-
 KDE-Apps.org Applications for the KDE-Desktop 
 GTK-Apps.org Applications using the GTK Toolkit 
 GnomeFiles.org Applications for GNOME 
 MeeGo-Central.org Applications for MeeGo 
 CLI-Apps.org Command Line Applications 
 Qt-Apps.org Free Qt Applications 
 Qt-Prop.org Proprietary Qt Applications 
 Maemo-Apps.org Applications for the Maemo Plattform 
 Java-Apps.org Free Java Applications 
 eyeOS-Apps.org Free eyeOS Applications 
 Wine-Apps.org Wine Applications 
 Server-Apps.org Server Applications 
 apps.ownCloud.com ownCloud Applications 
--
-
 KDE-Look.org Artwork for the KDE-Desktop 
 GNOME-Look.org Artwork for the GNOME-Desktop 
 Xfce-Look.org Artwork for the Xfce-Desktop 
 Box-Look.org Artwork for your Windowmanager 
 E17-Stuff.org Artwork for Enlightenment 
 Beryl-Themes.org Artwork for the Beryl Windowmanager 
 Compiz-Themes.org Artwork for the Compiz Windowmanager 
 EDE-Look.org Themes for your EDE Desktop 
--
-
 Debian-Art.org Stuff for Debian 
 Gentoo-Art.org Artwork for Gentoo Linux 
 SUSE-Art.org Artwork for openSUSE 
 Ubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Ubuntu 
 Kubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Kubuntu 
 LinuxMint-Art.org Artwork for Linux Mint 
 Arch-Stuff.org Art And Stuff for Arch Linux 
 Frugalware-Art.org Themes for Frugalware 
 Fedora-Art.org Artwork for Fedora Linux 
 Mandriva-Art.org Artwork for Mandriva Linux 
--
-
 KDE-Files.org Files for KDE Applications 
 OpenTemplate.org Documents for OpenOffice.org
 GIMPStuff.org Files for GIMP
 InkscapeStuff.org Files for Inkscape
 ScribusStuff.org Files for Scribus
 BlenderStuff.org Textures and Objects for Blender
 VLC-Addons.org Themes and Extensions for VLC
--
-
 KDE-Help.org Support for your KDE Desktop 
 GNOME-Help.org Support for your GNOME Desktop 
 Xfce-Help.org Support for your Xfce Desktop 
--
openDesktop.orgopenDesktop.org:   Applications   Artwork   Linux Distributions   Documents    LinuxDaily.com    Linux42.org    OpenSkillz.com   
 
Artwork
News
Groups
Knowledge
Events
Forum
People
Jobs
Register
Login

-
- Poll . 

Is war agains Iraq the answer?


Posted by  on Mar 9 2003

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home
Yes! Iraq has not disarmed.25%25%25% 25%
Only with a new UN resolution.16%16%16% 16%
No! The weapons inspectors need more time.59%59%59% 59%
Votes: 2520
goto page:  1  2  3  4  5  6 

-

 No extrema

 
 by KapeKa on: Mar 9 2003
 
Score 50%

Sure, the inspectors should have more time, escpecially now, when the iraqis begin to destroy some of their bigger weapons, and war should always be the ultima ratio, but war should never be completly excluded. The question is, how long can we tolerate that Saddam is playing with the UN?
I am not tolerating th U.S. course and how they are oppressing the U.N., but in the same way I am not tolerating our german chancelor. His postition is an extrema in the other way. Saddam will laugh about the world, if the inspectors are doing their jobs but Saddam is knowing that if he works together with them or not makes no difference.
I don't want war, but I know that sometimes it is the last possibility. BUT! only with an UN resolution because otherwise there are no more rules in the world, even if there are already very weak, but better some weak rules then no rules!


Reply to this

-

 Agree here!

 
 by schnoopy on: Mar 9 2003
 
Score 50%

I think you made the point clear: No, i do not want war in the way it is pushed forward by the US at the moment. But i disagree with the position of Germany or France as well, who are doing all to take pressure away from Saddam - and he has proven all too much that he only cooperates if he is in _real_ troubles (maybe he would not even destroy his rockets now if he hadn't the US Army in front of his palats's doors). And yes, if there are weapons found and if Saddam threatens to use them (hint: as north korea does currently) war _is_ a solution - a means used as an ultima ratio! But _not_ as the US want it, Bush seems wanting to finish what his father started. I do not know any european around here who agrees with bush, but i know americans who have left the US _for good_ because they disagree with this "american way of life" that is currently formed by Bush and co...

Franz


Reply to this

-
.

 WHY?

 
 by brain on: Mar 10 2003
 
Score 50%

why U.S.A can have such weapons? are they better than iraquens? they made their political and economic empire, and we are UNDER THEIR CONTROL, and they want to control also what it's not still under their control.. they wants iraquens oil, and put some american control there. They abitued us too much that they are the good one, and who is aganist them is the bad one. i agree with germany and france and i hope someone else will open their eyes and see that USA MADE A DICTATORIAL EMPIRE


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: WHY?

 
 by surfersurfer20022002 on: Mar 11 2003
 
Score 50%

If you use a gun improperly the police take it away from you to protect others. It's the same concept.


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: WHY?

 
 by brain on: Mar 11 2003
 
Score 50%

And USA are the police of the world? they can't decide. At least UN... USA want war just for 2 things: oil and political power.
USA killed so many people, made so many wars.. but they are the goods! i still can't understand why.. maybe they mask better what they do? If a nation should be disarmed, it would be USA, not Iraq.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: WHY?

 
 by liquidrock222 on: Mar 12 2003
 
Score 50%

Simple. The USA is a world super-power and nobody wants to really mess with us except for stupid suicidal terrorists. While the US is still a superpower, they can do anything they want without really getting in any trouble. Its military politics, the States has the largest military, highest count of nukes, largest ICBM count, and could probably take on half the world and still win. Its not right, but that's how it works....


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: Re: Re: WHY?

 
 by brain on: Mar 12 2003
 
Score 50%

If U.S.A are attacked they can't use their nukes on their land. And they are not the only with technologies to make such weapons. The fact they have doesn't mean they are the only who can have. Roman empire was even powerful at his time. Don't think that all will accept forever "it's-how-it-works" cause if the problems become real one, many will say "ti-spacchiamo-il-culo" (it's even better if i don't translate). super-power can be defeated, cause militar power, it's not so strong as you can think it is.


Reply to this

-

 Re: WHY?

 
 by ozric on: Mar 14 2003
 
Score 50%

Why can the French and Russians have those same weapons and not agree to disarm as well? Why is it okay for the French to circumvent the UN and sell weapons to Iraq? Why is it okay for a French oil company to secure a 60 billion dollar oil deal with Hussein? Why is it okay for the French to support the murdering dictator Robert Mugabe? Why was it okay for the French to support ethnic cleansing in Rawanda? Did the French not also insist that debate and diplomacy was the answer while ethnic Albanians in Kosovo were being butchered?


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: No extrema

 
 by AlistairD on: Mar 13 2003
 
Score 50%

Iraq doesn't need disarming any more:




Glasgow Anarchist Students present


Intellectual Self-Defense: Iraq



As the governments of the UK and USA prepare for a new Gulf War, a second war is being fought: the war for our hearts and minds. Propaganda, as a discipline, has existed since the First World War, and its techniques are being applied right now with huge audacity and, for once, only limited success. In this information sheet we puncture some of the more insidious and effective lies being told.



Myth 1: “The Inspectors Were Chucked Out by Saddam?



In 1998, UN weapons inspectors left Iraq. This was not, as is often stated in the press, because Iraq threw them out, but in fact because the US told them to leave so they wouldn't be bombed. This was after the CIA had infiltrated the inspectors and used their inspections as a cover to identify military targets for the bombing.



Myth 2: “Iraq is Uncooperative?



Iraq cooperated well in 1991-1998, and is cooperating again with the new inspections. As a result of that cooperation, 90-95% of its WMD program was eliminated by the weapons inspectors in that period.



Scott Ritter, Chief UN weapons inspector in 1998, argues that inspectors were withdrawn not, as Blair claims, because of a lack of Iraqi cooperation, but because the US deliberately sabotaged the inspections regime. Just prior to the air strikes heralding the end of inspections, Ritter notes: "Inspectors were sent in to carry out sensitive inspections that had nothing to do with disarmament but had everything to do with provoking the Iraqis."



In a report published on the second day of bombing in December 1998, immediately after the inspectors had left, Ritter said: "What [head of Unscom] Richard Butler did last week with the inspections was a set-up. This was designed to generate a conflict that would justify a bombing."



Suggesting that Butler deliberately wrote a distorted justification for war, a UN diplomat said at the time: "Based on the same facts he [Butler] could have said, There were something like 300 inspections and we encountered difficulties in five.'"



Myth 3: “Iraq has Functioning Weapons of Mass Destruction?



Scott Ritter, Chief UN weapons inspector in 1998, on nuclear weapons: "When I left Iraq in 1998... the infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There's no doubt about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We never found anything." ...so Iraq has no nukes.



Ritter on biological weapons:


"For Iraq to have biological weapons today, they'd have to reconstitute a biological manufacturing base. And again, biological research and development was one of the things most heavily inspected by weapons inspectors. We blanketed Iraq - every research and development facility, every university, every school, every hospital, every beer factory: anything with a potential fermentation capability was inspected - and we never found any evidence of ongoing research and development or retention.?



In addition, Iraq's biological weapons were highly unstable, with a shelf-life of 3 years at most. As Iraq has no ability to produce new weapons, anything they did keep is now useless sludge.



And finally chemical weapons:
UN inspectors found the factory producing VX in 1996. Having found it, they blew it up. "With that", Ritter explains, "Iraq lost its capacity to produce VX."



VX also quickly becomes sludge. The International Institute for Strategic Studies' strategic dossier of September 2002 records the likely status of any VX agent in Iraq: "Any VX produced by Iraq before 1991 is likely to have decomposed over the past decade [...]. Any G-agent or V-agent stocks that Iraq concealed from UNSCOM inspections are likely to have deteriorated by now."



Myth 4: “The First Gulf War was Necessary?



This is a common belief, that there was no diplomatic solution available to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Professor Noam Chomsky tells us otherwise: "Two weeks before the deadline for Iraqi withdrawal, the possible contours of a diplomatic settlement appeared to be these: Iraq would withdraw completely from Kuwait with a U.S. pledge not to attack withdrawing forces; foreign troops leave the region; the Security Council indicates a serious commitment to settle other major regional problems. Disputed border issues would be left for later consideration. Once again, we cannot evaluate the prospects for settlement along these -- surely reasonable -- lines, because the offers were flatly rejected, and scarcely entered the media or public awareness. The United States and Britain maintained their commitment to force alone."


Reply to this

-
.

 No answer

 
 by norbert on: Mar 9 2003
 
Score 50%

Well a war is NEVER THE answer.
It _might_ be a part of the way, but it depends on what happens next, how the war ends, what the people in Iraq will do after the war,...
Going in killing the evils, destroying everything can't be the only thing to do...


Reply to this

-
.

 War is necessary

 
 by yf12s on: Mar 9 2003
 
Score 50%

I can't figure out people against eliminating Saddam. This will be the 18th resolution if it passes Tuesday, because all of the others have not worked. He has murdered his own people, which should be reason alone (no one complained about when we went into Serbia, what gives now?). Also, he is extremely dangerous. You people are fools to think the UN inspectors can DISARM him. Sure, we can contain him until the end of time, but an inspection team would have to live in Iraq until he dies or there is an internal coup. This is way too costly. Besides, war against Iraq is like arresting an elderly person. You can roll over them and be back home for supper. There will be little loss of life, and it will result in the liberation of Iraq. This is not about oil. It is about peace and safety of the region and the safety of the United States. Those who disagree obviously have their interests elsewhere and aren't being reasonable, they simply hate the United States and will do anything against good judgement to stand in their way. You can't achieve peace via someone who isn't a peacemaker. You can't convince the unconvinced either. This is why war is the only solution, although the last one.


Reply to this

-

 Re: War is necessary

 
 by anonymous on: Mar 9 2003
 
Score 50%

oeBiFQQTMbwk
Home

"He has murdered his own people, which should be reason alone"
Lol! Damn, we got quite a few liders to eliminate then!

"(no one complained about when we went into Serbia, what gives now?)"
Bullshit. Lots of people complained about it.

"You people are fools to think the UN inspectors can DISARM him. Sure, we can contain him until the end of time"
That's enough for me...
That's what happens with many countries out there that I don't trust a bit and that are far more powerfull than Iraque.

"There will be little loss of life, and it will result in the liberation of Iraq."
Yeah, unless most of them fight you to death to defend themselves from your liberation.
I (and many more people) think your current president is dumb (really really dumb, I even find it hard to believe that guy is really your president... it seems like the worlds biggest joke) and dangerous. I'm sure you'd like someone else to liberate you from him by attacking your country, trying to avoid colateral damages.
[Just for the record, I liked Bill Clinton]

"This is not about oil."
Lol :D

"It is about peace."
Yeah, not war, peace :)

"safety of the region and the safety of the United States"
Yeah, all the oil there is just an unfortunate coincidence :)

"Those who disagree obviously have their interests elsewhere and aren't being reasonable."
Obviously!! Now that is a good argument... I'm starting to understand your position better now...

"they simply hate the United States and will do anything against good judgement to stand in their way."
Now that you almost had me you screwed things up!! :)
I think your current president is stupid, but that's it. Nothing against the U.S. at all.

"You can't achieve peace via someone who isn't a peacemaker"
So you mean we shudn't follow mr. Bush on this one? I am so lost now...

"You can't convince the unconvinced either"
Don't understand this one...

"This is why war is the only solution, although the last one"
LOL!!!! :D
Yeah, the last one, the first one, the only one. Lol!! What a great way to end :)
I think understand why you like Bush so much :)

J.A.

P.S.: Why is this pool on kdelook????


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: War is necessary

 
 by gynther on: Mar 12 2003
 
Score 50%

Who are we to liberate Iraq? Overthrowing a foreign government from the outside means bypassing all of the principles we in the west hold most sacred. All nations have a right to their own sovereignity(?) and it is up to the inhabitants of that nation to decide what government they should have. Now, you can argue that the people in Iraq don't have the ability to overthrow Saddam but the principle still stands, America invading Iraq and overthrowing it's government is a display of dictatorship on a global level.

Those who disagree obviously have their interests elsewhere and aren't being reasonable, they simply hate the United States and will do anything against good judgement to stand in their way. This has to be one of the most narrowminded statements I have ever come across and I doesn't even dignify a retort. Get of your high horse and come to terms with the fact that not all people in the world are envious of americans and that we much preffer to live where we do now.

And before you start galavanting around preaching about how other nations need to treat their inhabitants better, how about getting your own government to sign the civil rights act? Because as it is right now America hasn't and that makes it, in theory, no better than Iraq.


Reply to this

-
.

 No!

 
 by bradenm on: Mar 9 2003
 
Score 50%

Who has heard the following joke?

Q: How does the US know that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?


A: They kept the receipts.

:-)


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: No!

 
 by cheesenoodle on: Mar 13 2003
 
Score 50%

Ahaha. That is so wrong, yet so funny.


Reply to this

-
.

 Good vs. Evil

 
 by flavuloid on: Mar 9 2003
 
Score 50%

Do you people really fall into that old trick about good and evil?

We have the president of the United States of America telling us that this is about good vs. evil... That Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that is why he, with great pain, has to order an attack.

But the truth is Iraq is not the only 'evil nation' that has weapons of mass destruction. Israel has them too... Let's not forget Israel is a nuclear power. And here the US helps Israel in the development of these weapons.

"I can't figure out people against eliminating Saddam. "
Hey, let's stop and think for a while. If Bush were to drop a big fat bomb over Saddam's head and no civilians would be killed, that is OK with me. Unluckily that is no the case.

"This will be the 18th resolution if it passes Tuesday, because all of the others have not worked."
Bush says Iraq violates UN resolutions. So does Israel, and for much longer...
So let's bomb Israel also, that will make things even better...

"Also, he is extremely dangerous."
Well, Mr. Bush is showing he can also be very dangerous.

OK, this is not really about saying Israel is evil, poor inocent palestinians are good... I am just saying that Mr. Bush is taking us for stupid people when he tries to sell us the childish idea of US being the good guys and Iraq being some pale resemblant of Mordor.

And the worst thing about all of this is that, by Mr. Bush's own parameters, the most evil nation of the world would be the one that has delivered the greatest amount of terror and destruction in weaponry, and that would be the only nation that has dropped nuclear bombs over inocent civilians... Do you remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki Mr. Bush?

And then, there is this idiotic argument telling that they did it to 'accelerate' the end of the war... Yeah, right. Testing their new toy on a real war situation was just secondary...

And now the US government says they want the UN to be the place where all these issues will be dealt with... but if UN dares to speak different than what the US gov. wants, they will just leap over UN's resolutions and attack Iraq anyway... That is double speech at its worst.

And when these 'weapons of mass destruction' thing isn't enough, Bush tells us about poor iraqi people living under an opressive regime, and the US, being the champions of freedom as they are, feel compelled to take this blood-thirsty dictator out of power.

That is a filthy lie. The US government never cared about dictators and oppression in other nations as long as it didn't really affect them economically.

"He has murdered his own people, which should be reason alone (no one complained about when we went into Serbia, what gives now?)."

Have you heard of Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile? The US government helped him to overthrow Allende. And here in Paraguay, we had to live under opression for 35 years, and they couldn't care less.

"You people are fools to think the UN inspectors can DISARM him. Sure, we can contain him until the end of time, but an inspection team would have to live in Iraq until he dies or there is an internal coup."
And that wouldn't bring oil prices down a cent or so... So the answer is bomb Iraq. In the long term, it will be cheaper.

Terrorism is one thing, so go get all of Al-Qaeda members and do whatever your Constitution says. But the hard truth is this: the US gov. will order a preventive attack on Iraq.

The US is a great nation. We can do nothing but admire what they have built. But we are all citizens of the world, no matter how much you try to ignore this fact. And we are, or at least, should be all equal. There cannot be one nation that claims supreme authority to do whatever it feels necessary. That is arrogance, and is, IMHO, what causes anti-US(*) feelings on people with low IQ or mental problems.

"You can roll over them and be back home for supper." <-- and that isn't exactly contributing to the I-love-US-meter.

"There will be little loss of life, and it will result in the liberation of Iraq." <-- OK, but let's liberate all those nations in Africa that still are under opression... Wait, they are not oil producers so it isn't really important... they can wait. Oh, and there will be little loss of life... Tell that to the lucky ones that will have their relatives dead. "Sorry, sh*t happens."

"This is not about oil. It is about peace and safety of the region and the safety of the United States."
So if it takes only little amounts of killing... After all it is only Iraqi civilians... Think of the thousands of US people we would be saving. And all those pennies you would save when refueling your car.
Oh, and we supporting everything Israel does IS contributing to peace and safety of the region.

"Those who disagree obviously have their interests elsewhere and aren't being reasonable,
they simply hate the United States and will do anything against good judgement to stand in their way."
Yeah, who in his mind would think war is a bad thing... These US haters... Maybe we should bomb them too... We could start with France for example... That evil nation that stands in our way. Maybe is that Napoleon thing they still suffer from...

"You can't achieve peace via someone who isn't a peacemaker. You can't convince the unconvinced either.
This is why war is the only solution, although the last one."
I couldn't agree more... Bush isn't a peacemaker. We can't achieve peace with someone like that.
You can't convince the unconvinced. No matter how successful the inspections are, this mad man is going to war.
But that last part sounds a little misleading to me... War is the only solution? So, apart from being the last one, it is the first one in you list, since it is the only one...

(*) Just for the record: America is this funny-shaped piece of land (from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, Argentina). So everytime you use 'american' to refer to just the US people, think about it.


Reply to this

-
.

 Really good anwser!

 
 by henriquemaia on: Mar 10 2003
 
Score 50%

I couldn't agree with you most. Very good indeed.
Everyone should read this post.


Reply to this

-

 Oh come on!

 
 by WinterWolf on: Mar 9 2003
 
Score 50%

I live in the US, but anybody who knows a decent amount of history knows this never was about liberating Iraq or because Iraq is threat to the US.

Firt of all th US was a good ally of Sadam when he still did all the horrible things to his people that he does now, now all the sudden we are eenemies to keep it short.

Second, IRAQ is not the least bit fo threat to the US, it can not even reach the US, going to war will probably just make the US more insecure.

Besides this is a lose lose situation for Iraq. if the UN isnepctors find no weapons bush says iracq is not cooperating, if they do find any they are guilty.

ALL THAT BUSH WANTS IS THE OIL AND THER NEVER WAS A CHANCE NOT TO GO TO WAR.


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Oh come on!

 
 by Verite2003 on: Mar 12 2003
 
Score 50%

CAN'T REACH THE US??? WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU ON SEPTEMBER 11TH? It is clear that Saddam was not only thrilled with what happened that day..he endorsed it!!!


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: Oh come on!

 
 by TommyBear on: Mar 14 2003
 
Score 50%

Don't forget that Bin Laden was sponsored by the US in the first place, that's where he got his training from. Bin Laden wasn't co-operating, the USA rocketed his camps, next thing you know he's flying plains into US buildings. Don't forget who put Saddam there in the first place, don't forget who bankrolled pinochet, don't forget which country has overthrown democratic governments to install dictators. Enough said.


Reply to this

goto page:  1  2  3  4  5  6 

Add commentAdd commentall pollsSuggest new pollBack



-

-
Do you like or dislike Ubuntu Unity?
 Yes, unity is alien technology!
 It is less confusing than Gnome 3 default, shell.
 Granny thinks it is much more usable than Gnome 2
 Canonical is embarrasing itself with this split project
 Gnome 3 default shell is much better
 I dislike Unity, Gnome 3 default shell is alien technology!
 None of the above, I like the 2Gb for free and Apple alike behavior. Will post a comment instead

resultmore




 
 
 Who we are
Contact
More about us
Frequently Asked Questions
Register
Twitter
Blog
Explore
Artwork
Jobs
Knowledge
Events
People
Updates on identi.ca
Updates on Twitter
Facebook App
Content RSS   
News RSS   
Discussion RSS   
Events RSS   

Participate
Groups
Forum
Add Artwork
Public API
About KDE-Look.org
Legal Notice
Spreadshirt Shop
CafePress Shop
Advertising
Sponsor us
Report Abuse
 

Copyright 2001-2014 KDE-Look.org Team  
All rights reserved. KDE-Look.org is not liable for any content or goods on this site.
All contributors are responsible for the lawfulness of their uploads.
KDE and K Desktop Environment are trademarks of KDE e.V.