Oppose war to Iraq
I already have it installed. I have NSW 2002 Pro and it works great. They even have NTFS and FAT32 support built into it. It is very easy and I really like it!!! belto.
This topic was started by kathaksung,
It seems the war on Iraq is inevitabel. Because this war is for the interest of Israel. And you can see the tremendous influence of Israel here, both on politicians and media. (The weak reaction of Democratic Party and less of criticism of media) Anyhow I'll try my best to express my opinion to politicians. If people are agree with my opinions, (either all or part of them) I welcome them to share with it for their convinence. The following is the e-mail I have mailed to politicians.
The honorable
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator
I'm writing you to oppose any authorization the war power to President Bush and his Cabinet at this movement.
I urge you to oppose war on Iraq because of the following reason:
1. There is no sufficient justification to start such a war. President Bush accused Iraq of intending to build up mass dystruction weapons which will used to attack US. He has no strong evidence. In reality, Iraq shows intention to accept unconditional weapon's inspection.
2. The war only benefit the rich people with interest in military and oil industry and a particular country (Israel). US people will bear the cost alone. Which means Americans must pay money and blood for the interest of minority people at a time US economy in a down turn.
3. War can not solve problem. War in Afghan killed a lot of innocent people. The main target Bin Laden is still at large. Al Quada scattered all over the world.
4. War only creat hostility and enemy. It will help Al Quada to recruit more soldiers. US people will face an endless terror threaten. And we have no bunker, secret service for our security and we can't afford for a private flight.
5. Losing support from allies. Most countries are against war on Iraq. We are losing friends and sympathy of the world. The profile of US hurt badly.
6. Perhaps most important is it will help a dictatorship in US. If a policy is not based on legitmacy and common value but personal will and unilateral opinion, it's dictatorship not democracy.
In conclusion, I urge you oppose to authorize President Bush having a war on Iraq. Let U.N. take over the matter of Iraq.
Sincerely
Kat Hak Sung
The honorable
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator
I'm writing you to oppose any authorization the war power to President Bush and his Cabinet at this movement.
I urge you to oppose war on Iraq because of the following reason:
1. There is no sufficient justification to start such a war. President Bush accused Iraq of intending to build up mass dystruction weapons which will used to attack US. He has no strong evidence. In reality, Iraq shows intention to accept unconditional weapon's inspection.
2. The war only benefit the rich people with interest in military and oil industry and a particular country (Israel). US people will bear the cost alone. Which means Americans must pay money and blood for the interest of minority people at a time US economy in a down turn.
3. War can not solve problem. War in Afghan killed a lot of innocent people. The main target Bin Laden is still at large. Al Quada scattered all over the world.
4. War only creat hostility and enemy. It will help Al Quada to recruit more soldiers. US people will face an endless terror threaten. And we have no bunker, secret service for our security and we can't afford for a private flight.
5. Losing support from allies. Most countries are against war on Iraq. We are losing friends and sympathy of the world. The profile of US hurt badly.
6. Perhaps most important is it will help a dictatorship in US. If a policy is not based on legitmacy and common value but personal will and unilateral opinion, it's dictatorship not democracy.
In conclusion, I urge you oppose to authorize President Bush having a war on Iraq. Let U.N. take over the matter of Iraq.
Sincerely
Kat Hak Sung
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Bush and Blair built up this and that evidence, said Iraq is a threat to us. What about former Soviet Union. We all know they had piled-up mass dystruction weapons, and they had evil communist leadership. Did they ever throw a bomb at us? Did we have a war to stop them. How we win at last without a war?
Dispite what government said, I see only one fact: That US and British war planes bombed Iraq for years. Iraqis, though fired their anti-air weapons, are not able to shoot down even one plane. A country even can not defend their own sky, now suddenly becomes an urgent threat.
It's interesting to see a cartoon in which Bush said, "We now have evidence linking this evil man(Saddam)to the devastating forest fires, disruptive El-Nino weather; and the death of Elvis Presley."
Does he and his cabinet look like car salesmen try to push customers to buy a second hand car, "Pay now or it will be too late."
Dispite what government said, I see only one fact: That US and British war planes bombed Iraq for years. Iraqis, though fired their anti-air weapons, are not able to shoot down even one plane. A country even can not defend their own sky, now suddenly becomes an urgent threat.
It's interesting to see a cartoon in which Bush said, "We now have evidence linking this evil man(Saddam)to the devastating forest fires, disruptive El-Nino weather; and the death of Elvis Presley."
Does he and his cabinet look like car salesmen try to push customers to buy a second hand car, "Pay now or it will be too late."
When Bush announced his intention to have a war in Iraq, media said his approve rate was up from 51% to 60%. I doubt the poll result. Government's "Strategy office" is working? See how many resource they activate to push for a war? This news in internet may explain something. (Notice it's not from media) Though US is a said democratic country, the politics actually play in another way.
Quote, "----- Original Message -----
From: "mike burke"
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: Democracy Now Exclusive: Survey Shows
Congress Overwhelmed w/ Anti-War Calls
*** DEMOCRACY NOW EXCLUSIVE ***
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 27, 2002
CONGRESS OVERWHELMED WITH ANTI-WAR CALLS FROM
"THE
SILENCED MAJORITY"
Republican and Democratic Senate offices report
"overwhelming" opposition from their constituents
to war with Iraq. This comes as Congress prepares to
pass a war resolution granting President Bush sweeping
powers to invade Iraq.
The national news radio show Democracy Now!
conducted an informal survey on Thursday of 70 Republican
and Democratic Senate offices.
Of the 26 offices which responded to our
inquires, 22 reported an overwhelming majority - in some cases
up to 99 percent -- of constituents opposed war in
Iraq;
three said the response was split and just one
office Among the findings:
Democrats
* Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl: Aides say they are
receiving 1,000-2,000 calls per week with the
overwhelming number opposed to an attack on Iraq.
* Washington Sen. Patty Murray: Over 5,000
letters and
phone calls were received last week on Iraq,
aides
say. Only about 100 came from constituents who
supported an attack.
* California Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Staff in her
San
Francisco office reported about 200 calls a day
with 99 percent of the callers opposing the war.
* New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman: The D.C. office
has been receiving at least 1,300 calls a day with
about 70 percent opposed to war.
Republicans
* North Carolina Jesse Helms: Staff declined to
give figures but said the "majority is against" when
it comes to calls on Iraq.
* Nebraska Charles Hegal: According to aides,
constituents favor diplomacy over war at a rate
of 5 to 1.
* Virginia John Warner: About 150 constituents a
day are calling into the D.C. offices. "A very small
minority supported military action," said one
aide.
"It's extraordinary that, as Senators work with
the Bush Administration to draft a war resolution,
their constituents are expressing overwhelming
opposition an attack against Iraq," said Amy Goodman, the host
of Democracy Now! "Unfortunately we are hearing very
little about this in the media. These calls
represent the silenced majority, not the silent majority."
Quote, "----- Original Message -----
From: "mike burke"
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: Democracy Now Exclusive: Survey Shows
Congress Overwhelmed w/ Anti-War Calls
*** DEMOCRACY NOW EXCLUSIVE ***
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 27, 2002
CONGRESS OVERWHELMED WITH ANTI-WAR CALLS FROM
"THE
SILENCED MAJORITY"
Republican and Democratic Senate offices report
"overwhelming" opposition from their constituents
to war with Iraq. This comes as Congress prepares to
pass a war resolution granting President Bush sweeping
powers to invade Iraq.
The national news radio show Democracy Now!
conducted an informal survey on Thursday of 70 Republican
and Democratic Senate offices.
Of the 26 offices which responded to our
inquires, 22 reported an overwhelming majority - in some cases
up to 99 percent -- of constituents opposed war in
Iraq;
three said the response was split and just one
office Among the findings:
Democrats
* Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl: Aides say they are
receiving 1,000-2,000 calls per week with the
overwhelming number opposed to an attack on Iraq.
* Washington Sen. Patty Murray: Over 5,000
letters and
phone calls were received last week on Iraq,
aides
say. Only about 100 came from constituents who
supported an attack.
* California Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Staff in her
San
Francisco office reported about 200 calls a day
with 99 percent of the callers opposing the war.
* New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman: The D.C. office
has been receiving at least 1,300 calls a day with
about 70 percent opposed to war.
Republicans
* North Carolina Jesse Helms: Staff declined to
give figures but said the "majority is against" when
it comes to calls on Iraq.
* Nebraska Charles Hegal: According to aides,
constituents favor diplomacy over war at a rate
of 5 to 1.
* Virginia John Warner: About 150 constituents a
day are calling into the D.C. offices. "A very small
minority supported military action," said one
aide.
"It's extraordinary that, as Senators work with
the Bush Administration to draft a war resolution,
their constituents are expressing overwhelming
opposition an attack against Iraq," said Amy Goodman, the host
of Democracy Now! "Unfortunately we are hearing very
little about this in the media. These calls
represent the silenced majority, not the silent majority."
Falcon said, "Oh wait again...theres that using chemical weapons on the Kurdish people in Norhern Iraq thing too, just becuase they didnt agree with how the totally harmless Saddam runs things.
Oh wait one more time....there was the using the chemical weapons on the Shiite Muslims in the south of Iraq for thte same thing. "
When US intends to start war on Iraq, the excuse they used is Iraq is developing mass destruction weapon.(chemical bio-weapon) But in 1980's when they wanted Iraq to fight against Iran, they supported Iraq even they knew Iraq using chemical weapon against Iran.
Quote, "Rumsfeld key player in Iraq policy shiftCables, Natl. Security Council affidavit reveal depth of U.S. assistance to Saddam despite chemical arsenal By Robert Windrem NBC NEWS
Aug. 18 - State Department cables and court records reveal a wealth of information on how U.S. foreign policy shifted in the 1980s to help Iraq. Virtually all of the information is in the words of key participants, including Donald Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense."
Of course he can say whatever he wants to reach his goal, this time the purpose is having a war in Iraq. But should he be sent to military tribunal as an enemy because according to Bush's difinition, "those who use chemical weapon is terrorist. And those who aid terrorist is our enemy". Did he help a terrorist when they used chemical weapon some ten years ago?
Oh wait one more time....there was the using the chemical weapons on the Shiite Muslims in the south of Iraq for thte same thing. "
When US intends to start war on Iraq, the excuse they used is Iraq is developing mass destruction weapon.(chemical bio-weapon) But in 1980's when they wanted Iraq to fight against Iran, they supported Iraq even they knew Iraq using chemical weapon against Iran.
Quote, "Rumsfeld key player in Iraq policy shiftCables, Natl. Security Council affidavit reveal depth of U.S. assistance to Saddam despite chemical arsenal By Robert Windrem NBC NEWS
Aug. 18 - State Department cables and court records reveal a wealth of information on how U.S. foreign policy shifted in the 1980s to help Iraq. Virtually all of the information is in the words of key participants, including Donald Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense."
Of course he can say whatever he wants to reach his goal, this time the purpose is having a war in Iraq. But should he be sent to military tribunal as an enemy because according to Bush's difinition, "those who use chemical weapon is terrorist. And those who aid terrorist is our enemy". Did he help a terrorist when they used chemical weapon some ten years ago?
Quote, "What are you? Hussein's Public Relations Officer? What do you know about the situation that you have not heard from the media? Are you present at the White House security briefings? I doubt you play golf with the Director of CIA either. What makes you think the US is going to endanger vital intelligence assets by disclosing their evidence to the public? Anything the media or the public think or say is purely speculation. Unless you have a Masters Degree in Political Science and several key sources inside the US Defence Department what you or anyone else has to say doesn't mean sh*t. Accept the fact that in the big bad world, Governments will always hold the power. What the people have to say about it is irrelevant. This is just the way the world has developed. Any person of Faith should have no problem dealing with this concept, it must be His/Her will right? Trust in God and all that."
What am I? I use my real name to post. You have that name. What are you, Anonym? Work like a mole? Try to find Saddam's public relationship officers in US? Then I give you a clue, there are too many here. On 10/26, hundred of thousands of people took an anti Iraq war demonstration all over the country. They have their own opinion. They refuse to be guided as you wished. And they don't want Bush abusing power they gave to him. How this country being turned into totalitarian?
FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 112 W. 27th Street New York, NY 10001
MEDIA ADVISORY:
Networks Accept Government "Guidance"
October 12, 2001
On October 10, television network executives from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN held a conference call with national security adviser Condoleeza Rice, and apparently acceded to her "suggestion" that any future taped statements from Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda group be "abridged," and any potentially "inflammatory" language removed before broadcast.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/network-pressure.html
What am I? I use my real name to post. You have that name. What are you, Anonym? Work like a mole? Try to find Saddam's public relationship officers in US? Then I give you a clue, there are too many here. On 10/26, hundred of thousands of people took an anti Iraq war demonstration all over the country. They have their own opinion. They refuse to be guided as you wished. And they don't want Bush abusing power they gave to him. How this country being turned into totalitarian?
FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 112 W. 27th Street New York, NY 10001
MEDIA ADVISORY:
Networks Accept Government "Guidance"
October 12, 2001
On October 10, television network executives from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN held a conference call with national security adviser Condoleeza Rice, and apparently acceded to her "suggestion" that any future taped statements from Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda group be "abridged," and any potentially "inflammatory" language removed before broadcast.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/network-pressure.html
In a report of ACLU published on 11/13, topic "Caught in the backlash", there is such a story.
Charlotte Wu, a 20 years old student of UC Berkley, was visited by 3 policmen of camps about one month after 911 last year. It's about 30 minites after she finished a phone call. In phone call, she instructed her friends how to play an internet game. It's a spy game. Player must put bomb at the foot of wall to break it. Policemen questioned her why she talked about spy and bomb on the phone. At last, she had to go to her friend's place with police to clarify it. Lucky enough, her friend was still playing that spy and bomb game.
Charlotte Wu never talked to policemen for all her 19 years experience. (She was 19 then) She was very scare and wonder how could police know what she said in phone call. Policemen didn't explain.
She may never know her phone is under surveillance if she hadn't talked about spy and bomb.
Charlotte Wu, a 20 years old student of UC Berkley, was visited by 3 policmen of camps about one month after 911 last year. It's about 30 minites after she finished a phone call. In phone call, she instructed her friends how to play an internet game. It's a spy game. Player must put bomb at the foot of wall to break it. Policemen questioned her why she talked about spy and bomb on the phone. At last, she had to go to her friend's place with police to clarify it. Lucky enough, her friend was still playing that spy and bomb game.
Charlotte Wu never talked to policemen for all her 19 years experience. (She was 19 then) She was very scare and wonder how could police know what she said in phone call. Policemen didn't explain.
She may never know her phone is under surveillance if she hadn't talked about spy and bomb.
Once I was surprised at the news that Bush worked in UN's resolution of weapon's inspection. How could he became so rational? I thought. He was eager to have a war.
Now, I know why. It is not ready. If Saudi doesn't allow US to use the base on Sadi and let planes to attack through Saudi's sky, it's hard to invade Iraq by the narrow entrance of Kuwati.
It's not a coincidence that now they talk about Saudi "support terrorism". More pressure on Saude can be predicted until Saude "willingly" open its sky and join "allies". And I can predict also that then, "weapon inspection" will fail and some "evidence" will appear for Bush to start the war.
Now, I know why. It is not ready. If Saudi doesn't allow US to use the base on Sadi and let planes to attack through Saudi's sky, it's hard to invade Iraq by the narrow entrance of Kuwati.
It's not a coincidence that now they talk about Saudi "support terrorism". More pressure on Saude can be predicted until Saude "willingly" open its sky and join "allies". And I can predict also that then, "weapon inspection" will fail and some "evidence" will appear for Bush to start the war.
Prediction come to true.
Quote,"WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia has agreed to allow U.S. fighter jets to use Saudi airspace if the U.S. goes to war with Iraq, senior Defense Department officials have told Fox News Thursday.
A compromise has also been reached between the Pentagon and the Saudi regime that would allow for the use of the Prince Sultan Airbase, located in Al Kharj, 55 miles south of Riyadh, as the command center to the air component of an attack. "
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72276,00.html
Quote,"WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia has agreed to allow U.S. fighter jets to use Saudi airspace if the U.S. goes to war with Iraq, senior Defense Department officials have told Fox News Thursday.
A compromise has also been reached between the Pentagon and the Saudi regime that would allow for the use of the Prince Sultan Airbase, located in Al Kharj, 55 miles south of Riyadh, as the command center to the air component of an attack. "
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72276,00.html
All you guys praying for war
Don't you have any common sense! You're blinded by hatred against Saddam Hussein and by the attack on 9/11. And I can fully understand that. But you mustn't forget that Iraq isn't just Saddam. It's a country full of people suffering under the reign of Saddam. They are being suppressed, stolen from, and deluded by there own government. These people are as much victims of Saddam´s reign of terror as anybody else. It´s those people that suffer from a war not Saddam! Saddam will be in one of his bomb shelters while his people are in the cities waiting for the bombs to fall.
Do you really think Saddam is going to war again? That he is going to use biological and chemical weapons or even nuclear weapons? Hell no! He loves reigning over a country to much. He knows the western world is going to bomb Iraq back to the Stone Age when he does that. He would be left with nothing. Hell no! He loves living the rich live of a king to much! He is evil, not stupid.
Don't you have any common sense! You're blinded by hatred against Saddam Hussein and by the attack on 9/11. And I can fully understand that. But you mustn't forget that Iraq isn't just Saddam. It's a country full of people suffering under the reign of Saddam. They are being suppressed, stolen from, and deluded by there own government. These people are as much victims of Saddam´s reign of terror as anybody else. It´s those people that suffer from a war not Saddam! Saddam will be in one of his bomb shelters while his people are in the cities waiting for the bombs to fall.
Do you really think Saddam is going to war again? That he is going to use biological and chemical weapons or even nuclear weapons? Hell no! He loves reigning over a country to much. He knows the western world is going to bomb Iraq back to the Stone Age when he does that. He would be left with nothing. Hell no! He loves living the rich live of a king to much! He is evil, not stupid.
On 10/26 there were many anti-war protest all over the country. In Washington and San Francisco, they were said to be the biggest anti-war protests after VietNam war. Yet in next day's newspaper,(I live in San Jose, California. Local newspaper is S.J. Mercury) I saw no report of Washington's protest. And local one(in San Francisco) was put in B column. Not only I felt the censorship, I later found a reader's letter:
Quote, "Anti-war protest deserved front page.
....The game (baseball) earned a highly visible spot on your front and back pages in the Sunday paper, but you buried the peace march in only a few column inches at the bottom of Page 1B. You even chose to run a photo of one of the most frivolous protest banners, as if the march were a joke....."
And there was another news about Portland protest in August. If I hadn't read it from internet, I wouldn't know it had happened. It seems no media talked about it though it was a big one.
Re: "Police have opened fire on Bush protestors with rubberbullets, pepper spray and gas. The crowds of people aremoving around and regrouping.
The crowd was standing at the barricades and the police had called a state of
emergency. Pepper spray was used on group early on. Batons were used on some
people. Group included babies in strollers and older people, also people in
wheelchairs. Those that could get out of the way were cut off surronded by police.
There are snipers on the roofs."
Imagine if it happened in Moscow or Beijing. Is US becoming a totalitarian step by step?
Quote, "Anti-war protest deserved front page.
....The game (baseball) earned a highly visible spot on your front and back pages in the Sunday paper, but you buried the peace march in only a few column inches at the bottom of Page 1B. You even chose to run a photo of one of the most frivolous protest banners, as if the march were a joke....."
And there was another news about Portland protest in August. If I hadn't read it from internet, I wouldn't know it had happened. It seems no media talked about it though it was a big one.
Re: "Police have opened fire on Bush protestors with rubberbullets, pepper spray and gas. The crowds of people aremoving around and regrouping.
The crowd was standing at the barricades and the police had called a state of
emergency. Pepper spray was used on group early on. Batons were used on some
people. Group included babies in strollers and older people, also people in
wheelchairs. Those that could get out of the way were cut off surronded by police.
There are snipers on the roofs."
Imagine if it happened in Moscow or Beijing. Is US becoming a totalitarian step by step?
bah brainwashed americans, all they see is onesided CNN commentaries.
the real reason they want to remove him, is because hes a threat to the flow of oil. - oh and that bush jr. want to complete his fathers work...
this "war against terrorism" has made the americans throw away their heads and act on passion instead of intelligense...
theres no discussion on weither its a good idea.
bush pulled the PR stunt of the decade when he got the thing with osama twisted into a thing with hussein. And they didnt even finish the job with osama.. hes still running around out there...
the real reason they want to remove him, is because hes a threat to the flow of oil. - oh and that bush jr. want to complete his fathers work...
this "war against terrorism" has made the americans throw away their heads and act on passion instead of intelligense...
theres no discussion on weither its a good idea.
bush pulled the PR stunt of the decade when he got the thing with osama twisted into a thing with hussein. And they didnt even finish the job with osama.. hes still running around out there...
Americans are brain washed, anything they read or they can see on the television becomes their lives, Me on the other hand, im canadian, I hate everyone equally :D
What's the use of UN weapon inspector for? If they found evidence, US will start a war. Now they found nothing, US is still wanting a war. It only proves when a wolf wants to eat a lamb, it will creat all excuses to do it, even it has none such excuse.
UN inspection team said they were satisfied with Iraqis's cooperation and gave a grade of B to them just a few days ago, now they post suspicious questions on Iraq to meet Bush's aggressive demand to start a war. What a manipulation of politics.
Then why did Bush agreed with a UN weapon inspection? Because Rumsfeld needs winter time for war? Or Bush wants to peep in Saddam's palace so they can kill him in first strike? Saddam maybe right saying that the inspectors are doing intelligence job.
Now it's time for war so they will have it even with no evidence. Because they will have all evidence they wanted to be "discovered" in defeated Iraq. The losers can never defend themselves.
UN inspection team said they were satisfied with Iraqis's cooperation and gave a grade of B to them just a few days ago, now they post suspicious questions on Iraq to meet Bush's aggressive demand to start a war. What a manipulation of politics.
Then why did Bush agreed with a UN weapon inspection? Because Rumsfeld needs winter time for war? Or Bush wants to peep in Saddam's palace so they can kill him in first strike? Saddam maybe right saying that the inspectors are doing intelligence job.
Now it's time for war so they will have it even with no evidence. Because they will have all evidence they wanted to be "discovered" in defeated Iraq. The losers can never defend themselves.
on a similar note, I dont want this to get out of hand and people starting mini wars on the forums
