Please vote today!

Miscellaneous Topics
#41

Sorry, but this is naive in my opinion. Bush demanded Saddam and his sons to leave Iraq within two days. It’s the first time ever that a president of one country demanded the president of an other country to leave his own country. It was pretty much obvious Saddam wouldn’t do this. This really can’t justify the mistakes the US government made. (Btw. you can’t use actions of a “bad guy” to justify your own faults.)

[quote]He refused to submit to our requests by the deadline we gave him, so we went into Iraq to ensure the safety of our country.This was all “legal” by UN rules, even if certain UN members weren’t in favor of the action.
[/quote]
The USA did not cooperate with the UN and other countries and additionally did not have appropriate plans for the time after war. Why does the USA (and only the USA) have the right to violate international guidelines? They clearly acted against the UN.

[quote]As it turns out, it was quite a good thing that Saddam acted stupidly. Had you listened to any of the reports delivered in the senate, you would have known that we learned that Saddam was diverting the vast majority of Iraq’s income into military funding and expansion. The UN’s “food for oil” strategy was a joke. Had we not stopped Saddam immediately, in a few years time, we’d be living in a much scarier world.
[/quote]
In fact no evidence for existing mass destruction weapons has been found and the Iraq was surprisingly weak in this war. There was no urgent need to attack the Iraq.

#42

[quote]Bush demanded Saddam and his sons to leave Iraq within two days.
[/quote]
The original demands were not that Saddam leave his country. The demands escalated as Saddam continued to subvert inquiries and inspections. Saddam was probably worried we’d discover evidence of his military buildup.

[quote]They clearly acted against the UN.
[/quote]
I said it once, and I’ll say it again. No “international laws” were violated. Bush’s decision may not have been popular with certain UN members, (say France, who was profiting quite nicely from Iraq), but it was certainly rational.

[quote]In fact no evidence for existing mass destruction weapons has been found and the Iraq was surprisingly weak in this war. There was no urgent need to attack the Iraq.
[/quote]
No, we haven’t found WMD in Iraq. We were working based on the intelligence information we could gather. Since Saddam was playing the fool, we couldn’t just go in there and take a look around.

Btw, have you ever heard of the Duelfer report? Saddam was conclusively spending the majority of Iraq’s budget on the military, while violatiing UN sanctions. Iraq may have been somewhat of a pushover when we hit, but Saddam’s intent was to make Iraq a threat - and in very short order.

Choose your pick. You can have an Iraq with guaranteed constitutional freedoms or a second North Korea.

God bless,
-Toby Reyelts

#43

edit;

[quote] Saddam was conclusively spending the majority of Iraq’s budget on the military, while violatiing UN sanctions.
[/quote]
Exactly, and where was the money coming from? It was money Germany, France, and Russia were pouring in with the UN’s bogus ‘food for oil’ program. Thats why they opposed the war; they were getting rich off of the Iraqi people who’d already been raped by a tyrant.

[quote] Choose your pick. You can have an Iraq with guaranteed constitutional freedoms or a second North Korea.
[/quote]
Its seems so clear to me at least.

Consider this week the Euro’s are offering Iran a nice little appeasement package. I’m amazed that an entire continent, with the history that Europe has, does not understand the futility of humoring/appeasing bully’s and killers.

#44

Don’t forget the european subsidiaries of American companies. I know conservatives always seem to forget that we were making money off of iraqi misery.

[quote]edit;

Its seems so clear to me at least.

Consider this week the Euro’s are offering Iran a nice little appeasement package. I’m amazed that an entire continent, with the history that Europe has, does not understand the futility of humoring/appeasing bully’s and killers.
[/quote]
I assume you will be in line to volunteer when we invade iran. I would hate to think that someone who supports killing everyone we disagree with would have other plans, like say the vice president during vietnam. Bush is a liar and you support him, deal with it.

#45

Is that what we’re doing over there? Funny… when the numbers show we’ve killed more Iraqi civilians than we lost in 9-11, I’d call it a “terrorist massacre” just like they called 9-11. The Iraqi civilians didn’t attack us. The Iraqi military didn’t attack us. In no way did Saddam Hussain attack us. Why do we have to keep killing the Iraqi people then? We started the war based on lies. You may try to belittle the painful truth and call them “mistakes” but I remember the time before the decision was made and thinking the WMD stuff was horse poo and reading credible reports that also said it was horse poo. Lo and behold… it was exactly that.

So we’re killing off Iraqi civilians to the point that they’re forced to take up arms to defend themselves against our constant invasion. Who are we fighting now? We’re fighting those left of the families we bombed. There’s no Al Queda forces there, just a broken country of angry souls who have suffered the ignorance of George W Bush. You cannot tell me that anything that happened to the US justifies the US killing the Iraqi people who did not attack us.

If we were bombed by Osama and Al Queda, then that’s where our efforts should have stayed. If we were worried about weapons of mass destruction, we should have gotten rid of our own. Oh wait, conservative Christians… nevermind. On second though, we should have gotten rid of the WMD’s in countries that we KNEW could have them, and now DO have them. Honestly, what have we found in Iraq? Camels? That’s about the only method of transportation they would have had for any bombs they could make. Seriously. What do the Iraqi’s have? How are they a threat? With Bin Laden gone, why do we still need to force OUR way?

50% of the American people don’t believe OUR way is right. The entire rest of the world doesn’t believe OUR way is right. How in the world can you or any of our leaders think that the Iraqi people that we’ve spent so much of our money into slaughtering would EVER think that OUR way is right. It just defies all common sense.

The Vietnam War was a mistake. Everyone knows that now. Here we have a frighteningly similar mistake. What is Bush saying? “We can’t have a leader that changes his opinions.” That means: “We are not allowed to admit and learn from our mistakes.”

So you think we’re giving the Iraqi’s the right to vote. I don’t see any ballots being filled. If we allowed them to, the first thing they’d do is vote the American troops out.

So you think we’re giving the Iraqi’s the chance to speak their mind. Did you see the footage from Iraq in Farenheit 9-11? They don’t show you that on CNN because it actually shows the Iraqi civilians speaking their mind. That’s the only time I’ve heard their side, because normally our government doesn’t allow us to see it. I think we should give that Iraqi voice pleading for God to save her people from the slaughtering a bit more attention.

So you think we’re giving the Iraqi’s the freedoms to choose their own religion? Then why are we making our impression the Christian way: with WAR? Heck we can’t even admit that gay rights is the next step after women’s rights and inter-racial rights, and the only reasons against it are based on Christian idealogy. We can’t see past the Bible in America. What in God’s name has convinced you we’re giving the Iraqi people better options?

Sorry for the long rant, but your comment was ill concieved and needed proper correction. I hope you see there’s another side to that story, and that it’s not just fluff and propaganda.

EDIT: Oh, and if you want a little more information outside of the deceptions of both parties, check out this link:
http://www.factcheck.com
It’s very informative and interesting. I believe all of us, from both sides, can learn good information about further truths of both parties that are harder to see.

#46

[quote]Is that what we’re doing over there?
[/quote]
Yes, that is exactly what we are doing over there. It’s called a constitution, and it’s one of the first things we started working on post-invasion. Have you been paying any attention to what we’ve been doing?

[quote]Oh wait, conservative Christians… nevermind.
[/quote]
You’re making no sense.

[quote]What do the Iraqi’s have? How are they a threat? With Bin Laden gone, why do we still need to force OUR way?
[/quote]
What is all this “OUR way” rhetoric? We’re giving the Iraqi people THEIR way, with their own constitution and their own elections.

[quote]So you think we’re giving the Iraqi’s the right to vote.
[/quote]
If you don’t think the Iraqis are getting to vote, then you’re obviously living in a hole somewhere.

[quote]So you think we’re giving the Iraqi’s the chance to speak their mind. Did you see the footage from Iraq in Farenheit 9-11?
[/quote]
Well that explains it all. You’re one of those rabid, raving Michael Moore fans. It’s telling that the Kerry campaign did everything they could possibly do to disassociate themselves from him.

[quote]Then why are we making our impression the Christian way: with WAR? Heck we can’t even admit that gay rights is the next step after women’s rights and inter-racial rights, and the only reasons against it are based on Christian idealogy.
[/quote]
That’s it. You’re so misinformed, I can’t possibly carry on this conversation with you anymore.

[quote]Sorry for the long rant, but your comment was ill concieved and needed proper correction.
[/quote]
I can see you’re staunchly anti-Christian, and that, in general, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Peace out.

God bless,
-Toby Reyelts

#47
Isn't this a fantastic illustration of how things can be seen so differently from both sides and yet we're all viewing the same events.... Since I'm a geeky java engineer I think instead of arguing about the actual point I'll start designing an abstraction of a political viewing model using good ol'e OO methodology. :)

Let me see…

Action - a single event that happens in the world
Actions - A typed list of Action (since I don’t like generics)
Viewer - Interface describing any person/entity that can view actions.
Infulence - Something that can change the way a viewer percieves an action.

Its almost a production composite, with Actions being fed into viewers who influenced produce more action which in turn are viewed… one step more to model the world… muhahahaha

Kev

#48

No I say:
some bogus appocalyptic terrorist threat

As in the terrorist threat isn’t the end of the world. Off-course 9/11 is a traumatic event for your country, I don’t question that. My point simply is that your country has more urgent problems at hand.

#49

Time to end this roving political thread because it’s somewhat a waste of forum bandwidth! Even my little joke managed to get misconstrued. It’s like people are busting for a fight! Who’d have thought it?

Cas :slight_smile:

#50

[quote]I said it once, and I’ll say it again. No “international laws” were violated. Bush’s decision may not have been popular with certain UN members, (say France, who was profiting quite nicely from Iraq), but it was certainly rational.
[/quote]
The USA did not require UN authorization to attack the Iraq, so your statement is correct. Nevertheless they violated international guidelines and weakened the position of the UN, which is in contrast to the USA an international organization. International organizations are in my opinion better suited to ensure peace in the world than a single country. The USA is the most powerful country of the world, so it’s not a surprise that non-US people see it as a threat if they do not behave according to international rules.

[quote]No, we haven’t found WMD in Iraq. We were working based on the intelligence information we could gather. Since Saddam was playing the fool, we couldn’t just go in there and take a look around.
[/quote]
Do you still think there are/were WMDs? (Btw. it’s at least strange that the USA is actively developing WMDs.)

[quote]Btw, have you ever heard of the Duelfer report? Saddam was conclusively spending the majority of Iraq’s budget on the military, while violatiing UN sanctions. Iraq may have been somewhat of a pushover when we hit, but Saddam’s intent was to make Iraq a threat - and in very short order.
[/quote]
The Duelfer report states that there are no WMDs in Iraq, but Saddam had plans to strengthen his military force. This was not a direct threat, so there was no urgent need to attack the Iraq. And anyway this report was written long after the war. At the time the USA declared war they did not have this information.

All in all your information is correct, but our interpretations actually differ a lot. Maybe your interpretation is at least partly biased, which is understandable. I do not claim that it was bad to end the regime of Saddam, but I think there were simply better ways to do it (with better investigations, better international cooperation). For me it’s a fact that the reasons the US government gave for entering war (WMDs, Iraq works together with Al-Qaida) were wrong. The only good reason was to democratize the Iraq and stabilize the Middle East, but obviously this was not their main goal, because there were no detailed plans for how to do this and the current situation is still far from stable. (I do not know if the oil in Iraq was indeed a major reason for the war, but it is at leat possible.)

#51

Is this still “Java Games Forums - A Java.Net Community” ?
Or is it “My US president candidate is better than yours because we’re clever and you’re silly” forum?
In the poll some topics above, 22 out of 33 indicated they are not US citizens, so… why do some people insist on importing US political stuff to this technical forum, again and again!? Next topic being “why do you eat your dog” ?
Elections by secret voting is a good thing! If you want to read politic stuff, go read your newspaper. If you want to battle, go join one of those many political forums.

I don’t say don’t be political. This is the wrong place and the wrong time however. It’s an international technical forum - a Java gaming forum! People here are supposted to help each other when it comes to Java games, not kill each other verbally. This also applies to the off-topic sub-forum which causes more bandwidth than the rest, unfortunately. Think about it, next time you’re going to ask a question here…
Or is it that you’re so bored? Java doesn’t challenge you anymore? Show us your great game. If you put [/i]that[/i] energy into one single Java game… oh well, we’d have more than one (yes: O N E ! ) complete Java game worth the mention.

#52

Got 3 now :slight_smile: Super Elvis is just about out the door and Tribal Trouble is in early beta and looking fantastic.

Cas :slight_smile:

#53

I didn’t have any intention to comment on this discussion, but I just want to inform you of Bush new goverment’s first political mistake:

Just this morning (after grabbing any votes they could from greek-americans), they announced the recognition of FYROM as the “Democracy of Macedonia”. That’s the equivalent of say…Cuba renaming to Democracy of Texas.

???

#54

[quote]Is this still “Java Games Forums - A Java.Net Community” ?
[/quote]
Talking about Java games would be off topic in an “off topic” forum. :slight_smile:

#55

Then why not talk about Non-Java games or any other of the many topics which don’t have got the potential to destroy the partnership of this community.
“Discussions” like this one always tend to nothing but anger. They belong to the sub-forum “pointless”, not “off-topic”.

#56

Bring back land of the Trolls, that’s what I say!

And maybe just save the nastiest spitefulest most childish bits of peoples post to put up there in a Hall of Shame.

Cas :slight_smile:

#57

rreyelts, I’m curious, through what sources do you get your information? I haven’t run across your argument anywhere but in perhaps the formal debates and on public television. I’d geniunely like to see credible sources that claim your side as I haven’t run into them myself.

#58

I thought this discussion was actually quiet civil. My ‘kiss my ass’ comment was intended with humor and irony which is difficult to convey thru this medium.

Its interesting that Russian politics and problems with terrorism and separatist states (Chechnya) never garners as much discussion as US politics.

#59

[quote]rreyelts, I’m curious, through what sources do you get your information?
[/quote]
Umm… legitimate news sources? If you do a Google search on “Iraq Vote Constitution” you’ll get back hundreds of relevant hits. Here’s one from the BBC, hailing the making of the draft constitution by the Iraqi Governing Council - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3495996.stm

Here’s a link to the standing draft constitution itself which guarantees freedom of speech and religion - http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html. The draft constitution is to be replaced by a permanent constitution no later than the end of 2005.

Here’s the first link on Google that tells you that Iraqis are voting in Januray - including the refugees from Saddam’s tyranny living abroad of Iraq - http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20041104-0639-iraq-election.html

God bless,
-Toby Reyelts

#60

Neat! I read it, but was disappointed. All it mentions is the formulation of a draft. If you look at the articles around it, you’ll see that there’s a serious problem of the Iraqi people even recognizing the government being set up. Even when that draft is final, you still need the people to recognize it. Even more so, you need people to enforce it, meaning the Iraqi people. Here’s what one of the articles there said: “Without good training, equipment and acceptance by the population, they cannot be effective. And so far they have not been.”

Nice “drafts”, but our convorsation is about what “is happening,” and not what, “hopefully will happen.” Unfortunately what “is happening” is more people are being killed daily. Let the men in suits write on little pieces of paper, but the civilians are not voting and they are not free. They are currently occupied with military force. This is not the way it should have happened and as a result, it isn’t working, and people are STILL dying.

By the way, I don’t know how you feel about setting up Iyad Allawi as the new leader but when I read that he’s had long time service in the CIA, that sure makes me skeptical. If there’s already a serious problem with the Iraqi people viewing this government as a pawn of the US, I don’t think that will help. Hopefully that’s just me being skeptical and in short time that will cease to be true.

If you really think we’re letting the Iraqi’s have it their way, then tell me why we can’t let someone who does not have such obvious ties to the US who lives in “their way” be a leader. It just has “corruption” written all over it. They could at least try to make it look legitimate :stuck_out_tongue:

By the way, I never claimed that Michael Moore was preaching truth. I only referred to a video clip he happened to stick in his film. As for religion, I am a Christian and so is my entire family. The part that confuses you is since I’m a Math/CS major I have a keen ability to recognize patterns. The “Christian way” I referred to is unfortunately a recurring theme in Christian history. If you can’t think of any examples, think of these two words: “Inquisition” and “Crusades”. Christian history does not reflect Christian values unfortunately.

For the rest of you, if it’s a serious problem and you guys aren’t happy with just not reading the topic, then I’d be happy to move the political topics to say… the GameLizard forum :wink: However, I honestly feel like I’m learning things here. This conversation has made me more hopeful for the future of Iraq, but still hasn’t convinced me that Bush has made any correct decisions. However, I’m still learning from this discussion. Also, I am not, and have not been angry during this :slight_smile:

EDIT: btw have you found that constitution draft in the local language? I can’t find it… it makes me a bit skeptical to read that the US and UK officials were running the show when it was written, and now I find the constitution is in perfect English. As in… native English speakers wrote it :stuck_out_tongue:

Ahh, and more interesting article titles from the BBC website to give you a better idea of how the effort in Iraq is going:
Suicide attack kills UK soldiers
Iraqis abroad ‘will get a vote’ (I commented on this one already)
Rough and unready
Falluja comes under US barrages
Key Saddam trial evidence ‘lost’
MSF aid agency ends work in Iraq - Here’s a quote from this one:

[quote]MSF said it had become impossible “to guarantee an acceptable level of security for our staff, be they foreign or Iraqi”.
[/quote]
I was actually somewhat hopeful that things were ok after checking your last post, but now I’m back to seeing that things aren’t going well at all.

Oh wow, I just found another profound one. Wow rreyelts, this site you’ve put me in is foaming over the top with anti-Bush articles.
Iraq violence: Your reaction
If you scroll down this one you’ll see accepted responses from all over the world. A couple of them support the war actually.