Petition

Want to chit chat about anything, do it here ... posting here won't increase your post count (or shouldn't!). Please do not post any "phpBB" specific topics here unless they do not fit into the category above. Do not post bug reports, feature or support requests!
Forum rules
Please do not post any "phpBB" specific topics here unless they do not fit into the category above.

Do not post bug reports, feature or support requests! No really... Do not post bug reports, feature or support requests! Doing so will make Bertie a very sad bear indeed. :(
Post Reply
Bertg
Registered User
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 1:02 pm
Location: Brugge, Belgium
Contact:

Petition

Post by Bertg »

Ok, so i started a petition this week,
Basicaly it calls anny UN-civilian to sign it in order to give a signal to their government to NOT send troops to Iraq, like the US is requesting now...

I'll give you the link

http://bertg.nucleus.be/nowar/

Thx,

-Bert-
Portfolio | Proud to be phpBB user
User avatar
psoTFX
Registered User
Posts: 1984
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Petition

Post by psoTFX »

And the U.K. ... you're free to post your petition but I for one won't be signing it.
User avatar
benchayeel
Registered User
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 6:25 pm

Re: Petition

Post by benchayeel »

Bertg wrote:Ok, so i started a petition this week,
Basicaly it calls anny UN-civilian to sign it in order to give a signal to their government to NOT send troops to Iraq, like the US is requesting now...

I'll give you the link

http://bertg.nucleus.be/nowar/

Thx,

-Bert-
So basicaly you are ok with a dictator who is responisible for the deaths of millions in hirible ways running a country and developing weapons that would be used against the world. Humm does not make sense to me.

As to the whole oil thing, I have a close friend who works for the oil managment division of the government. Trust me the US has plenty of oil, whithout the middle east
User avatar
psoTFX
Registered User
Posts: 1984
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Petition

Post by psoTFX »

As I've said before ... anyone claiming "oil" was behind this have absolutely no clue how the economy works, let alone basic chemical/petroleum engineering. IOW they are incapable of indepedent thought.
Bertg
Registered User
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 1:02 pm
Location: Brugge, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Petition

Post by Bertg »

benchayeel wrote: As to the whole oil thing, I have a close friend who works for the oil managment division of the government. Trust me the US has plenty of oil, whithout the middle east
You are quite wrong.
The us is indeed a verry large oil producing country, the larges in fact, but it still needs oil inport to ensure enough oil.

Mor points that support the theory of war for oil are these.
1. One of the first places that where secured are the oil fields in Western Iraq, and the deparmetn of oil in Baghdad.
2. The peace process in Palestina and Israel. Before the US has never taken so mutsh intrest in that conflict. But when there is stability in that region it's only a smaal effort to run a pipeline trought there and shortening the transport of oil.

For the economie...
1. If the US where serious about "we want to do good for iraq", theye would have given the rebuild contracts to local folks, not multinational american coöperations.
2. War always makes a economy grow

And about the mass destruction thingys...
1. Where are they? They could have been used in 45 minute, ans theye had pictures of the bases, so they must already have found 1 trace no?
2. Did u know that my country (belgium) can deploi (US)Nuclear missiles in les than 15minutes...
3. Pakistan and India are alway existing a thin line of nuclear war...
4. US not doing annything about 2 & 3, and totaly nothing agains Korea that is claiming to have mass destruction weppons, and willing to use them...

-bert-
2.
Portfolio | Proud to be phpBB user
User avatar
psoTFX
Registered User
Posts: 1984
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Petition

Post by psoTFX »

a) The U.S. is not the worlds largest producer of crude ... Saudi is.

b) The oil fields were secured for an obvious reason based on actual, real historical events (not nonsense hearsay) ... do I need to take you back to early 1991? Do some research first ...

c) Do you have any idea of what is involved in the construction of a pipeline?

d) There are very few local companies capable of overseeing the redevelopment of a nation ... indeed there are very few international companies. Bechtel is the worlds leading construction company with proven capabilities in getting the job done (and I'm not bitter at them not employing me :D)

e) Local contractors are being used where appropriate ... indeed AFAIK the local oil contractors were hastily reformed by the American and British military authorities to repair the damage to seperation and pumping plant.

f) If you were expecting us to find fueled missiles you simply demonstrate nievity or a young age ... or both. Read what the inspectors have constantly and consistently said for the past 12 years. I add that we had the right to reinitiate war with Iraq years ago ... the cease fire agreement has never been turned into a peace agreement AFAIK. Thus the moment they breached the terms of that ceasefire we had the right under international law to go back in. No one had the balls at the time to do so.

g) There are no U.S. nuclear missiles on Belgium soil ... NATO's nuclear component consists of U.S. freefall B61 bombs in seven or so European nations (I believe this has actually fallen in recent times with the U.S. centralising storage in fewer locations) and the UK's Trident system. All Pershing and TLAMs were removed some years ago. France removed it's land based nuclear component in 1996 and the rest of its weapons remain (according to them) within its territory and are not made available to NATO. EDIT: Looking at the various sources listing the purported number of weapons in Europe (1995 figures)... Belgium is thought to house a massive ... 10 B61's ... big deal. At the peak it's thought they housed, wait for it, 25 ... ;) For scale, one of our Vanguard class submarines can theoretically carry 192 warheads which I imagine probably have a similar maximum yield in straight thermonuclear configuration (rather than enhanced radiation).

g) Have you ever heard of the NPT? I assume not, read it or read about it

h) India and Pakistan are a continuing worry ... but they have relatively stable governments which do not oppress their people, they are deploying methods to monitor each other (the one missing thing that is essential when you start playing with big boy weapons ... there is a reason Russia, America and Britain spend a fair bit of money on tracking systems). This compares to Iraq where a closed, insular regime terrorised large parts of its population (do you deny that after the discovery of mass graves, torture chambers, etc.?), threatened and indeed invaded its neighbours more than once, used WMD's on its own population and in recent times ... hardly comparable ...

May I suggest you do some research for yourself before believing the skewed media on the continent? May I also suggest you look back through history and see which nations came to your rescue and which didn't?
Roberdin
Registered User
Posts: 1546
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 8:44 pm
Location: London, United Kingdom

Re: Petition

Post by Roberdin »

I have recently heard that America experts other nations to send troops of thier own in under American control! Perhaps the oil fumes have finally damaged the Bush partys' brains, but why on Earth would nations, many of them filled to burst with protesters to this war, want to send in troops under control of the same people who keep managing to hit our (British) troops instead of the enemy!?
Rob
User avatar
psoTFX
Registered User
Posts: 1984
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Petition

Post by psoTFX »

Oh for goodness sake ... how do you think NATO operates? The SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander EURope) is American. The SACLANT (Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic) is American. What the U.S and UK are trying to do is say "Look, let's heal some wounds ... ". Historically the U.S. have not been good at peacekeeping (which is why it's somewhat surprising the rumoured British overall command was never put in place). An international force would likely lead to a more stable Iraq.

Do you think the U.S. and UK need other nations because we can't supply manpower? Hardly. Unfortunately what amounts to basically three European nations (most of the others actually supporting the U.S./UK action ... though everyone manages to forget this ...) are trying to put the mockers on things again. Which is great considering the French government (with little support from the French population from what I've read) are trying to scupper the UK lead proposal to lift sanctions on Libya because they believe they got a poor deal (ah diddums).
soxie
Registered User
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 1:08 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Petition

Post by soxie »

psoTFX wrote:And the U.K. ... you're free to post your petition but I for one won't be signing it.
Indeed.

I agree with Paul, please do some research before listening to the media 8)
brian.
http://itsbrian.blogspot.com/" target="_blank
Bertg
Registered User
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 1:02 pm
Location: Brugge, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Petition

Post by Bertg »

i did.
Portfolio | Proud to be phpBB user
Post Reply