Here is a link to some historical details I found on the UN's web page. Interesting read

-Joel

First things first. I'd like to apologize for the tone of my original post. It was completely out of line, and I should know better.

Michael, your posts are not drivel. They typically contain well-written, thorough, sound reasoning. My reaction was to what is sometimes contained at the end of your posts. You sometimes address others in a demeaning tone that seems intended to intimidate. This is contrary to the idea of this forum.

It is possible to get our ideas across without the venom. I lost sight of that and wrote with emotion rather than reasoning. It won't happen again.

Now, my views on this subject. I believe we should allow the inspectors another shot at monitoring Iraq. Why start a conflict when it may be possible to avoid one in a relatively simple manner. Having said that, I do believe Saddam is a threat to the region, and one that is not likely to go away. If he reneges on his promise to allow access to inspectors, the UN and US need to seriously consider what the next step should be. I would prefer that we not be forced to intervene repeatedly as he invades his neighbors.

I don't believe in the implicit trust of government officials, nor do I believe in the implicit distrust of them. I use the best information available to me. Yes, this typically does mean the major US media.

It also means watching some foreign news via satellite. While the commentary and editorials differ widely, the reported news is fairly consistent, with the possible exception of Palestinian News, which rarely makes a distinction between news and editorial.

So my question for some of the posters here is this...if every independent media source is beholden to their advertisers, and therefore lies to us, whom are we to believe? Do state-run media outlets have more credibility? Even donor supported stations such as NPR have people who donate to them, and these people have an ideology that NPR caters to. Does this make them untrustworthy? As a young person preparing to enter the workforce, would you sacrifice your morals to work for these media companies? If not, why do you believe that everyone who works for these companies has?

My 2 cents. I hope it's a little more constructive than the 'drivel' I posted last time.

Mike, by old I ment you used Pascal, therefor old.
Suppost to be humor.

I apologize if I offeneded.


Wetzel
~~~~~~~~
Mea culpa, mea maxima chalupa

Hrm thats interesting....Saddam is kind of breaking that rule, unless it has been modified in the last few years...


The worst part is that they [Iraq] agreed to it..

[me] pokes his head into this thread...[/me]

I've been following (kind of) the building tensions in the middle east since early last year as part of a current issues class in school. (It was only a half year course and I've since graduated). Speaking stictly logically, it seems to me there are a few things happening here-

The essential core of the violence is not rooted in political interests- rather religion. Power driven enthusiasts such as Osama bin Laden use a religious clause to declare war on the US- Jihad. Through the jihad they declare the US what would be considered "satanic" from a christian perspective, despite the millions of Muslims living in the US. Thus resulting in the attacks of 9/11.

Similarly, this stereotype is applied in reverse to Muslims and Arabs from an "American" perspective. Particularly since 9/11, Americans have generally thought of the arabic/muslim people as terrorists, resulting in ethnic stereotyping and discrimination. I was in a class where 95% of the students could write or speak nothing more than "bomb the muslims, they should all die." (rendering me politically and socially alone in the class, to the point where it was literally me on one side of the room, 28 on the other)

Throw in some political issues such as oil, weapons of mass distruction, paranoia (natural side effect of 9/11), and you have Saddam. I can't speak for the US government, since I know not very much about the specifics of the situation, but it seems to me like America is using everything combined as leverage to be rid of a pestilence which has been around for years. Again, I don't know enough about the situation to pass judgement, but from an "uninformed civilian" watching the story unfold through short media bits, rumor and speculation, it seems such to me. Personally, I think Saddam should be dealt with, but a hardcore all out bombing operation may not be the best method or solution, based on any number of side effects in all the previous posts, positive and negative alike.

Just my half a cent, let me know if anything makes any sense, I typed all this running on 4 hours of sleep.

Goblins and ghoulies from last Halloween;
Awaken the spirits with your tambourine!

;)

But, yes, it made sense.

Doesn't religion just suck? *puts out fire swiftly*

Honestly, the Christian/Catholic - Muslim pissing contest has existed for centuries. It dates back to the Crusades... It's nothing new. Maybe new technology to kill eachother with.

Yey! Someone else who sees the world as I do.

Religion has it's purpose though- to give people faith in something, no matter what it is. This aspect of religion is a relatively good thing, since people do need to hold on to something, and since physical things aren't always avaliable, it's good to have a concept to trust in. It goes too far when zeal is thrown in, to the point of forcing people to accept a given way of life. Particularly in killing (e.g. crusades, inquisition, haulocaust, 9/11). That's the facet of organized religion which scares me... once the masses are under control they can be swayed any which way, depending on the mood of their leader. Long Story that I've written a 4 page essay on for school short: Faith Good. Zeal Bad. Beliefs Good. Forced Beliefs Bad. Acceptance of other religions Good. Killing "infidels" Bad.

Umm ...

First, that's Protostant/Catholic, I doubt you meant Christian/Catholic. And no, it does not date back to the 'supposed death of Jesus.' Islam was not even around until after 570 CE. And what do you mean by 'supposed death'? Are you trying to say Jesus didn't die?

Sorry if I am being too anal retentive by picking at all your words.

Stephen

Please don't let this turn into a religious debate, whether or not Christ exhisted, or any other spiritual belief is correct or incorrect can only be determined within the individual, some believe, some do not believe. I ask that nobody furthers the points in my previous posting by slandering one another's personal beliefs and religious standings.

Bah, I was really disappointed when this all took a turn towards religion. But I decided not to comment, and just to say that srawls has the right idea there, so I say.


~~~

But please, aside from that, this reminds me of a story I'd like to mention, if you will listen.

A few weeks ago, a few beloved friends of mine had gathered in fellowship, and we were playing a video game called Perfect Dark for the Nintendo 64. It's a rather enjoyable game in which the object is to eliminate your opponent with a variety of weapons.

As we played, it eventually came to a point where we had been killing each other for a while, and there was a choice presented. We could continue to kill each other as we were, or we we could use the leathally poisoned throwing knives.

Now, in the game, when hit with a knife, the screens goes completely blurry (increasingly blurry every time hit) and health is depleted until you die. Then, when you respawn back into the game, your vision is still complete blurred, and you are brought to near death by the poison. The next time you die, the view only reappears slightly.

Anyway, as we stood in the same room, meeting each other with knives, my friend spoke out against using them. He claimed, "Anyone that gets in a knife fight is an idiot! It only screws [~pardon his language~] us both long after death! Just don't do it."

Nuclear war is the same way. If a nuclear war was to take place, anyone to start it would be an idiot, and both parties would be left to die for generations of innocence after them.

~~~

Now that I've provided this lovely anecdote, I feel more comfortable in sharing my opinion about this issue. I feel it would not be appropriate to comment on others' ideas because I just joined the debate (a little late)...but I promise to get to the point....now.

Brief background: This country has a lot going for it. Freedoms...that's great stuff. And the goverment is here to protect them. But that doesn't mean the goverenment can completely be trusted.

My opinion: We should not attack Iraq. Not now, not even if with UN approval, Senate approval, or George Bush's approval.

Explain, please? Okay.
Well, I believe that attacking Saddam Hussein and invading Iraq is just that. It's attacking him and his country. He may be a horribly immoral person and a rather unpopular guy, and he may have killed plenty of people. In fact, I'm saying there's no reason he shouldn't be dead as dead can be. But I believe that we should not be the People, the country, to kill him --unless (unless, not until) he provokes us to do so. I do not believe that dodging a few weapon inspectors counts as significant provocation. It's not our business. It's not our responsibilty. It's not our war. Innocent lives are going to be lost. Ours or theirs, it makes no difference. It's still death. Whoever intentionally causes innocent people to die is an enemy. That includes a commander that sends American people into a country of people that didn't start a war.

Generally, the people who start wars are looked upon as wrong. But sometimes the line is blurred so that no one can be sure, who is right, if anyone is. Please, (I appeal to the President) don't let America be the aggresors, the attackers, the killers. I hate it when people start wars. Don't let us be one of them.

~~~

One last comment. When people start wars, they have a plan, but no one really knows what will happen. Mass killing has a habit of accumulating.

You are correct, I was out of line and did not include valid evidence to back up my opinions. I don't want this to turn into a religious debate, however, religion determines many human actions weather we would like to admit it or not. I will, however, try to keep my use of religion to a minimum.

How about this...

We have a robotics competition instead of a war. Winner gets a Segway.

Who's with me?

This is a quick cut-n-paste from another message board. I found it thought provoking.

I don't really agree with the original poster's assertion that attacking Iraq is "based solely on oil..." But he raises an interesting point about North Korea. There certainly are some similarities.

I still feel strongly that we should hit Iraq hard if they don't throw open their doors and allow some real weapons inspections. But I do see the double standard. If Iraq, then why not N.Korea? If N.Korea, where would it all end?

-Joel

You know this whole Middle East thing is surprisingly similar to the plot of Starship Troopers.

It's a perfect society, no huge war problems yet but an enemy far away giving them grief. They get attacked unexpectedly from above and a ton of people die, so they head off to war to their enemy's own soil a great distance away. The bad guys live in the desert in holes in the ground.

I'm with ya :D

me to

This thread sure hit a brick wall after it was temporarily closed... Especially with all of this nonsensical robotics competition winner getting a Segway crap. Don't you people have any respect for a meaningful discussion? If you can't add something intelligent, then stay out of it. I can't believe how much junk I can read through in this Chit-Chat forum, but when I find a thread that actually means something and has an intelligent discussion it's immediately smothered by ludicrous comments about Segways and having a robotics competition against Iraq. At least MBiddy referenced the Middle East in his post, which is more than I can say for the degenerative comments made by hixofthehood's latest post; as well as MattK (his latest post), and Mike522. I know it's the offseason, but can you people find other things to do rather than ruin a valid thread with these posts that have no realistic/meaningful/purposeful views in them? It's posts like those which make me not want to read anything on these forums.

It's been a while, and I think I've said enough for the moment.


PS:
Jim Giacchi- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2338185.stm

<edit>
Mike522: By the way, judging from the context you should have written "me too."

/me points towards an English class while rolling his eyes in frustration.
</edit>

Besides, I don't think a Segway would get very good traction in the desert!

I think I have too great a sense of decency to personally insult them like that. I commend you.

Now, to change the subject back to Iraq. The question to ask is... "Have they done anything wrong?" The United States is being a rather hypocritical in their actions. I thought the policies in this country were "Innocent until proven guilty." Oh wait, I forgot - that all went away with the Patriot Acts. Just more rights flushed down the toilet.

Just this morning I found an article written by Salman Rushdie which pertains (I believe) to just this. Seems to me that, being a person whom's head a large amount of Islamic regimes have outwardly put a price, Salman Rushdie is a very interesting person to write about the United State's support of Isreal as being a more credible viewpoint than most. If I'm wrong, please alert me to it immediately.

Double Standards Make Enemies

Keep in mind this is a "CheifDelphi" Forum, Team 47, and no matter which thread or which forum posts are in, it is still a FIRST related website, meaning any threads or forums have the right to refer to FIRST at any time (especially since there are freedom of speech rights). If you don't want threads that deal with "FIRST" at all, go find another site, because the primary purpose of chiefdelphi.com is for FIRST people to come together and share ideas, and while those ideas may vary, they are all tied together under FIRST.

Back to the subject at hand, as a general comment, it astounds me as to how closed minded some individuals can be. There are some who consider all points of view when coming to a conclusion on any situation, but there are also those who stick with a certain opinion. There is nothing wrong with sticking to a feeling, but there is something wrong with attempting to cram that feeling down everyone else's throat, declaring all other thoughts invalid or illogical/stupid. Everyone is free to think what they may, and hopefully express it in forums like these without others jumping in with deconstructive criticism.

/me gets off the soap box.

Unless they have almost nothing to do with FIRST... like a war. I agree with Bill... the whole 'robotic competition instead of war' comment was pretty rediculous.

That was really harsh. My innocent post was a small, quick, inobtrusive, lighthearted joke. I do have respect for a discussion, which is why I posted my 'realistic, meaningful, purposeful' opinion a little bit earlier in the thread. If I was out of line, I apologize for my contribution to the utter ruination of this topic.
But if I am innocent of this alleged crime, then let me say that you are very disrespectful and sadden me.

I'll go now, and take my 'degenerative crap' with me.

That's because a lot of the other thoughts are illogical. Iraq has not done anything to the US, other than violating a few UN violations. In fact, our embargo hurts them more than they've ever hurt us.

hixofthehood - With the intelligent comments made by some individuals as of late, tension has most likely been building up for a while. You just happened to get caught in the middle.

of Enemies and Allies
 

Enemes make enemies and war makes for strange bedfellows. In 1942 the USSR was an allie, in 1952 a deadly enemy. In 2002 the allies are those supporting and assisting in the war on terror. Who will be the allies' and enemies in 2012.

I'll answer a question with a question and then answer.

Who were the Nazi's allies in 1952?

The answer to the last question is obvious. THe answer to the first... It wont matter unless we win the war in which we find ourselves. :eek:

Dwell on that thought for a while.....

bombs over baghdad

Thanks for the insight, and for wasting the time to bring this back to life.

Really, now. Don't you all have robots to worry about?

M. Krass-

I'd just like to say, that I respect you, and enjoy reading your posts, but latley, it seems that the stress of the 6 weeks is getting you...please, if you wouldn't mind, leave the role of "forum police" to those who moderate this forum. Chill out, relax, and let a good time be had by all.

I agree with M. Krass on this one.

Let's let sleeping dogs lie. Please. This thread kind of tore the forums up last time it resurfaced.

- Katie

i agree. brandon's not on now, so i'll close it. he can re-open it if he would like