Aliens & UFOs Among Us/Free the Herd Forum
Aliens & UFOs Among Us/Free the Herd Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?




 All Forums
 Aliens & UFOs Among Us/Free the Herd
 Aliens and UFOs
 Master Plan
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

Usurper
Human Member

5 Posts

Posted - 04/07/2003 :  01:19:53 AM  Show Profile Send Usurper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hey guys,
IF aliens do exist, how do you think that we fit in the equation. Do they have a master plan for us. Or do they really don't care of our existence.

Google AdSense

USA
Mountain View


backchat
Galactic Member

527 Posts

Posted - 04/07/2003 :  09:55:07 AM  Show Profile Send backchat a Private Message  Reply with Quote
hi Usurper, welcome to the forum
.
To be honest they probably care about us as much as we care about some of our species here on Earth. We study them and thats about it.

Go to Top of Page

Hadrianus
Galactic Member

Costa Rica
1623 Posts

Posted - 04/07/2003 :  1:29:05 PM  Show Profile Send Hadrianus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I would have to think that any Alien species intelligent enough to be aware of us is intelligent enough to value intelligence as a quality (or, in the case of Humans, as a potential quality).

Humans certainly do not represent a common commodity in the Universe. Species that think, or even try to do something that passes as thinking, are, I think it obvious, not as common as hydrogen gas, or ice planetoids, or many other things. They are rare. Just how rare is the question, isn't it? But clearly something that is not common.

Would rarity, in and of itself, be enough to give value of some sort to the Human race?

I think any planet with life on it, even only a planet with an ocean full of slime molds, would be intensely interesting to any species exploring the Galaxy.

But whether that means they have a "plan" for us kind of means that they would have to think like Americans, doesn't it?

What intelligent being would want to control the actions and thoughts of another? Isn't that what a "plan" is?

In that regard, I suspect life on Earth is more of an experiment. It may have been started up, but then it's just been left to "go", and how it progresses, uncontrolled for the most part, is what is interesting.

Go to Top of Page

Usurper
Human Member

5 Posts

Posted - 04/08/2003 :  01:55:06 AM  Show Profile Send Usurper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
However if this planet was not exactly an experiment. To study the evolution on this planet and possibly hundreds could unlock hidden secrets and wonder of the galaxy that they are searching for and by doing this will evolve themselves to a critical point perhaps.



Edited by - Usurper on 04/08/2003 01:56:27 AM
Go to Top of Page

sokah
Grey Member

United Kingdom
77 Posts

Posted - 04/10/2003 :  06:30:15 AM  Show Profile  Visit sokah's Homepage Send sokah a Private Message  Reply with Quote
We're potential allies. They're are going to want to get us advanced enough so we can live in harmony, we are advand technologically. But all our countries don't get along.

quote:
For Ki is the way of the Universe
.
Go to Top of Page

event horizon
Grey Member

135 Posts

Posted - 04/10/2003 :  1:18:33 PM  Show Profile Send event horizon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Hadrianus:
But whether that means they have a "plan" for us kind of means that they would have to think like Americans, doesn't it?

What intelligent being would want to control the actions and thoughts of another? Isn't that what a "plan" is?



Why do you constantly single out America for your own negative agendas? America is just the opposite of what you're insinuating. And if you think taking control over a murderous dictator is the negative thing to do then I don't know what planet you're from. You might be a fairly intelligent being but every time you try and single out America because of your own bias you sound utterly ridiculous.

A "plan" is something that should be thought of and recognized by all intelligent beings. If you have no "plan" then you're on a dead end road - I thought that was common sense.

If you had a monkey growing in cage since birth then you'd have to PLAN to check up on it every once in a while; not to mention PLAN to feed it...

The aliens have a similar "plan" for Earthlings - planned monitoring.



horizon

The mixed breed three-eyed half gray alien half cyclopse mutant from a galaxy so far away you can't even get there if you folded space.
Go to Top of Page

Hadrianus
Galactic Member

Costa Rica
1623 Posts

Posted - 04/10/2003 :  5:46:01 PM  Show Profile Send Hadrianus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ah, finally, a true American.

EH, I didn't single the United States out.

It is doing that all on it's own.

Neither do I have any objection to removing a murderous dictator. I think getting rid of Bush would be immensely helpful all around.

Oh, you meant Saddam, didn't you?

I also think getting rid of him is a good deal. But I kind of doubt it was worth killing hundreds of babies and children.

Do you think their parents might agree with me?

Say, did you catch that Press Conference yesterday when one of those nasty reporters had the gall to ask Don-Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of Offense, if the fact that the United States has found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in some way may be problematical for the excuse the Bush Administration used to invade in the first place?

Don-Don was a little flustered, it seemed.

But then he had a CRUSHING reply for that stupid reporter.

"I don't see how that relates to the subject" said Rumsfeld.

Wow! That showed 'em!

I'm truly sorry if my opposition to this immensely stupid, cruel and evil war sounds utterly ridiculous. I do cower in the presence of superior intellect and vision.

Say, when the US invades Syria, maybe we can have a debate whether it is stupid to ask "why?"

Go to Top of Page

Usurper
Human Member

5 Posts

Posted - 04/12/2003 :  7:35:19 PM  Show Profile Send Usurper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sokah:

We're potential allies. They're are going to want to get us advanced enough so we can live in harmony, we are advand technologically. But all our countries don't get along.

quote:
For Ki is the way of the Universe
.


However is their a more sinister reason for their alliance or not?


Go to Top of Page

Hadrianus
Galactic Member

Costa Rica
1623 Posts

Posted - 04/13/2003 :  10:44:41 AM  Show Profile Send Hadrianus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
USURPER: There is another string on the site about 'why people fear Aliens'.

In that vein, I wonder why you would suspect anything 'sinister' with regard to Aliens?

Certainly, Human Beings have proven themselves over thousands of years to be less than trustworthy.

But why would we impute such base motivations to Aliens?

Have you had some sort of experience with Aliens that leads you to regard them in some way as 'bad' or 'evil' or untrustworthy?

Go to Top of Page

Usurper
Human Member

5 Posts

Posted - 04/13/2003 :  8:03:27 PM  Show Profile Send Usurper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Hadrianus:

USURPER: There is another string on the site about 'why people fear Aliens'.

In that vein, I wonder why you would suspect anything 'sinister' with regard to Aliens?

Certainly, Human Beings have proven themselves over thousands of years to be less than trustworthy.

But why would we impute such base motivations to Aliens?

Have you had some sort of experience with Aliens that leads you to regard them in some way as 'bad' or 'evil' or untrustworthy?




I'm sorry if it seems that i have crossed the lines that leads into the other thread you have mentioned however i thought it was still quite valid in thread as well.

Any lifeform is capable of any feat. Take the human species for example. We are capable of the most Wondrous deeds, however there are other events we would rather have kept locked up in the history books and hope that it never sees the light of day again.

We do not have enough information to make a sound judgment on the aliens intention for good or for worse. So maybe fearing the unkown is wise in SOME respects. When comes to their technology "trojan horse". However I'm not all that Pessimistic about their behaviour, How can they be any worse then we are. However you have to play on the winds of caution though

We should fear ourselves first then the unkown.

And no i havn't had any experience with alien contact, Doesn't mean that i don't believe in aliens though. To believe in the idea that we have the only planet that has the ability to sustain life in the universe would be truly ignorant of us.



Edited by - Usurper on 04/13/2003 8:08:59 PM
Go to Top of Page

Hadrianus
Galactic Member

Costa Rica
1623 Posts

Posted - 04/13/2003 :  10:24:24 PM  Show Profile Send Hadrianus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Thanks for the reply. I was just curious.

About 'crossing the line', hey, we do it here all the time. I just meant that if you wanted to read one of my rants (or other people's opinions) about why people seem to be afraid of Aliens, you could look at the other thread.

Yeah, I know about fear of the unknown. One of the less lovely Human traits.

I just wondered why you said 'sinister'. That usually implies more than dangerous. It implies dark motives and evil intent. I rather think such a mindset would be Alien to any Aliens.

But that's just my opinion of course.

Go to Top of Page

event horizon
Grey Member

135 Posts

Posted - 04/14/2003 :  1:56:35 PM  Show Profile Send event horizon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Hadrianus:EH, I didn't single the United States out.

It is doing that all on it's own.




BULLoney.

Right…the USA got singled out on September 11, 2001.

The United Nations didn't have the balls to enforce resolutions set forward, but the USA did, and so the USA is singled out again.

quote:
I think getting rid of Bush would be immensely helpful all around.


And why is that?

quote:
I kind of doubt it was worth killing hundreds of babies and children.


Really??? And how many more would have died had we kept Saddam in power? Saddam already murdered nearly one million people. Leaving him in power would have no doubt left millions more at his mercy - do you really think that would have been the better "plan?" No justice for genocide??? Let genocide reign???

quote:
Do you think their parents might agree with me?


Get out of the NOW! Can't you look ahead???

Family of the dead Iraqi victims would no doubt feel resentment. But for all the other Iraqis who survived…why don't you take a good look at all the smiles - And the smiles of children that will grow up having much better lives than their parents. Children free from oppression, depression, and famine…for generations to come.

But hey, that just FOILS the "plan" to keep their suffering ongoing - OH MY, what am I thinking!!!

quote:
Say, did you catch that Press Conference yesterday when one of those nasty reporters had the gall to ask Don-Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of Offense, if the fact that the United States has found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in some way may be problematical for the excuse the Bush Administration used to invade in the first place?


The war hasn't even been over a week yet. Why don't you try giving them a little time to find the WMD.

quote:
I'm truly sorry if my opposition to this immensely stupid, cruel and evil war sounds utterly ridiculous. I do cower in the presence of superior intellect and vision.


I have yet to see one good reason for us not to have gone to war. All I ever hear are these moronic theories about "oil" and "imperialism" - boy…that's at the top of the "superior intellect" totem pole…

So enlighten me, smarty pants, what would have been your ingenious alternative solution for Saddam?

quote:
Say, when the US invades Syria, maybe we can have a debate whether it is stupid to ask "why?"


Tell that to the Syrians. Are you oppressed? Then no, it wouldn't be stupid to ask "why?"



horizon

The mixed breed three-eyed half gray alien half cyclopse mutant from a galaxy so far away you can't even get there if you folded space.
Go to Top of Page

backchat
Galactic Member

527 Posts

Posted - 04/14/2003 :  8:39:55 PM  Show Profile Send backchat a Private Message  Reply with Quote
hi Event Horizon, I can understand your anger but I too get angry about the constant Rhetoric of saving the Iraqis from Saddam. The war may just about be over, but the real problems have only just begun.

I too wish the Iraqi people every success in their new freedom, but I fear they have a long way to go before they realise that freedom. There are so many tribes and ethnic differences that forming a democratic government representing all will, in my opinion, be very difficult. I am looking down the line in a few years time and all I can see is civil war and another military coup. I hope to god I am wrong, but we have so much evidence to show us the difficulties. We only have to look at Africa.

And talking about Africa, amongst other places, why is it only now that the people of the world have found their voice? I get so angry at the way people feel so self righteous because one nation has been freed. Where were these same people when well over a million were dieing in Rwanda? Where are the voices about all those being killed in the Congo at this moment in time?
Why hasn't Bush gone to their aid on humanitarian grounds?

No WMDs, and not a terrorist threat either is the reason. But there are others too. To go to the assistance in those countries would be another Vietnam. Guerilla warfare, which to be honest the Americans are not trained for. The cost would be horrendous and you would be there for years. So, we leave the African nations to get on with it, cos except for Nigeria, there is nothing the Western countries need. The US will not liberate the Tibetans for the same reason, plus of course they would have to take on China. And what was one of the first things they did when they went into Afghanistan? Build the pipeline they had been trying to for the last 10yrs. OOOps, no Taliban, ooops we can build the pipeline now. You wonder why people get cynical?

So yes i can understand your anger, especially over 9-11, but we didn't see any sympathy or a cry for ' world against terror' when our people and cities were blown up. Terror that reigned for over 20yrs. And was partly funded by citizens of the US. How many people died during that time do you think? Not to mention those maimed and disabled for life.

So yes it is good for people to care. It is good for people round the world to stand up for the opressed. But to me, the whole thing stinks of hypocricy. Easy to go to war when its a quick in and out and when there is something of value to be had, but if it is too difficult and/or there are no benefits, just leave the other poor buggers to their fate.


Go to Top of Page

Hadrianus
Galactic Member

Costa Rica
1623 Posts

Posted - 04/14/2003 :  10:32:45 PM  Show Profile Send Hadrianus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hi EH. I'm glad you have expressed your opinions. I know full well that what I firmly believe is not necessarily the truth of anything.

But perhaps we should shift this debate out of this string over to, say, "Maybe this is the real reason for the War" or something under "conspiracies".

Anyway, I see you believe everything that has been told to you. Interesting.

What would I have done about Saddam? Nothing. It is not my place to have done anything about Saddam. Neither was it George Bush's place.

It might have been the UN's place to do something, but they decided (Damn! Isn't Democracy a Bitch?) to go with the weapon's inspection process.

The United States didn't like that. Tony Blair agreed. Then the US browbeat or bribed a number of other States (as yet unnamed) not to like it either.

Then the US took it's ball and went home.

I don't know where you get your figures, but they seem grossly inaccurate. For instance, where did you come up with that number of Saddam killing a million Iraqis?

As a matter of fact, I have seen figures that ESTIMATED up to 100,000 Iraqis died as a direct result of the Kuwait War in 1990-91. If you want to say that Saddam was "responsible" for dropping all those American bombs on his own troops, I guess you could put those dead at his feet.

But that would be to ignore that the United States egged Saddam on to invade Kuwait in the first place. (Don't believe me? The American Ambassador to Iraq, soon after the war began, said she had told Saddam that the US would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait, and that she told him that pursuant to instructions from Washington. Not surprisingly, she was canned soon after admitting that.)

So I would hesitate saying all the Iraqis who died in that war were entirely Saddam's fault.

Well, then what about the thousands, the tens of thousands, of Iraqis who died during the sanctions in the 90's up till now? Weren't those Saddam's fault? Certainly, George Bush says they were.

But if George Bush were to tell you that two plus two equals five, would you believe him?

The fact is that Saddam did not impose those sanctions on his people. The United States and Britain imposed those sanctions on Iraq.

I fail to see the logic that exonerates the United States from guilt for all those dead and malnourished Iraqi children, yet places all the blame on Saddam.

You mentioned that all the Iraqis are happy the US has gotten rid of Saddam and they have smiles on their faces.

Says who?

You know, I watched that scene on TV where the US armored personnel carrier pulled down the giant statue of Saddam, and Iraqis jumped on the statue and went nuts.

I watched it as shot by a NON-AMERICAN news network.

The scene I saw was from some distance away and showed the WHOLE plaza, not just a close up.

I mention this because that scene was later adopted by the US as symbolic of Iraqi "joy" at being "freed".

I was able to count the people at that little ceremony.

Counting the US troops, as well as Iraqi civilians, there were less than 200 people in that plaza. I also counted how many were in the "crowd" that were actually celebrating the pulling down of the statue. Less than 30 people.

Now, I am given to understand that Baghdad is a city of over 5 1/2 million people.

If 30 of those people celebrate ANYTHING, do you think that represents a trend?

I understand that a lot of folks at that time were still cowering in their houses out of fear the US planes would blow them to bits out in the open, so, maybe it was not so strange that the "crowd" was small.

But does that excuse the US using that scene (only shown as a close-up) to lie and say they were welcomed into Baghdad as "Liberators"?

The point is, the United States distorts the facts to reach illusions which the US wants people to believe.

That little bit about all the Iraqis who have suffered and died under the Sanctions being the fault of Saddam is in that category.

Yes, Saddam was oppressive, and killed people he didn't like, and had his police use torture.

In that regard he is identical to dozens of governments in the world today.

Let me tell you a little publicized fact: In Vietnam the United States regularly killed and tortured people it did not like.

I guess that means the rest of the World would have been justified to invade the United States, bomb US cities, kill US babies and children, smash open the doors of the White House with a tank, and chase down Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon to put them on trial for breaking foreign laws.

You would agree with that, right?

Actually, I think that would have violated a little concept called "national sovereignty".

But hey, no one cares, right? The United States has all the guns and bombs right now, and might makes right, right?

Have you ever seen a child die? Have you ever felt the anguish of it's parents?

Now, multiply that by, what? 5,000, 10,000? Let's just say 500. 500 Iraqi children killed as an "Oops!" in this war.

I hope you are not going to try and argue their deaths were justified. You are not going to say they were legitimate combatants, are you?

Neither, I believe, would they be dead today if the United States had not invaded Iraq, no matter how loathesome Saddam was.

They are dead because George W. Bush, and Tony Blair, and the men around them, decided that they did not like what the United Nations wanted, and that War was OK.

Bush, Blair, and their men, are responsible for the unimaginable suffering of each of the parents of those children. And those two nitwits are also responsible for the suffering of each child missing a limb, or who will never walk again.

Not to mention the mangled adults.

Now, you would have me believe what? That those people are not suffering? That their suffering is in some way less than if they had been Americans? That to inflict suffering on other people is OK if you can get away with it?

Oh, I know. You would have me believe that getting rid of Saddam justifies all that suffering, and that if he had stayed in power, he would have inflicted more suffering in the future than what all those people are experiencing now.

How do you know that? Because Bush tells you that?

That suffering right now is a fact, not a hypothesis. And any moron would have known before starting a war like this that such suffering would inevitably result.

Quite aside from the fact that the United States has absolutely no right to go around the world dropping bombs to achieve results it thinks are "correct", I don't think that the absolute horror and agony experienced by any one of those children is justified by the removal of Saddam.

Now, if George W. Bush was a real man, and not a craven coward (remember how he hid from the war in Vietnam?), if he had allowed his own hand to be blown off, or his own spine to be severed, or even if he had sacrificed the lives of his daughters to get rid of Saddam, well, then I would respect him somewhat.

But the point is, he decided that OTHER people should suffer. What right does he have to do that?

You know, there is an old saying: "Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it."

What the United States and Britain have done is scrap an incipient world order where international disputes were settled by law with the vague, yet legitimate, oversight of the United Nations.

To replace that civilized concept, they have reverted to the 19th Century concept of Gunboat Diplomacy. "Me have big stick. Therefore, me right."

Certainly, that is a viable scheme in that it works, at least for the winner.

But might I remind you that Gunboat Diplomacy also led to those two little inconveniences we call World Wars One and Two.

These days, with Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear Weapons, if the Human Race were to indulge in a Third World War, what do you think would be the likely outcome?

To combat that possibility the World was, slowly and painfully, moving toward a new framework of International Relations.

But you see, since the United States, for various reasons, has been spending unconscionable amounts of money since World War Two on keeping the largest military establishment in the World, the men in power have decided it's about time to use all that weaponry as a lever.

All they had to do was throw morality and compassion in the wastebasket.

They've done that, and won their dirty little war. Now they think they can flop around the world, imposing their will wherever they want.

THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON for killing children and babies. None. Zip. Zilch.

Under the old International Order (now discarded by Bush) it used to be that military violence was only justifiable in self defense, OR, if the International Community sanctioned it (which is to say, the UN).

Obviously, the International Community did NOT sanction this war, even if Bush has hired dozens of dishonest mealy-mouthed lawyers to twist words and try to make the UN resolutions of the past say something that was not meant.

Neither was this a war in self-defense, even though Bush and Blair pretended mightily that Iraq was a "threat to world peace".

If it was such a threat, why couldn't it defend itself?

I know most Americans believe what they are told. They are good little soldiers. I know that Americans "get behind" the President, even if he is an ignoramous. I know it is not their fault. The education "system" is so designed as to brainwash all young Americans.

That is the real tragedy. An entire nation, led to believe it is doing the right thing, when it is doing the Devil's work.

From what you have said, I see you accept the web of lies you have been fed. That is not surprising.

But you see, I do not agree.

These are only my opinions. I do hold them, of course, because I believe they are correct.

Let me just point out, however, that if my opinions were empowered, no one dies, much less dies miserably.

If George Bush's opinions are empowered, thousands, hundreds of thousands, including many children, all around the world, will die unspeakable deaths.

This is not a test. You don't have to pick one scenario. But I would ask you to think about it.

Go to Top of Page

event horizon
Grey Member

135 Posts

Posted - 04/15/2003 :  1:12:33 PM  Show Profile Send event horizon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Backchat,

It's not our job to police the entire world like so many others visualize us doing. We can't wage war against all those other dictators strictly because they treat their civilians in an inhumane manner. We aren't equipped to handle it all, and we aren't backed by the global community to do it. But if any of these dictators harbor terrorists and/or WMD, then by new international mandates (since 9/11), that gives us all full authority to go in and wipe it out if they refuse to cooperate - and that's the bottom line.


Hadrianus,

I try not to dwell or hypothesize too much about all those intangibles - some are truths and some are lies. Trying to weigh it all out can leave one going in circles. And I don't allow the media to dilute my opinions.

quote:
From what you have said, I see you accept the web of lies you have been fed. That is not surprising.


Gosh oh mighty what on Earth have I said that has led you to believe THAT? Just what EXACTLY? All I've basically brought up is my own opinion from the FACTS.

Look at the facts. The fact is Saddam harbored and funded terrorists and WMD (anyone who still doesn't believe that is a FOOL), and since 9/11 the USA isn't going to just sit idly by any longer waiting for another 9/11 to happen again. It might be okay for YOU not do anything, sitting on that peninsula practically free from what's going on in the real world…but it's not cool for the rest of us.

The fact is the United Nations had 12 YEARS to enforce its resolution - 12 years of Saddam playing games. And if 9/11 didn't happen we'd still be dillydallying around with Saddam. But guess what, whether you want to believe it or not, we live in a different world now. ANYONE catering to terrorists and/or weapons of mass destruction MUST BE ANNIHILATED, regardless of the casualties of war, or the world will never live in peace.

War is never pretty, War = Hell. But if all the free people of the world turned yellow in the face of aggression then the world would be ruled by a single dictator by now…

Pacifism is not the answer.


horizon

The mixed breed three-eyed half gray alien half cyclopse mutant from a galaxy so far away you can't even get there if you folded space.
Go to Top of Page

Hadrianus
Galactic Member

Costa Rica
1623 Posts

Posted - 04/15/2003 :  5:00:56 PM  Show Profile Send Hadrianus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hello EH. So OK, I'm wrong, you reached your own conclusions and did not follow where the propaganda led.

But you seem to subscribe to that old saw, "the end justifies the means".

That is a fallacy, I hope you know.

Pursuing war, annihilating people to achieve peace, is ridiculous.

You cannot achieve peace by violent means. All you achieve is more violence.

You mentioned there are new international mandates since 9/11 which authorize the use of violence against - who?

Exactly what mandates are those? 1441? I hope you are not buying the propaganda from Washington that 1441 authorized war. Most of the nations that signed 1441 have protested that when they signed it, they did so on the express understanding that it did NOT justify war.

Anyway, 1441 applies only to Iraq. You seem to believe there are other, more general, "mandates". What mandates? Are you referring to the "Bush Doctrine"? That is hardly a "mandate". All that is, is Bush giving himself permission to attack other nations. Do you buy that?

The fact is, the United States has exactly NO mandates to go out and attack ANY nations.

What it has is the power of a bully. It has the most guns, the most ships, the most planes. Of course it can attack anyone it wants to. That does not mean, however, that it has any shred of legitimacy for doing so.

You speak of 12 years of UN resolutions. Yes, that's true. What did those resolutions envisage? They envisaged the disarmament of Iraq. They did NOT envisage regime change. You say nothing was done to enforce those resolutions. Wrong. Up until 1998 the UN had inspectors all over Iraq dismantling it's WMD programs. It is clear from the Inspector's reports, no matter what George Bush says, that the Iraqi nuclear program was completely demolished. It also appears that it's chemical and biological programs were, if not entirely destroyed, then drastically cut back.

At the end of 2002 the Inspectors went back in and were clearly fruitfully engaged in poking their noses everywhere to see if Iraq had any WMD left. How is that doing nothing?

Yet despite the efforts of the Inspectors, the United States, with at best highly equivocal "evidence" (which in some cases was shown to be just plain wrong) kept on yelling that Iraq was a threat to world peace and had WMD hidden up the wazoo.

Left unsaid by the United States, but clearly implied, was that the weapons' inspectors were a bunch of idiots.

It is true the inspectors would not have been let in at the end of 2002 without the "credible threat of force". But the threat was working. If WMD were all that mattered, the inspections were set to take care of that without a war.

George Bush and his Poodle would have none of that. They WANTED a war, and they weren't about to be put off by logic, international law, or compassion.

They had other fish to fry. I don't believe they gave a fig about WMD because they knew darn well Iraq didn't have any.

George Bush, for his part, for various reasons had a personal grudge against Saddam, and he was willing to sacrifice the lives of American Service Personnel (not to mention Iraqi civilians) to satisfy that grudge.

Then there is the Oil. That was certainly foremost in Blair's eyes.

Did you see the latest news about the irreplaceable and priceless antiquities of the Iraqi National Museum being looted? An inestimable tragedy, at least for archaeologists.

It seems on the first day of the looting, various officials of the Museum asked the United States troops to protect it.

According to the Museum officials, the US troops did nothing.

According to some US General or other I saw on TV, the troops went to the Museum, chased away the looters, and then had to leave for "more important" tasks. Then the looters came back.

That is interesting, since the journalists in Baghdad noted that the US troops began protecting the Ministry of Oil right away, with the result that it was not looted.

So, obviously, the United States had the ability to protect whatever buildings in Baghdad it wanted.

But if the excessively important Museum of Antiquities was not protected because the troops had more important things to do, that would show that protecting the Ministry of Oil was a top priority, above anything else.

Why?

Because all the records and data needed to fully exploit Iraq's oil wealth are in there, that's why.

So it is obvious Oil is a primary focus for the US military, and the British too I would venture.

All this nonsense about freeing the Iraqi people and preserving their wealth is patently false. If the US cared about the Iraqi people's wellbeing so much, why didn't it protect the Ministry of Education from looting? Why didn't it protect the Hospitals from looting? Why didn't it protect the Ministry of Health from looting?

No, they only protected the Ministry of Oil.

It's getting clearer all the time that whatever reasons were given out for this war were false.

You claim that Saddam was a threat. When you say that, I think you have bought that "web of lies" I was talking about.

In the first place, there has NEVER been any demonstration AT ALL that Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. If you bring that up, it only shows you have fallen for the lies.

Because, when all his other excuses failed, George Bush fell back on innuendo. "Look" he sez. "Al Quaida has a base in Iraq!"

He failed to mention that the base was in a corner of Iraq not controlled by Saddam Hussein at all.

"Look" he sez. "Al Quaida has offices in Baghdad!"

There was never any independant proof of that assertion, other than Mad George's own words.

Besides, if that was true, would it mean that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?

"I have PROOF" sez Bush "that Iraqi officials have met with Al Quaida operatives".

Yeah? What proof?

"I can't show you" sez Bush " cause it's SECRET."

(Actually, there was a not-so-secret rumor in the news community that the source of that Bush statement had been one man, an Iraqi exile living in Paris, not known for his veracity, who obviously hated Saddam).

I know that the troops were fed the lie that the war was all about 9/11. And many of them bought it. Military intelligence.

Because 9/11 in no way justified this war, I am not going to get into a discussion of who actually executed 9/11. (Hint: It wasn't Bin Laden).

You also, by saying that Iraq was a threat that needed to be dealt with, seem to have bought the claim widely shouted by the United States that Iraq not only had WMD, but was intimately associated with Terrorists in such a way as to threaten the United States.

Really?

Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?

Look, I have no doubt that Saddam gave money to members of Islamic Jihad or Hamas, or that he supported the Palestinians in their struggle against the Israelis.

Does that mean he supported Terrorists?

That sort of depends on what the word "Terrorists" means.

I am old enough to remember those glorious days in the United States when, if someone, anyone, whispered in dark corners that you were a "socialist", or even had socialist leanings (which is to say, you were a "pinko"), not to mention that you had anything at all, God forbid, to do with COMMUNISM, your life would be effectively ruined.

This result had nothing to do with who you actually were, or what you had done.

It only was the result of you being labeled with the term that was currently being used by the government as it's no-no word.

So the no-no word can be a powerful tool.

But "Communist" doesn't quite have that effect anymore, at least not since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Now, they've got a new no-no word: "Terrorist".

This is a wonderful new word, because it is so vague it can be slapped on virtually anybody.

You blow up schools? You're a Terrorist.

But if you try to run a roadblock using a weapon to defend yourself, you are also a Terrorist.

And if you try to fight using any means available against a foreign power occupying your country, you are also a Terrorist.

In fact, as used by the United States, the word "Terrorist" means "We don't like you and need a knee-jerk handle to villify you".

You should note that just before the United States invaded Iraq, when it was still trying to ram that second resolution through the UN and was fishing for support, it tried to bribe Russia by declaring that the Chechnyan rebels are "Terrorists".

Does that make it so?

In this regard, pressured by the very influential pro-Israeli lobby in the Congress, the United States has blanket-labeled all groups who fight against Israel as "Terrorists".

Since Saddam did not like Israel, he supported those who fight against her. So, by extension, Saddam supported Terrorists.

But that was only the pro-Israeli way of looking at things.

There has never been any credible evidence that Iraq supported Al Quaida, or other larger anti-US group.

This claim that Iraq was a nation that supported Terrorism, by implying that Iraq supported in principle the random blowing up of anybody anywhere, was pure rubbish. Just more US propaganda. Just more lies.

If anyone is a "Terrorist", it's the United States government. Just ask the relatives of the innocents killed in Grenada, or Panama, or Afghanistan, not to mention Iraq.

As for the alleged WMD, use your head. That's what it's there for (uh... well I take that back. For SOME people it's only there to hold their hat).

IF Saddam was supporting AL Quaida, and IF he was giving Al Quaida WMD, why did (allegedly) Al Quaida find it necessary to use pedestrian civilian airliners for 9/11?

If they had chemoweapons or bioweapons, don't you think releasing them in New York, or Washington DC, would have been more effective as a terror weapon than ramming a plane into a skyscraper?

OF COURSE Al Quaida (assuming they pulled off 9/11) didn't have any WMD.

OF COURSE Saddam didn't give them any.

All these claims about him doing that are a put up job, a red herring, a fabrication, a bit of CIA disinformation, a lie, a falsehood, etc. etc.

And being a lie, it did not justify the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Now, this bit about Iraq actually HAVING some WMD is more credible. because clearly they did have them at one time, and clearly they lied about having them to try and keep them. I agree with that.

Did they have them at the time of this war?

If they did, they didn't use them. And given the kind of ruthless thug Saddam was, it makes no sense that, once he knew he was going to die anyway, and if he had these weapons, he didn't use them.

I don't think they had them, or they didn't have them in any quantity.

Which shoots another hole in Bush's foot.

Now, I grant you that the worry that Iraq was a dangerous regime, with a lot of potential wealth, with the intention of getting WMD when and if they could, was a legitimate one, and needed some sort of resolution.

But I weigh that against what you call "intangibles" - the dead and the suffering people of Iraq.

There was, of course, the observation that if Saddam stayed in power, maybe more people would suffer under his heel.

Against that was the CERTAINTY ("Smart Bombs"? Minimal collateral damage? PHOOEY!)that a war would cause widespread death, pain and suffering on a large scale.

So everytime someone tries to justify the war by saying it SAVED lives and REDUCED suffering, I say "Tell it to the Marines."

The point is, if anyone was really worried about Iraq having WMD, there were other, more peaceful, ways to deal with that problem.

But the United States refused those possibilities and went directly to the worst solution: War. And Bush admitted that War was the worst solution, even while he prepared for it.

That reminds me of that old stupid bully ploy in the schoolyard. The bully walks up to someone, and begins hitting them. "Stop hitting me" says the victim. "What are you talking about?" asks the Bully as he hits again "I'm not hitting you."

That is the same as Bush saying "I don't want war. We recognize war is only the final, worst solution" while he was shipping boatload after boatload of armor to Kuwait.

"Mr. Bush, doesn't this massive deployment mean war is already inevitable?"

"No" said Bush.

Please.

There was no legitimate reason for this war.

A lot of excuses have been made, but they are all lies.

I fear the base reason for this war was megatheft. Theft of Iraq's oil.

But as you say, give it time. Let's see how the situation develops.



Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Aliens & UFOs Among Us/Free the Herd Forum © 2002-2013 Aliens & UFOs Among Us Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000
RSS Feed 1 RSS Feed 2
Powered by ForumCo 2000-2008
TOS - AUP - URA - Privacy Policy
ForumCo Free Blogs and Galleries
Signup for a free forum or Go Banner Free