Transtic Nerve

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by {SITH} Change [/i] [B]But Saddam is not a threat, and there is the point of diagreement. If half of the U.S. population didn't think him a threat, this war would not be engulfed in as much controversy. [/B][/QUOTE] The people tend to fall in line with what the government tells them. Kinda contradicts the true meaning of democracy, but none-the-less. The government says Saddam is a threat. Whether or not he is really isn't up to us. You can believe, by our given rights as Americans (or Britains or Aussies) whatever you want, but you have no proof he is and no proof he isn't... as with anyone at war or in a deep conflict, leaders tend to stretch the truth, or flat out lie. Either side... who knows what anything is anymore...

Why didn't you post this in the same topic?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i] [B]I did read your post carefully, but here again you are justifying the genocide of these people by means of saying they are a threat to Saddam. The actual fact of the matter is that even when they are a percieved threat, the genocide seen in halbja is never acceptable. You are perverting the facts and are trying to say these people were not innocent citizens. They were. I also want to poin out that you are wrong about saddams rise to power. His uncle raised him but was never the leader of iraq. Heres the deal. A military coup puts Abdul Karim Qassim into power. Helped by Col. Abd al salam. The president is ousted... ba'athist take over for a short time. The col. comes back with military and takes out the ba'athist. Then the col. dies in 1964 in a helicopter crash. The col.'s brother takes over as president. This man is saddam's cousin. Saddam, now a prominent member of the ba'ath party becomes v.p. of the government. The brother/president is named "... bakr" (dont know the first name) Over time saddam orginizes his secret police and loyalist. Then he makes his move and forces his cousin out of the presidency... "he resigned." That is how saddam came to power. No handing down of any positions... all hostile coups and take overs. I have a link, that is to the state dept. timeline for Iraq, but I dont know how to link. Just find your way there if you can and you will see for yourself. Hope that all adds to the informative nature of this thread:whoops: [/B][/QUOTE] Right, then the US troops and Iraqi troops are innocent people. The Kurds are people at war with the middle eastern world (and the middles eastern world is at war with them). Thus they are not innocent civilians. Also did I EVER say that what Saddam did was justified? No... I said it was REASON... REASON is not always justified... Thats why we have laws, because REASON is not always JUSTIFIED. I have reason to kill George Bush, but if I did, is that justified? no... ofcourse not... I think, I KNOW, you understand this, but you keep reading my post wrong. I gave reasons, not justifications. My analogy goes something like this: Kurds - pose legit threat to Saddam and the rest of middle eastern world and their way of life (no matter how wrong you think it may be) Saddam - poses "legit" threat to the US and our way of life... I'm not sure I see much of a difference in the [b][i]BASIC[/b][/i] (please read that word) reason of the two. As for Saddam's uncle, I was told from my History teacher that Saddam's uncle did come to power in Iraq, at one time or another. Now, I dunno where he got his information, but till I can see any other way, your credibility doesn't equal his so (I mean, you're not a college history professor are you?)... I'm in line to his information. (i'll check out the state department though) He may be wrong, I'm certainly not rulling that out... Maybe he did mean cousin and said the wrong word... I dunno. Thats what I heard though. Certainly, liek I've been saying this whole time, the reasons for this war are far and many. I think OIL is deffinantly one of the reasons, did the oil deal made recently with whatever that company Cheney used to run just come out of nowhere or was it a HUGE coincidence. I think another reason is that the government wants Saddam out for killing "his people."... another is that the US is trying to fix their mistake of giving Saddam weapons in the first place. We creates half that garbage down there, and now we need to fix it. I think another is definitely part that Bush wants to finish what daddy started. There's tons of reasons, alot they aren't saying. But the simple reasons because he is an evil satan like dictator is certainly not going to cut it as the only reason. There's more. There's more somewhere, some reasons they aren't telling us. There always is.

[quote]Originally posted by gokents [b]Too much to quote, but you know what I'm talking about[/b] [/quote] I was NEVER comparing genocide to what we are doing, I was comparing reason... if you'd read my post again you'll see i said much like we are taking out "legitamate threats"... which is OUR reason for this war is it not? IS IT NOT? Thats what I thought... I never compared the killing of the Kurds to us killing the Iraqis. PLEASE read my posts more carefully in the future. For your second reason. Saddam took over after his uncle. His uncle ran Iraq before Saddam. He didn't just come out of no where and take it over. If I'm not mistaken his uncle came into power after WWII, when the British left and when the Russians were pursuing an expansion of communism. I am not saying theKurds need to be destroyed, I'm simply sayign that the reason Saddam is killing them is because of the reasons I said. The Kurds are not Iraqis, They are not Iranians, they are not Turks, they are not Jordanians. They are Kurds. They don't have their own country, so they tend to live in other's countries... and that poses a threat to those countries, which is WHY Saddam is killing them. You all simply make it out as Saddam is killing innocent Iraqi citizens (which he does do) but when you refer to the genocide, you have to look at it in a view of war. Saddam sees these people as a threat to HIM and the rest of the middle east (which if he hadn't helped with the mass killings of them, they probably would run all of the middle east by now) You cannot say Saddam has done mass genocide of his own innocent people, because those are simply NOT the facts. It's a war with him, and most of the middles east, and the Kurds. You can't write that off as innocent Iraqi citizens dieing. Thats false. Again, I'm not saying that the Kurds need to be killed. I'm not saying Saddam is an angel, and I'm not saying he shouldn't be removed from power. I'm just giving the reasons behind what he does, who he does it to, and why they aren't what you think they are.

The industrial skin doesn't support pop up PM messages... so yeah... like Sara so elequantly said :)

PM the guy next time.

This sounds like a favorite thread, which aren't allowed. Unless you have some legit reason for it...

Ugh, the Kurds are not Saddam's people... lol. You know nothing of history if you think the Kurds are Saddam's people. Yes they live in Iraq, they live elsewhere too, but NO ONE wants them. NO ONE, not just Iraq, NO ONE. They've been getting killed off for YEARS. It's not just a recent thing, this fued dates back to the 1700s. Saddam does not consider the Kurds "his people" by any extent. he hates them, much like the rest of the Middles East. They pose a legitamate threat to take over his real people and that of every other middle eastern country.mIn order to keep this threat down, he must kill a significant amount of them. If he doesn't the Kurds wil gain high numbers and take over everything. Much like how the US is taking out "legitamate threats" to our country now, Saddam was taking out a threat to his country. It's just Saddam was killing people, not a government (even though the US is killing people) because the Kurds have no real government. The idea that Saddam is killing his own people is kind of false in a sense. At least if you're referring to the Kurds. They just happen to be in Northern Iraq. They are in Iran too, and Iran has been killing them as well... but you knew that already right?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]Did those missiles hit civilians Gokents? [/B][/QUOTE] No they didn't, which is why US officials easily just sad that it was a miss-fire. I suppose it's a bit different now that they hit civilian areas, whether or not it was US weaponry or Iraqi. It's still unknown. As for Iraqis in American uniforms... again I state back to my previous post about Saddam saying that this is war and anyway he con confuse us or gain any type of advantage of us, it's perfectly fair. After all, we're the ones who invaded him. Thats what he says, then again, I suppose the same argument could be used against him if we were to say blow up some civilian places, ofcourse that would not be in our best interests, for political and public reasons.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GinnyLyn [/i] [B]I heard that Saddam has now been finding ways to blow his own people up (well, kill them, anyway, I forget the details), in order to blame it on us (the whole civilian casulties bit). Anyone confirm or deny this (I trust sensationalist reports about as far as I can throw them).[/B][/QUOTE] Apparently something blew up in a civilian popualted area. Blew up some shops and cars and killed some people. The US denied ever targeting that area and said it could have been anti-aircraft fire coming back to the ground, or an Iraqi missle coming to the ground as well, however the US didn't rule out the possiblity of a misfire of a missle. It is unknown who is responsible. Saddam said earlier that this is war and with war anything goes. Anyway he can gain advantage over th enemy is fair and he will do it, whatever that includes. If the US were in the same position, we'd do the same. [quote][b]I understand making typos, but wouldn't it come out like 91/1 or 19/1 or something?[/b][/quote] In many countries, including ones in Europe and Asia, the numbers for dates are placed differently than that as Americans. in japan it's year, month, day... I've seen many times where it's day, month, year... I used to write essays where I had to put "day, month, year".... which to you would be seen as "11.9.01"... However, regardless, it's OBVIOUS to know what date was being refered to.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vegitto4 [/i] [B]that's right. November 9th did have nothing to do with iraq................................... [/B][/QUOTE] Lol, you little smartass :p

Is Saddam a sheite and Osama a Suuni? I dunno exactly what factions of muslims exist. I never undeerstoof factions of religions anyway, I find it really stupid to tell you the truth. Anyway, we were talking about the curds in my class the other day and how far that battle between the curds and every other middle eastern country goes. It goes all the way back to the 1700s. They are a stateless group of people who threaten to take over middle eastern land because of their numbers (apparently they multiply very quickly) which is why Saddam, and Saddam's uncle (leader of Iraq before Saddam) and the Iranians and the Turks and the Jordanians (ofcourse these weren't all border states at the time)have all at one time or another attacked the curds and attempted to kill them off. I'm just saying that the rivalry between the curds and those middle eastern states leads back to before the US was created. I dunno if anyone is considering the curds in northern Iraq as Iraqi people, but I can guarantee you that Saddam doesn't see them as Iraqi people. Gokents, I dunno about you, but I've heard fro numerous sources that Saddam was given the chemical weapons to fight the Iranians, who, like was said here earlier, were considered a threat the US. I heard this on several of the news stations as well as here on the net and I even read it in my history book. Whether or not they were given to study at Baghdad university is irrelvant.... did they or did they not use those same chemical weapons against Iran?

There's a topic plainly on this already, just 5 or 6 posts down. You should look before creating a new thread. [url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20522[/url]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i] [B]I understand what you're saying. The part where my opinion goes away from yours is when you enter the part about we shouldn't want to strike back for them striking us(at least, that's the impression I have). We provided weapons for them, yes. However, just because we provided those weapons doesn't mean we shouldn't be angry when they turned them against us. [/B][/QUOTE] Oh I never said that. I'm all for goign after those who strike us. Well not all for... but I feel they should be brought to justice in one way or another. Saddam has not struck us.... he never did. We alwasy struck first. He is just "thought" to be an "eventual threat" to American people. Which is why I don't see an exact reason to go in military force. And I don't think the reasons our president is giving are the true reasons we are in this conflict. I think there's more than meets the eye. (we should send in the transformers!) I don't think we should be providing services or weapons or money to anyone who is embedded in a conflict. History has shown time after time that it will come back and bite you in the arse, not in all cases, but in some you can plainly see it. I don't think the US needs to be the only super power and I don't think we have any right to try to spread our govenment beliefs on the rest of the world just because we think it's "right"... And I think thats what this campaign is all about. Spreading democracy by getting rid of the tolitarians and the fascist governments. What better excuse to spread your "religion" by making the world think you're doing something good. Although in this case, the world doesn't think that, and I think that that was a complete surprise to Bush and his administration. And they had no choice bt to go forward because they already made the commitment.

The nudity you see in 90% of anime is used to form a real life vision of it. Since anime is so popular in Japan, thats what you see on a dialy basis. Cartoons... So, I think at least, in order to maintain a real life aspect of cartoons, they have to show them in real life situations and doing real life things (ie: NOT flying around blasting energy out of their hands)... Eating dinner, taking a shower, having sex (although you rarely see that full frontal in anime, not refering to hentai)and whatever are real things. With Japan being less censored, although they do censor their pornography(which always boggled me) they can easily get away with this and the public never cares to take a notice or whatever. Unlike here, where clothes are a god send and if little Billy sees a naked woman (not like he won't ever find his dad's pornos anyway) Billy's mum has a heart attack and sue 3 million people. It's reality people. Nudity is not shown in an erotic way in anime (for the most part, again, NOT refering to hentai)... Nudity is art, Pornography is erotic, there's a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference.

I have the original Ultimate Battle 22 (28 if you do the code, or some number like that)... and a burned copy of the game. There's really not that much different. You can play the Japanese one. It's already 80% english. However, you can't play it on American consols... I dunno why it took them forever to get it here. they probably had to wait on the rights for American release.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i] [B]We put the weapons in their hands with good intentions. We did not train them to attack us. It wasn't the smartest things we've ever done, but we did it with our best interests in mind. I have to refer to this analogy onnce again: If you lost a loved one in the attack on 9/11, or if you lost a loved one in a terrorist attack funded by Saddam, would you still not feel the need to act? -Justin [/B][/QUOTE] I didn't say we didn't need to act... I've said that a few times that I think Saddam needs to go, I just feel the reasons and logic and the way we are approaching this conflict is all wrong. We didn't train them to attack us, yeah. I mean, duh. We trained them to attack other people, which could easily be used against us. It's like training Osama bin Laden how to make an Atomic bomb and expecting him not to make one when the time comes around he's "hating" us... you have to expect that your relations with a country may not be good in the future, and thus you cannot help them or they might use that against you... the US can't seem to understand this. Ofcourse, thats what you get when you meddel in world affairs and don't want to send you're own people to do your meddling, you train peopel from potentially dangerous countries to do the meddling for you. The a few years later they meddel back and you're all surprised? Give me a break. PS: what terrorist attack was funded by Saddam?

This is why mp3s were created....

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ThePikasElbow [/i] [B]Michael Moore's comments were unnecessary and just rude. There are men and women dying in Iraq, and he has to disrespect them like that. Totally uncalled for. I don't care if you dislike Bush, but don't say that the people that are dying in Iraq are dying for nothing. [/B][/QUOTE] He was not disrespecting the soldiers... It was all anti-Bush and anti-Bush's war policy. He didn't even mention the soldiers.... Did you even hear his speech? Your post here doesn't have any relation to it beside the "if you dislike Bush" part... which is about the only truth in your part. Anyway, I saw enough of Chicago to know it didn't deserve best picture. It looked horrible. Broadway needs to stay out of cinema and stick to trying to win Tony's not Oscars. Leave that to the pros who can act, and not just dance and sing. I didn't see the Pianist. The title reminded me of that movie a few years ago that was just beyond crap, so much i didn't want to see this one. Gangs of New York was a great film. Although exagerated, it was still semi-truthful. I would have liked to see that or LOTR win, but whatever. Oscars don't mean anything anymore because it's quite obvious they give them to people who don't deserve them at all. After watching last year's Oscars, I knew there was no more hope. Halley Berry was an excellent choice for best actress, Monster's Ball was an incredible, moving, and emotion picture, but Denzel Washington?... he deserved a kick in the a$s after that crappy performance in a CRAPPY movie. After he won, I knew they did it only to appease Jesse Jackson and everyone else who was complaining about African Americans not winning. So you know they are swayed, easily might I add, by a persuasion in public opinion.

I wish the U.S. would actually take responcibility for what they've done. I mean, Afganistan and Osama was our fault, and now Iraq... our fault as well.... We gave both of these countries weapons. We gave both of these countries money. We trained Osama bin Laden and his men. Why don't we just say "Hey, we F-ed up, now we're going to 'fix' it"... but no... we're too arrogant for that... more like pathetic. I personally don't see this going the way America thinks it's going. It will end up backfiring. Somehow, somewhere.... It always does. At least every "war" since WWII has

Because the academy doesn't know what they are doing 95% of the time. They are easily swayed by public opinion... and apparently people who dance in movies... They had sh*tty nominees to begin with, so naturally there were sh*tty results.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B]We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war . [/B][/QUOTE] Thats quite possiby the best way I've ever seen that. I will remember that. I want to use it in my next class discussion :) Although the fact this goes to proove, like you said, the UN has no power... it's just there...

Tee hee thats funny... I mean... it was literally funny, not funny in a sarcastic way. Oh well, someone had to do it.

People who blame music, TV, moveis, and video games for the ciorruption of children are just using those as scapegoats for their own doing which is the real thing corrupting their children. If movies and TV and music corrupted people, then why is it the people in countries without censorship and the weirdest things on their public entertainment always end up smarter, more relaxed, and ultimately better off than those who do?

Who won best picture? Anyway I think Steve Washed up Martin was a crappy host. They seem to always get crappy people to host the show. I mean, it's one thing putting emotion in your jokes, but when you just read off a teleprompter and put no emotion in what you are saying, it' sjust stupid. I had to turn it off during the beginning because it was so horrible.