Barrett 385 posts 04-16-03 18:23 Reply	yes, that's exactly what i said.
huge crayon 41 posts 04-16-03 22:46 Reply	Barrett makes me laugh. At him. As Mr Meyer said, political parties are just a part of a big circle. The further left someone goes, the further right someone else goes, they will eventually meet and agree that there was no moon landing. So, Barrett accuses leftists of calling him right-wing (? lol), he's just continuing the circle. Which brings us on to a whole different topic rather than the one on Iraq. Might I suggest moving this topic somewhere else? ::Does quick Snape impression:: A new thread perhaps?
Darcy 88 posts 04-16-03 23:37 Reply	So just because you think that ‘leftists’ are unfairly accusing you to be a “right-winged” conservative (oh, heaven forbid! Not that derogative term!), you see justification in labeling all anti-war liberals as communists? Just because extremist leftists from the other side (if you can consider saying “right-winged” as an extreme action) say something moronic, it doesn’t mean that you can do the same thing without sounding just as stupid. But hey, I guess that since I’m a communist and all, I fail to see sense in your twisted logic because your pro-war arguments are just so capitalistic. So I’ll just sit back, arch my eyebrow, and laugh. Thank you for the endless amusement you provide.
Darcy 88 posts 04-16-03 23:39 Reply	A minor correction: there should be an "and" between extremist and leftists in the first paragraph. and huge crayon: Yeah, this thread is too long. You can start another Iraq topic if you want.
huge crayon 41 posts 04-17-03 00:08 Reply	Darcy: "arched eyebrow" Lucius named his arched eyebrow Bob. And will move topic. But need to think of good question...
Darcy 88 posts 04-17-03 00:18 Reply	'Bob'? Hehe....mind should be Pompa or something, to match Lucius. Have fun thinking of a new question...I'm too tired and stressed to join a new debate and provide my communistic views at the moment, but I'm sure other forum members can enlighten you
Darcy 88 posts 04-17-03 06:32 Reply	Hey, how about Affirmative Action? Everything else in the Politics section is pretty much about the war...it would be a nice change.
Barrett 385 posts 04-17-03 16:59 Reply	Good topic - I haven't given it a lot of thought, so what i'm about to say probably doesn't reflect what i'll think with some argument, so please respond - I agree that certain groups have a harder time than others, and that should be corrected, BUT, (we'll use a college admissions program here), i think the people who perform better in highschool should get more acceptance to college. - I'm white, so you're probably like "of course that's what you think" - but if that happens, white acceptance will go down because asians perform better than whites. so yeah, anything i'm forgetting about?
Barrett 385 posts 04-17-03 17:03 Reply	and just as an example, the only person in our senior class (i'm a junior) to make it into stanford was an african american female (born and raised in the USA)... her class rank, out of 700 or so, was around 50... of the 10 or so white males who applied, zero got in, and all of them had class ranks 1-20... I don't think that's fair... but on the other hand, it's not fair that certain people don't think african americans perform as well... (she comes from a very successful family, so that doesn't apply to her dad's employer).

Forum :: Politics