Don't know much about history...

[jnd3]

I believe this was from one of the weekend protests in England, at Hyde Park. You'd think they'd know better...

http://www.pacificasurf.com/lgf/peace-in-our-time.jpg

Neville Chamberlain, 30 September, 1939:

"We, the German Fuehrer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for two countries and for Europe.

"We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

"We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

"My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time."

Cheers,
JND

[sonaboy]

posting a pic of the demostrators alongside a speech by Churchill
about diplomatic assurances from the Nazis in pre-WWII.

If you're somehow suggesting that this International call for peace will inevitably lead to Saddam pulling some sort of invasion into the Eastern Bloc, or East Europe, that's pretty far fetched.

[StealthHawk]

no, i think he's just drawing very general parallels between then and now. many people seem to think Iraq is not a threat, just like they didn't believe Germany was a threat back in 1939.

obviously Saddam isn't going to invade Europe :rolleyes:

[digitalwanderer]

Originally posted by StealthHawk

obviously Saddam isn't going to invade Europe :rolleyes:

Of course he's not, he's planning on invading the US!

Don't you listen to King George II at ALL when he puts out his decries? :rolleyes:

[Shinri Hikari]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
no, i think he's just drawing very general parallels between then and now. many people seem to think Iraq is not a threat, just like they didn't believe Germany was a threat back in 1939.

obviously Saddam isn't going to invade Europe :rolleyes:
Instead He will invade Isreal and set the whole world into a religious war.:D :cool:

[sonaboy]

There's no way Saddam would try and invade against one of the world's most trained armies. The israelies are NOT to be messed with, and he knows it. His army isn't near that capable.
Not even considering he has no real air force, so there's no way he'd get through Jordan's airspace to invade anyway.

He runs a secular state in Iraq too, he has barely any interest in religion issues at all.
He's trapped right where he is, and his army's going nowhere.

I mean..I HOPE you weren't being serious with that remark.

[UDawg]

He was kidding. Look at his smilies. He was showing irony with the "religious war" statement since Saddam is nonreligious, but he does have a messiah complex.

[jnd3]

Originally posted by sonaboy
There's no way Saddam would try and invade against one of the world's most trained armies. The israelies are NOT to be messed with, and he knows it. His army isn't near that capable.
Not even considering he has no real air force, so there's no way he'd get through Jordan's airspace to invade anyway.

He runs a secular state in Iraq too, he has barely any interest in religion issues at all.
He's trapped right where he is, and his army's going nowhere.

I mean..I HOPE you weren't being serious with that remark.
First, Saddam thinks he's the modern version of Nebuchadnezzar (see the book of Daniel in the Bible for the reference). Yes, Iraq is ostensibly a secular state, but how come every time they show stock footage on any news channel, Saddam is going into a mosque to pray?

Second, Saddam would love nothing more than a war with Israel, if only to unite the Arab world under a single leader, a Caliph (i.e., himself). Why do you think the Palestinian "cause" is trumpeted by so much of the Arab world, but they don't do squat to actually help the people (other than sending money to the families of the splodeydopes)? But of course the armies of the Arab world are pretty much useless against Israel. Why do you think he wants nukes? What do you think the Tammuz-1 nuclear facility was for? Why do you think Israel blew it up in 1981?

Check out this flash animation. It's a tribute to Ilan Ramon (the Israeli astronaut who died on the Columbia), so it's definitely coming from a pro-Israel slant. Still some good stuff there, though...

http://www.alisrael.com/tamuz/

No, Saddam Hussein is not going to invade Europe. But he already invaded Kuwait. Same situation, different people, different region. You can't reason with someone who's unreasonable (and Saddam is a few fries short of a Happy Meal).

Cheers,
JND

[sonaboy]

Originally posted by jnd3
First, Saddam thinks he's the modern version of Nebuchadnezzar (see the book of Daniel in the Bible for the reference). Yes, Iraq is ostensibly a secular state, but how come every time they show stock footage on any news channel, Saddam is going into a mosque to pray?

The same reason they show american leaders going into or coming out of a church on sunday in OUR news - to appease the fundamentalists and make it look like he's a humble person. And no, Saddam does NOT think he's some modern version of a biblical figure, he just thinks he's infallible. But he doesn't think he's holy, or a martyr, because his hesitant actions in the region recently suggest he's afraid of dying.




Second, Saddam would love nothing more than a war with Israel, if only to unite the Arab world under a single leader, a Caliph (i.e., himself). Why do you think the Palestinian "cause" is trumpeted by so much of the Arab world, but they don't do squat to actually help the people (other than sending money to the families of the splodeydopes)? But of course the armies of the Arab world are pretty much useless against Israel. Why do you think he wants nukes? What do you think the Tammuz-1 nuclear facility was for? Why do you think Israel blew it up in 1981?

Yeah, maybe Saddam does want a war with Israel. He just doesn't want to fight it. Nor do most other Middle Eastern Arabic republics, because they know who's waiting behind Israel should anyone get out of line - WE ARE. You basically just answered your own question.
Yeah, Saddam wants nukes. So do tons of other countries in the world, but they don't have them. Iraq has no way of building these things at present. Those trucks they're moving around that Powell was so interested in are NOT a mobile nuke lab, like many people are suggesting. There simply isn't any such thing. Nuclear construction is something so delicate and technical, it simply can't be done in small spaces - let alone in a TRUCK that is moved each day. There's no way to secure materials for that kind of transport without ruining the device. The nuclear issue is simply some government elevated hysteria designed to gain approval for this war from the public and Congress.

No, Saddam Hussein is not going to invade Europe. But he already invaded Kuwait. Same situation, different people, different region. You can't reason with someone who's unreasonable (and Saddam is a few fries short of a Happy Meal).

Yeah, he invaded Kuwait, and his country hasn't recovered from it even now - 12 years later. He's crazy? Yes. Stupid enough to try an invasion with resources even more depleted than in the first Gulf War? I seriously doubt it, but we'll see.
When you think about it, Saddam's purported threats are actually more effective than any real action by his armed forces. And he sees this. Which is why we don't need to worry at all about him coming out of a defensive position to INVADE. He simply has no resources to do it, end of story.

[jnd3]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/profile/saddam_hussein.shtml

And his use of secret intelligence organisations is matched by his love of highly visible adulation. His features and monuments are all over Iraq. He has even had Nebuchadnezzar's palace rebuilt, with his own name printed on every brick. The West may continue to call for his overthrow, but Saddam Hussein goes on, as defiant and brutal as ever.
http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1995/10-16-95/news/iraqis.affirm.html

Even if the referendum doesn't convince many in the West of that, it is certain to feed Hussein's brazen personality cult. Nowhere is that more visible than in Babylon, where the Iraqi leader is cast as the modern-day equivalent of King Nebuchadnezzar, the warrior and builder who came to power in 605 B.C. at the tender age of 25.

Hussein, who helped stage a coup at age 31, has restored part of Nebuchadnezzar's 600-room palace. Placed atop some of the original bricks, marked with Nebuchadnezzar's name, are others that declare, "In the era of Saddam Hussein, protector of Iraq, who rebuilt the Royal Palace."

"Nebuchadnezzar was a man of war and peace, just as Saddam Hussein is," said Hadi Kader, a 40-year-old palace tour guide who cast his vote for Hussein in the referendum. "That's why peoplem love him."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=saddam+hussein+nebuchadnezzar&btnG=Google+Search

Cheers,
JND

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by sonaboy
posting a pic of the demostrators alongside a speech by Churchill

Its Chamberlain, if it would have been a alongside a speech by Churchill, you would be praising this man;)

[UDawg]

Churchill was awesome!!!

One time a woman came up to Churchill and said:

"If you were my husband I would poison your tea!"

Churchill replied:

"Madam if you were my wife I would drink it quickly."


LOL! P0wn3d

[silence]

is US is so concerened by saddam why didn't they finish him after the gulf war??........it's all about oil and business........nothing else.......

north korea HAS nuclear capability,DOES sell long range missiles to others and NOTHING......

india and pakistan are in constant conflict over Kashmir and both have nuclear weaps.....and ALL western govermants still ship weaps and tech there making it even worse.....

israel does have nuclear warheads and missiles to launch them....

and there are many more countries that have bio or chemical weapons......and speaking of chemical weaps >> where were US when saddam bombed his own ppl with those??supporting him,cause he was fighting iran at that time......

sad thing is.......saddam's army was equiped during 80's by western govermants to fight iran and their islamic revolution.......just like talibans were trained by US to fight soviets in aphganistan.........

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
no, i think he's just drawing very general parallels between then and now. many people seem to think Iraq is not a threat, just like they didn't believe Germany was a threat back in 1939.


Therin lies the key lessons for todays peace demonstrators... its well enough marching for peace but there comes a point where action has to be taken. Appeasement does not work and is a risky game... where you draw the line is blurry but i think after 12 years the UN would be stupid to overlook saddam

[UDawg]

Originally posted by silence
is US is so concerened by saddam why didn't they finish him after the gulf war??........it's all about oil and business........nothing else.......

north korea HAS nuclear capability,DOES sell long range missiles to others and NOTHING......

india and pakistan are in constant conflict over Kashmir and both have nuclear weaps.....and ALL western govermants still ship weaps and tech there making it even worse.....

israel does have nuclear warheads and missiles to launch them....

and there are many more countries that have bio or chemical weapons......and speaking of chemical weaps >> where were US when saddam bombed his own ppl with those??supporting him,cause he was fighting iran at that time......

sad thing is.......saddam's army was equiped during 80's by western govermants to fight iran and their islamic revolution.......just like talibans were trained by US to fight soviets in aphganistan.........


:rolleyes:

We've already beat this horse to death.

[silence]

had to post it........i just have my own grudges with official US politics....and european for that matter........

there is so much BS in what they do and say.........almost like giving that award to GFFX;)

[sonaboy]

Originally posted by [eNv]-LORD-eX-Bu
Its Chamberlain, if it would have been a alongside a speech by Churchill, you would be praising this man;)


Whoops...sorry..i'm a bit dusty in the Brit History dept.
The last time i had a quiz on the Brit leadership, Princess Di and Charlie were still holding hands in public.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by silence
is US is so concerened by saddam why didn't they finish him after the gulf war??........it's all about oil and business........nothing else.......

Blame the UN for that. The option in the resolution to liberate Kuwait didn't include going into Iraq. You can blame the UN for that mess :o

north korea HAS nuclear capability,DOES sell long range missiles to others and NOTHING......

Taken a look at it lately? Its called 37,000 American troops poised to strike at a moments notice. Its called long range bombers equipted with enough firepower to turn North Korea into a parking lot. Its also called a carrier with enough airpower to isolate the north, destroy their infastructure and rain hell from all points above. Oh, and you can be sure there are special operations on the prowl in the north already ;) Don't tell me nothing has been done. You just aren't paying attention :o

india and pakistan are in constant conflict over Kashmir and both have nuclear weaps.....and ALL western govermants still ship weaps and tech there making it even worse.....

So what? You want us to get involved everywhere and starting a real problem? If we get involved with Kashmir, it will like another Middle East problem, you really want to open that pandoras box?

israel does have nuclear warheads and missiles to launch them....

You have no proof that they do. Even so, they have not used them. Think about it, if you are surrounded by countries that are hostile to your people, you'd want to have a little extra negotiating power wouldn't ya? :o

and there are many more countries that have bio or chemical weapons......and speaking of chemical weaps >> where were US when saddam bombed his own ppl with those??supporting him,cause he was fighting iran at that time......

we were abbetting agression against Iran. Part of our policy, I done condone it ;)

sad thing is.......saddam's army was equiped during 80's by western govermants to fight iran and their islamic revolution.......just like talibans were trained by US to fight soviets in aphganistan.........

Duh, Iran was our enemy, Iraq wasn't ours yet. Lesser of two evils at the time. Turned sour real quick. Oh and by the way, we never trained the Taliban ;) The taliban didn't exist until the mid 90's, so no, they never fought the soviets. They were called the Moujahadin, they fought the Soviets, defeated them, and contributed greatly to the fall of the Soviet Union. Whats your point?:o

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by sonaboy
Whoops...sorry..i'm a bit dusty in the Brit History dept.
The last time i had a quiz on the Brit leadership, Princess Di and Charlie were still holding hands in public.

rofl, don't worry man, I kinda eh, fell asleep during that one too :D

[silence]

hmmmmm........what can i say......we have opposite views.

i see US going into iraq for wrong reasons,without considering possible consequence.that's why i don't like it.

i just think that current US foreign policy is wrong.....and u make it worse as days go by.......

it's not just Iraq.......it's also Internatial Crimes Tribunal......Kyoto agreement......complete middle east.....north korea......

i won't post in this thread any more cause i said what i think.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by silence
hmmmmm........what can i say......we have opposite views.

i see US going into iraq for wrong reasons,without considering possible consequence.that's why i don't like it.

i just think that current US foreign policy is wrong.....and u make it worse as days go by.......

it's not just Iraq.......it's also Internatial Crimes Tribunal......Kyoto agreement......complete middle east.....north korea......

i won't post in this thread any more cause i said what i think.

Some of the things you mentioned are touchy. Such as that Internationial Crimes Tribunal. I am not too sure where I stand on that, mostly because I wouldn't like to see any of my troops being tried by another country for actions they took in the heat of battle. I'm sure all militaries feels the same about their men. Trying to impose a court like that on anyone is asking for confrontation.

The Kyoto treaty, hmm... I am a big nature guy. Love it, hate what is happening to the environment and regulations that are in place. I think they are too lax, but I am not too informed on that to really pass judgement.

The middle east, well, from my Iraq thing I think you can form my opinion ;)

North Korea, scares me, they have an ICBM that can reach the west coast of the US. I beleive it is a crisis, but I don't know if military action is the best there, you know... since they already have the nukes. It is kinda too late there and there we really have to exhaust our diplomatic options before we take action. If they cross over into the south tho, they're asking for it. I don't think we should reward them with aid just for them to feed their military and have them trick us like they "tricked" bill clinton, why? because this time this president won't let them get away and that would most likely escalate into another huge military undertaking ;)

So, I don't know where you stand on those, but maybe at least we can agree on the nature thing;)

[silence]

huh..i said i won't post.....but i have to.....

about ICT....i live in crotia.....and we had war in1991-1995 and crimes happened......and we were forced,pushed or what ever to hand our citizens for trial.....by US also.
if some1 did warcrime,he needs to go to trial.period.
it's hypocracy to ask other to hand their guys,while u protect ur to the point where u mine international treaties.

war crimes are touchy......very touchy......govermants can fall over it.ICT should work.i will never trust any govermant to give fair trial to their "own"<<this is from experioence with local courts,though there are some trials that were fair.......but most are sad......i mean liberate the guy who killed 13 POWs in self defence???.....i am ashamed when i read such things.

about kyotto...since i disagree with current US politics regarding it,that prolly means i support it:)

north korea.....what could be done,wasn't done.....but last i know is that bush administration cancelled that oil for no nuclear research treaty........tensed there,very tensed
btw i really feel sorry for north koreans.....i lived in communism,but what we had is nothing like they have........man.....they rather make nukes then feed their own ppl,talking about saddam.....
it's much more complex then iraq......prolly why bush is leaving it alone......i mean u have japan there in range,south korea......china....
i don't even see how it might fall from inside,like communism in europe did........
i really hope they'll find some way to deal with north korea.....

[jnd3]

The problem with the International Criminal Court is the same problem facing the United Nations: countries that are listed as oppressive or not free are allowed to dictate and veto policy over free nations. So in the United Nations we have Syria on the Security Council, Libya on the Human Rights Commission, and Iran on the Disarmament Committee.

Being the...ummm...expert :rolleyes: on foreign policy that I am, here's a suggestion: change the membership rules for the United Nations. Only those countries that are considered "free" have full voting privileges. Partly free countries have provisional membership with an input of their points of view, while unfree countries (autocracies, theocracies, dictatorships, Communist workers' paradises) can sit back, watch and keep their mouths shut.

And with that, I'll get back to what I know...C++! :)

Cheers,
JND