the new war in the gulf

Status
Not open for further replies.

Napoleon

Spaceman
Originally posted by T8H3X11
Our mandate: When we were attacked on September 11, 2001, Bush said that we will do everything we can to stop terrorism against the U.S., root out all links to Al-Qaeda. He also said you're either with us or against us. We have found that Hussein has links with Al-Qaeda and bin Laden. With plenty of evidence of his WMD's and his links, Bush is just following up on his word. He's doing this so there is one less country who doesn't pose a threat. That there is our mandate. I'm all for it.



HOLY cow man, seriously dont you know anything about middle eastern politics or even current affairs? tehre are no links between al-queda and the current iraqi government other than links of mutual hatred. Saddam et al, hate fundamentalists, they've prevented fundamentalists from gaining any form of influence more times than I can count. Because saddam is a secular ruler, and has put down fundie revolts a few times al-queda hates him. The only people who are hated more than the iraqi government by al-queda are the american government folks and the israelis.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Freudian slip. :eek: There's been only two kinds of relationships I've had with terrorists. One, something approaching sympathy for who you might call terrorists in the movie Jinroh, or Wolf Brigade, and two, with the business end of a MP5 pointed at them in Rogue Spear et al.
 

Meson

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by Napoleon
HOLY cow man, seriously dont you know anything about middle eastern politics or even current affairs? tehre are no links between al-queda and the current iraqi government other than links of mutual hatred. Saddam et al, hate fundamentalists, they've prevented fundamentalists from gaining any form of influence more times than I can count. Because saddam is a secular ruler, and has put down fundie revolts a few times al-queda hates him. The only people who are hated more than the iraqi government by al-queda are the american government folks and the israelis.
There is a Saddam-loyal al Queda cell in Iraq. I forgot what they were called. They live along the Iranian border though.
 

Bobbo1701

Spaceman
Originally posted by Meson
There is a Saddam-loyal al Queda cell in Iraq. I forgot what they were called. They live along the Iranian border though.
yes there is. thing about them though is that bin laden and his lackies ain't to keen on them either. they eally are more of a splinter group.
 

Bobbo1701

Spaceman
i think they are the one's who carry out any attacks on the kurds yes. the only one that they didn't was the gasing in 1989
 

Ripper

Peace Through Superior Firepower
Originally posted by Quarto
Uh, right. Well, if you say so, Phillip. I'm not particularly interested in trying that, so I guess I'll take your word for it.

He didn't say you had to TRY it.:rolleyes:
 

Ripper

Peace Through Superior Firepower
Didn't see it. Heard about it, though. Proves that you don't have to be a baboon to show your ass.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Sure, but c'mon, there's a time and a place, and certainly most people would feel that if he wanted to voice his opinion, he could go to one of the many protests that happen against the war. It'd be like roping children into protesting at Christmas. We are fed the war twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, and we enjoy things like the Acadamy Awards because we believe it's a time to forget about such horrid things, not, unless it's Halle Berry we're talking about, to bend over, pull down our pants and knickers and say "more please."
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Only a prick would use something like the Acadamy Awards to vent their spleen over the war.
Yeah, what an asshole! How dare he voice his opinion in public!

He had every right to say what he said, and there was no reason whatsoever why the Academy Awards would be the wrong time or place for it. It's a public forum, and most definitely the right place if you want to voice an opinion about a public matter. Especially considering that he had just been given an Oscar for Bowling For Columbine.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
Originally posted by Quarto
He had every right to say what he said, and there was no reason whatsoever why the Academy Awards would be the wrong time or place for it. It's a public forum, and most definitely the right place if you want to voice an opinion about a public matter. Especially considering that he had just been given an Oscar for Bowling For Columbine.
Since the people accepting awards had specifically been asked *not* to discuss politics in their speeches, there *was* reason whatsoever why it was the wrong time.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Reading the polls on the matter, most people feel that he shouldn't have. And I think I've given the reasons why I feel he shouldn't have as clearly as I can.
 

TC

SubCrid
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Since the people accepting awards had specifically been asked *not* to discuss politics in their speeches, there *was* reason whatsoever why it was the wrong time.
Bull-poopy (tee hee).

Presenters are asked to not make political comments. That's partially, however, because they're supposed to stick to their script. Award winners can say whatever they'd like, although they're asked not to read out long lists of names that viewers wouldn't know, and to stay within the bounds of decency (eg. No saying "Fuck you, Bob Bobson, you dirty son of a bitch!"). Let's quote a piece from Yahoo news!

While winners of Hollywood's greatest prize will be free to express their opinions on the conflict during their 45-second long acceptance speech, presenters have been barred from hijacking the ceremony.

"People who present an award on a show come to present ... and it would incorrect in my view and inappropriate for them to make any changes to what they have agreed to say," producer Gil Cates said.

"The nominee on the other hand, has earned their 45 seconds in the sun and while I personally might prefer them to stick to the reason that they're there ... it's their 45 seconds and within the bounds of good taste they can say what they want."
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Since the people accepting awards had specifically been asked *not* to discuss politics in their speeches, there *was* reason whatsoever why it was the wrong time.
On the contrary, they were told that they could discuss whatever they wanted. From a BBC News article:

"That 45 seconds is theirs, they have earned it. What they do with it is up to their conscience," said academy president Frank Pierson.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top