Organized Crazy Addicts

[roba]

[LeeBe]

[Zed]

[Fenerli]

[Bashar_Teg]

Hello All.....

Being French (and proud of it), i would like to give u my opinion.
I may hope u will excuse my poor english.

But first i would like to thank u for ur server, the greatest i played on so far.

War in Iraq is trully a rough subject.
You might (i mean the US) have been upset by french decisions taken about this difficult situation and by the threat to VETO the second resolution at ONU.

But all is a metter of opinion.
Why this opposition of France to this war ?
Because I fell that UN weapon inspector had not finish their work which could have lead with more time to Iraq disarmament.

Because i think that war is always a bad thing.

Because i think that this war will not reduce the terrorist threat in the world. On the contrary, i am pretty sure the situation will be worst after.
I don't think France is a "coward nation". We also faced terroriste atacks in past (of course at a smaller scale) for example in 1995, 1996 in Paris or recently in Pakistan.)

Because there is no clear proof of the exitence of massive destruction weapons in Iraq. (At least proofs that Collin Powells presented at the UN were not clear).

If such massive destruction weapons were to be used against american soldiers during this war, i am sure my country would support and help US troups.

France was, is and will be one of the United States' allies.

I guess people of the 'old Europe' have sometimes the feeling that USA wants to rule the world without consideration of others opinions.

Personnaly i think that the fall of Saddam will surely help people of Iraq. It might be the best thing that could occur to them. But i don't think it will solve terrorists' attack problem.
IMO North Korea represents a greater threat.

I hope that this war will not last long and that there will not be heavy american and british casualties.

Thx Zed for this very interesting thread.

See u soon on the OCA server (at least if i am still allowed to play on it )

[Zed]

[Bashar_Teg]

[-=grobmotoriker=-]

Without Words

[jetweb(AUT)]

ich finde es nicht ok was amerika macht. der amerikanische regierung ist es ziemlich egal für die freiheit des irakes, es geht nur um GELD sprich: öl und munitions verschwendung damit die rüstungs industrie wieder aufträge bekommt und so das geld wieder rein fließt. wenn es um die freiheit ginge wieso hat dann amerika nicht damals den kurden geholfen wie saddam sie angegriffen hat? sprich: giftgas angriff und massen ermordungen. wieso hat da nicht amerika geholfen, die kurden haben gebettelt damit die amerikaner kommen und was war sie haben nur zu geguckt. sie kommen nur wenn was für sie selber rauspringt sprich: wie irak kuwait angegriffen hat, da is amerika gekommen und hat kuwait unterstützt. obwohl kuwait die irakischen öl leitungen angezapft hat. (war aber vor den angriff an die kurden). amerika hält sich nicht an die verfassung, sie greifen ein land an ohne grund an. bush spricht bei seiner rede es geht gegen den terror und um die freiheit. mich hat gewundert, wieso sagt er terror ????? der irak hat damit überhaupt nichts zu tun gehabt, es gibt keine beweise. er hat auch gesagt das die UNO inspektoren versagt haben. wieso versagt ?????? er hat ihnen keine zeit gegeben, sowas kann von heut auf morgen nicht voll endet sein. bush wollte den krieg haben. jetzt komm ich mal zu den gefangenen beider seiten. im fernsehn hat man die armen US soldaten zitternt vor der kamera gesehn, bush verurteilt die europäischen fernsehsender weil sie sowas zeigen. aber das CNN die bilder von gefangenen irakes zeigen die am boden liegen und ein US soldat sie brutal fesselt das ist ok. bush spricht auch von humane behandlung für die soldaten der USA, aber was ist eigentlich von damals die gefangen genomenen talibankrieger ??? da hat es geheissen von einen amerikanischen minister: diese menschen haben bei uns keine RECHTE !!!. (sowas finde ich nicht in ordnung !) dieser krieg führt zu keinen frieden !!!! nein es wird noch mehr geben !!! die kurden flüchten und die türkei stellt schon ihre truppen auf. es ist nur eine frage der zeit bis dort der krieg beginnt. was macht bush dann ? lässt er seine truppen abrücken ? oder wird er dort auch eingreifen ? dieser krieg verursacht mehr TERROR als je ! weil jetzt saddam palästinenser pro kopf bezahlt damit sie terrorangriffe machen ! durch diesen krieg spaltet sich EUROPA, uneinigkeiten zwischen england, spanien gegen deutschland, frankreich, österreich und der rest. ich frage mich wieso england und spanien amerika hilft ? (nichts gegen die engländer und spanier selbst !) ich verstehe nur nicht, wie kann nur england ein staat der EUROPÄISCHEN UNION nur amerika militärisch unterstüzen ? entweder gehören sie zu europa oder sie sind ein staat der amerikaner ? eine mitbeteiligung des krieges eines EU staates sollte durch einer abstimmung der EU länder bestätigt werden. nicht einfach so in den krieg ziehn. (das ist meine meinung) ich könnte noch mehr schreiben über meine meinungen und gründe des krieges, aber es macht mich einfach traurig darüber nach zu denken. meine letzten worte sind


STOPT DEN KRIEG !

[Fenerli]

[TeCuMSeH]

I'd first like to say, this is a forum where users from all over the world come together. Everyone looks at the matter from his own perspective, usually based on the information provided by the news-sources available to him / her (tv, newspapers, internet).

Even if one lives in a country that's free and democratic, no one knows whether he has all the information or not, what kind of info is hold behind by his news-sources, and what info is pushed.
So it's very hard to judge for yourself between facts and propaganda, let alone judge others for their opinion.

As far as I know, when the UN was formed, all members gave up their "right" to start a war. The responsability to decide a war should be declared is thus in the hands of the UN, unless a country is attacked itself (right of self-defence).

As far as I know, the US government has not given evidence the 9/11 attack and Iraq are linked (which doesn't mean they are not linked, but only it's not proven), so this war can't be seen as self defence.
Which means it is an attack on Iraq.
Which means it is illegal, because the US has given the right and responsability to decide so to the UN. If the US can't live with that, they should take the consequences and give up their UN membership.

Personally, I think Saddam Hussein will share a room with Adolf Hitler in hell, and I think the Gulf region and the world will be better of without him. But that's not a decision for a single country to make, that's a decision for the world (the UN) to make.

And indeed, the UN should really have a bug-fix applied, cause in the way it acts now it's very close to useless (that is, the safety council; other parts, like unicef aren't that useless AFAIK). But until that happens, we'll have to live with it as it is now.

I also wonder what happenden to the English, the Israeli or the US intelligence services. I mean, a couple of hundreds of thousands soldiers to hit one man...?

The day the war started, there was 'relieable intelligence' that Saddam Hussein was at a certain place in Baghdad, and 'intelligent missiles' were directed towards him.
One hour later, the man was on tv. So either there was something wrong with the intelligence, or something was wrong with the weapons.
Which raises questions about the use of intelligence and weapons in the remaining part of the war...


These are just my opinions, based on the info that's available to me. I did not mean to offend anyone.

And, I'll admit, I wish there had been a country like the US back in 1938 that unilaterally took actions against Hitler.

I hope I'll never have to choose between a dictator and a war.
May God bless the Iraqi people.

[Wayzor]

Very well written indeed, with a lot of very good points!!
I have been wanting to add to this thread for a while now, but I have found it hard to express my feelings with any real eloquence, so have refrained so far.
Your post has really covered most of my feelings and concerns and I would like to thank you and support you for a well balanced piece of literature, which I feel will be held in regard by many.

I would just like to say that regarding some of the UN members constantly threatening to veto, is what ultimately what obviously drove the US decision to go ahead. If not then....when?.....12months?....longer? I think this was the feeling you see, and after all Sadam has had 12 years to comply, but hasn't.

I do so hate conflict, but understand that sometimes people need to stand up and fight

[{OCA}nix]

my 2cents:P

first of all i wanna say,saddam has to be stopped!
same to a lot of other ppl around the world!

but whats the way it should happen ?

there are some things i would like to point at:

1.could it be that french and russia are involved in oil-buisiness
with iraq?will their oil-contracts be stopped after this war?
2.whats more important oil or ppl?
-in first iraq-war we made ppl in iraq fight against saddam
but when the war suddenly stopped we left them alone
alot of them have been killed for helping us
none really cared
same when saddam used chemical weapons to fight kurdish ppl in north of iraq-noone was there to protect them
3.why iraq? alot of other arabian states are supporting terrorism as well
maybe much more then saddam
-did the first gulf-war make it possible to fight him cuz of kinda isolating iraq from the rest of arabian-league?what would happen if we would decide to attack other arabian states?
4.whats about those proven evidence politicans talk about?
should we really trust in what they say?
of course bush is right when he says ppl like saddam should
be eleminated as soon as possible but why dont they tell us the truth?
they dont need to tell me about freeing iraq ppl...
and im sure there isnt an taliban-iraq axes which makes it nescessary to
make war with saddam
but i think theres an opportunity to make war with iraq without
other arabian states helping saddam
5.whats about the UN?
why do some states be able to block every resolution by veto?
which state would vote for a resolution if it means to loose millions of dollars?
would the UN be able to decide that for example russia has to stop
a war?i dont think so because they could easily block this resolution by veto

anyways i think there are too much things we dont get told
like those fake-evidence brought by brithish secret-service...
only thing i know is if we would let those moslem-fanatics
carry on their business of terrorism alot of innocent ppl would
have to die in future by bombs and other stuff like we already see
when we take a look at israel
so im finally with bush also i dont agree with his way 100%
and of course im with all those soldiers getting killed
in this war cuz they protect the whole free world even its not their goal:P
of course this war wont stop terrorism,but its another step into the right direction or maybe it will produce much more terrorism who knows?
maybe somewhere in future we will be able to decide what has to be done
without getting manipulated by politicans and their interests...

nix

[Zed]

Because I have said how I feel, here are some paragraphs i would like to share, and yes fenerli I did read Jet's post, and if you feel exactly the same way he does, is that media propaganda? Shouldn't you have your own opinion too.....

[roba]