Forums General Discussion "Join the Global Protest against War"

Before I start, I just want to say that this thread is probably going to prove unpopular - especially with the poster of the "stop the war" piece on the front page (tjerk I guess) ...

[fume]
the mIRC website isnt a news outlet, its not a propoganda machine (or, atleast, it shouldnt be) - and having the weakest possibly link to IRC by saying "IRC has always been about communication, about dialogue." in an attempt to justify the propoganda on the frontpage is - in my honest opinion - absolutely absurd...

I am against a war on iraq, but I am even more against what can only be described as an abuse of the large mIRC userbase by the article poster expressing their own views on a subject which is utterly unrelated to IRC.

I must say, I am very dissapointed.

IRC is about communication, sure, but its about everyone having their own personal views. IMO such a prominent client as mIRC should not - under any circumstances - be sending a political message out to irc users. We look at the mIRC website to check for updates for our client! not to be told about news of anti war protests.
If we want to have news about the marches, there are thousands of ways that interested parties could find out about them, let alone all of the real news outlets which will be covering them, or the people who stop us in the streets to tell us about them
[/fume]

*dissapointed*

You do make a good point on the fact that this subject does not relate to mIRC and I myself am against a war that basically is just one big "Prick" contest...HOWEVER, and I myself may contradict any previous postings that I may have posted, but IRC is a way to communicate with one another and the views that other people may have on the subject at hand.

IRC isn't just a bunch of people sitting in a chatroom saying "LOL" all the time, Its about people sharing views with one another or meeting new people, so you see this does correlate with IRC one way or another. People on IRC may have family that they do not want to see go overseas. I see that subject everyday while online and everyone that I talk to are against it.

Now correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the mIRC homepage have a fund raiser for the American Red Cross? So you see you can come here and find out about updates to your client and share views and thoughts and yes I dare say protest a potential war. Just think about it...Sitting in a chatroom saying "LOL" every three seconds isn't all you see, People do protest the war within the chatroom...so with that being said, Case closed!

On top of what The Game said, would you care to explain how it is in any way an abuse of power for someone to post their own views on their own website? I'm afraid I just don't see the logic.

Raising money by donating registration of mIRC is one thing... a purely political message is another...
If khaled wants to donate all proceeds from feburary's mIRC registering to MUAWI (made up anti war international) - fine, put that on the front page - but having a purely political message is just an abuse of the popularity of the irc client and those who want to find out about mirc!

[edit]
Besides - the fund raising efforts were directly linked to mIRC, so it was entirely appropriate to display information regarding them
[/edit]



The mIRC website is not a chatroom - it is much closer to compare it to the mirc-announce mailing list. One (or two) people control the content on it for thousands (millions) of others to see.
If khaled/tjerk wanna protest about the war, I completely support them in their views - but the mIRC website is not the place for it

I agree with The Game and Collective. OK, so this forum isn't a chatroom - but it is a community, and people have a right to express their views. Especially the site owner :tongue:

Certainly.

The main website www.mirc.com is not a personal website. It is a website centered around one thing (the clue as to what that thing is is in the URL)
Khaled has his own personal portion of the site - http://www.mirc.com/khaled/ - Tjerk has his own too http://www.mirc.co.uk/krejt.html

The main page, and (afaik) all others except the two exceptions mentioned above are aimed at the community - providing information, links, help, forums, etc about IRC - not about iraq or war or anything else.
If the poster wanted to post the "article" (for want of a better description for the segment I believe should not have been posted), then they should have done that on their personal website - not abusing the popularity of the mIRC website to get more people to notice it.

This forum isnt the issue either
The main page is - and that isnt a community. The information provided on the main site is supposed to be FOR the community, and since the political message has got nothing to do with the community, it is out of place.

Yes, people have a right to express their views, however, me using my invitation to talk at a conference on global warming to express my views on why peas are tasty is totally inappropriate (although well within my rights) and is likely to make people pissed off at me and not ask me back to talk at the conference - because its just not "acceptable" to discuss other subjects - regardless of how strongly I think I think that peas are tasty

...says you. The owner of a website can do whatever they like with their webservers (law permitting). It is not for you to allocate bits of the mIRC webservers for use in different ways, that is left to Khaled's discretion.


Whoever posted it truely believes that this protest will help save the lives of many innocent people in Iraq, so in their mind it will be a "moral duty" to get as many people to notice the protest as possible, and therefore hopefully get more people to go (which is, after all, the point of a mass protest).

Does it really matter? Nope. I myself along with probably thousands may millions may agree that a war isnt really necessary, however you started this post which is gonna futher into an arguement on political issues. And if ICQ or Kazaa or any other site decide to support the protest more power to them...But like i said this issue does correlate to thousands of chatters and their views. But who are you to say this isnt the proper place to display such a subject....If Khaled and Tjerk want to post their views and get potential support from others on a potential war that could affect everyone one way or another then more power to them.

But if they decided to post a message saying: "To the families and friends of the crew of the shuttle of columbia, our hearts and prayers are with you" Would that be wrong if you think it is then I say you are in the wrong. It is simply a message stating where people stand and you may have your own views and opinions and you are entitled to that. Also, you should expect a reaction because like I said before you are just furthering an argument that doesn't need to go on and on.

My opinion, your opinion, and someone else's opinion may all be different or may be the same. You had a point that this doesn't relate to mIRC and where your views stand are respected but will not be agreed with. A potential war does in fact impact everyone in the world whether you are on an island in B.F.E or in Iraq, China, and yes even Canada. So you see the homepage for mIRC can announce different things from servers to the latest version, Protests or anything that pertains to the latest news.

I do not know if you have seen them but there are "News bots" in chatrooms that announce the latest turn of events. That really isn't necessary but people do want to know whats going on in the world...People do have lives you know. Back to the subject at hand, If there was a post stating that mIRC had to be pulled because of politics and Khaled and Tjerk wanted to protest that, would that also be wrong? So with that all being said AGAIN, I say let's not further this anymore. If you want to whine, bitch, piss and moan that the mIRC affiliates decide to voice their opinion and ask for support from others to not have a potential war is just isn't necessary. Who are you to say it shouldn't be expressed?

To Khaled and Tjerk:
I, along with probably hundreds, if not thousands support your views...Keep up the good work!

geez the first person that comes to my site and tells me i cant post something i ask em to start forking over money to pay for the content of the site too ....... whiners!

says the creater of this website.
Welcome to the mIRC Homepage!
The mIRC homepage provides the latest news on mIRC, general IRC information, and links to many other IRC-related websites and resources.



I have never said that khaled was not entitled to post it, or that it was illegal or that he CANT do it - I have said that it is highly inappropriate and an abuse of the viewing figures that the website attracts due to its aim at the community.



I acknowledge that it cannot be viewed as a comparison, but just to show you that what you said is not necesarily "a good thing"(tm) , Al queda operatives believe that it is their "moral duty" to commit acts of terrorism against the western world.

Using the front page of a community orientated website to advertise something which has nothing to do with irc is an abuse of the popularity of irc and mIRC

well at that point u could protest by deleting ur forum account here and try to persuad others to follow ........ goodluck in that quest as in my opinion i could care less bout a protest or a war for that matter ....... i for one just breeze right thru the main page and come straight here ..... couldnt tell u 3 things on that page ...... i veiw main pages to websites as covers to a book ....... ever see them colorful romance novels with the pretty pics on em .... and ya open the book up and not one pic in it??? ....... go off and protest the use of that there too ..... like what does a red haired floppy shoe wearing guy gotta do with burgers???? mcdonalds dont care ...... man get over it ...... ur gonna read content u dont agree with everywhere ..... u gonna start a moral issue about every little thing?

Just because it says what it does do doesn't mean it can't do anything else.



That's like saying putting billboards on busy roads is an abuse of the popularity of the road. The billboard and the advert on the homepage are both there for roughly the same purpose: to attract people to do what the advertiser wants, in this case, to go on a march supporting peace with Iraq.

It is not an abuse of anything... it is Khaleds website and he is completely entitled to do as he pleases with it. All the same links are still the same..the article was hardlt instrusive.. so I don't see how it is inappropriate. I think it's very commendable of them to try and aid others by using this site to put forward a cause.

Abusing the popularity of the client would be putting something within mIRC itself... although still perfectly within Khaled's rights.

I see it as utililizing the popularity of the client to try and gain support for a cause that is trying to save peoples lives.. similar to the red cross thing..

And your analogy STINKS. This is THEIR website..they were not invited by anyone to speak or post on it. They are the host..therefore they make the decisions.

It doesn't say 'and nothing else'. If it said that the content was exclusively related to mIRC & IRC, then you might have a point.



This is not the first time that mirc.com (and I'd imagine, its mirrors) have been used for non-IRC related purposes. Someone has already mentioned the Red Cross appeal. I'm fairly certain that over its lifetime, the website has displayed information on a variety of non-IRC related topics. In this sense, the trend has been around for a while and is not foriegn to the website viewers. In fact, one could argue that it helps make up part of mirc.com. It's nice to know that I'm supporting an organisation that cares about other people. I'm sure that's why billions of dollars every year are pumped in to charities by businesses.

In the end, the viewers will decide.

Something tells me that we won't see any drop in viewing numbers

I'd like to point out that some/most people pay Khaled $20.00 for their use of MIRC. Thereby helping to financially support this website. (And even Khaled to a degree.) So, according to your reasoning, they can 'whine' all they want. Why you use words like 'whiners' is your problem. Khaled used the main page for a POLITICAL statement. He coached his words, but it is still a POLITICAL and personal statement about Iraq. If he is against all war, then why doesn't he show his feelings about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait which started all this? Or the civil war in the Ivory Coast? Or China's occupation of Tibet? Or the destruction of the Twin Towers? You can talk all you want about this is Khalid's site, and personal statements, etc. But what is the name of this site? What is its stated purpose? By the way, what happened to all the Kuwait prisoners of war taken by Iraq 12 years ago? Kuwait wants them back. And the poison gas used on the Kurds? Is that in the main page?

Why don't you ask Khaled that? He does have an email address...noone here knows his opinions, so you can't expect D3m0n to answer questions on them.


They pay for the use of mIRC, they do not pay for the hosting of the website directly, nor for the right to use the website, so it is out of the equasion. Following your (flawed) logic: I bought WIndows XP therefore I should be able to decide what MicroSoft put on their website.


The website's stated purpose is not a contract with anyone. He has not signed a piece of paper agreeing not to express himself. Regardless, your opinion of his choices are neither here nor there, just don't visit the website if you don't like what's on it.

If you do not understand that the owner of a website has the right to decide what is on it then you are obviously not very intelligent.

Your post has nothing to do with mIRC at all except how you blame Khaled for an opinion....That by the way does the message on the front page speciffically state posted by Khaled or Tjerk? Nah didnt think so...They may agree with the protest but does that mean that that message came directly from them? Nah didnt think so either. They just simply put that up in (ok say it with me now S-U-P-P-O-R-T of protesting a pointless skirmish...) I apologize if my earlier post may have pointed fingers at them directly...

The simple fact is that nobody...and I mean nobody, has the authority to tell the webmaster otherwise! If you simply want to keep dragging this on so be it. If you don't agree with it who cares go ahead and start a club or something with a stupid little handshake about posting a political statement on webpages...GET OVER IT!

Now, back to the subject at hand AGAIN! The simple statement is clear and yes even optional (imagine that) that if you want to support thousands of others in a campaign against a war you may go that website or whatnot and simply state your opinion you can. If you don't want to then thats ok. But simply pointing fingers at Khaled and Tjerk for what was that again? Oh yeah for posting a political view from an organization not affiliated with mIRC at all. But somehow I don't see an unwritten rule stated in any HTML handbook on making webpages....(somebody if i overlooked that rule please do let me know)

So unless you got something to say that even closely resembles intelligence. Say It. If not shut up and let someone else who is intelligent speak!

*Steps down off his soap box, reaches into his pocket to pull out some lighter fluid and a zippo...proceeds to douse the soap box with lighter fluid, lights the zippo and drops it on the center of the box! Walks away as the soap box burns*

/me quickly pours water on burning soap box and jumps on it



YOU were the one who made it into an issue in the forum. Nobody else. You could have simply ignored the main page. I fail to see how posting a link to a non-irc site that is protesting against what is obviously going to be a catastrophic event is harming you in any way. It's not as if anyone's personal views are stated, for God's sake. All it does is point people to a site where they can protest if they wish to do so. Well done Khaled and Tjerk, for having some insight.

Thanks Tjerk and Khaled. I'm with you against the possible military crime.

Indeed, Necroman. As are thousands and thousands of other people, I imagine. Has it occurred to anyone that if GeeDubya and Tony B.liar go to war without a UN mandate, they could be tried for war crimes?

The Question is...Are they dumb enough? Wait never mind LMAO

I can see that the influence of mIRC website has been used to get a message across about the pending war with Iraq and whilst I disagree with the motion I have to support Khaled's right to have the message and the link there. A man's website is his own 'turf' and I think the content put there is entirely upto the webmaster/owner.

I have a website that is quite influencial as well and I also use that influence to get messages across to people. I cop alot of stick for it at times and I accept that but as per mIRC.co.uk, my website is mine and I will say whatever I like there.

As for the war, no reasonable thinking person wants to see bloodshed, be it known though that there is alot at stake if Saddam Hussein is not removed from office. I don't see why one country should be able to build and stockpile dangerous weapons whislt the rest of the world complies with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The only alternative to this conflict that I can see is Saddam reclaiming Kuwait and then other Arab states.

They won't get tried for war crimes. Waging war is never a crime unless it is waged outside the provisions of the Geneva Convention (ie: purposefully killing civilians, using sawtoothed bayonets, torturing POW's, etc.)

The liberation of Bosnia was achieved without a UN mandate and no-one got tried for that, this proves my point.

get ur head out of the idealisms u think are correct ... ive visited thousands of sites and seen advertisements of all kindsa things that dont relate to the actual website ....... it happens live with it and get over it! as for khaleds veiws on all that other crap ...... personally i dont care anymore bout that than his veiws about a peace march ...... gathering a large group odf ppl together too me seems like an easy target and hell again thats not even a point of this issue u all seem to have ...... i mean this forum alone has things in it that dont pertain directly to mirc ...... [censored] khaled even helps advertise other irc clients on his site ....... i mean really that could be construed as abuse if ur really looking to point smoking guns around ..... point is if u dont like khaleds policies his site or his forums feel free to delete urself outta here ....... in the end of it all ...... its his site and his stuff to do whatever he wants to
gm dont ask my opinion before changing body styles on a car and khaled shouldnt have to get ur ok about his site content!

Thanks for starting this discussion, randomuser. I'll try to sketch some thoughts, without even trying to repeat or improve on contributions others already made. I think there is no need to find a winner here, correct?

I'm sorry to see you're dissapointed we raised this issue on our homepage. Personally I'm glad to have the opportunity to whisper my humble opinion -my feelings- into the world, at a place where some will hear it, and at a moment in time where the whispering of all people on this globe could join to make some wind, maybe even a difference...

Sometimes there are things more important then a new release, a list of servers, trouble on DALnet or whatever. In the past Khaled has shown to share this thought on his personal homepage, by his fundraising effords, maybe by making mIRC at all! Likewise working on mIRC for me has everything todo with that hope that mIRC, in some way, helps to make the world a smaller, better place...

I hope you see how this issue, this discussion about going to war or not, and why, and when, at least having this discussion, to me, to Khaled, does(!) relate to mIRC? ..touches the very existance of mIRC ...and deserves its place on our homepage?

Thanks to all of you for keeping this a mature exchange of opinions,
very best wishes,

I don't see why one country should be able to build and stockpile dangerous weapons whislt the rest of the world complies with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Iraq is a sovereign, independent state. The international inspections have found NO tracks of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The rest of the world does NOT comply with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (North Korea officially doesn't, because the treaty has never been mandatory). The United Nations have NOT sanctioned an agression against Iraq and mass murder of Iraqi people, purposeful or accidental.

Those were facts.

They won't get tried for war crimes. Waging war is never a crime... ...The liberation of Bosnia was achieved without a UN mandate and no-one got tried for that, this proves my point.

It is actually called "military agression against Yugoslavia", and it proves nothing. Nobody will get tried because no one can capture GWB and his Puddle and make them answer for their crimes. A similar situation occured with Hitler and his "pre-emptive liberation of Europe". History will be the judge.

I agree whole heartedly with that. If this website can be used as a platform to raise awareness of an issue which is going to have devastating consequences for everyone, and get people to at least think about it - and better still - do something about it by giving them an avenue to protest, then why not? It isn't airing political views in particular, in my opinion. If it was, then yes... that would be 'abuse'.

ya know just a noteworthy topic to mention is that iraqi ppl arnt innoncent ..... as a nation they celebrated when (/11 took place ....... now here everyones lining up saying they are "innocent" or "we have no right" ...... im not arguing the fact of krejt's right to have his own view .... but u ppl posting some of this stuff should have a lil history lesson ...... hell just go back to 2 or 3 yrs ago and read up before posting things .... might be nice to "save the whales" of the world but what if the whale was always eating ur tuna????? ..... it is sad to think most of these ppl wanting to protect iraq are the same ppl crying on 9/11 ....... hypocrites the lot of ya

It's not about 'protecting Iraq' as you put it - it's about avoiding yet more unnecessary bloodshed and loss of civilian life. It was the extremists who 'celebrated' Sept 11 by dancing in the streets, not any particular nation as a whole. The Iraqi's weren't responsible for the tragedy anyway - it was Bin Laden and Al Queda - a terrorist network, not a nation or a country. If we were talking about protecting terrorists, then yes - that would be hypocritical.

Nobody will get tried because no one can capture GWB

No need. He wan't the US president at the time, Clinton was. Secondly, I wouldn't call what Hitler attempted 'liberation', it was more like a hostile corporate takeover on a massivly destructive and imhumane scale, which is the worst aspect of any war. I challenge anyone to describe ethnic cleansing and totalitarianism as any form of 'liberation'.

Since Australia is in the Southern Hemispehere and a great distance from the typically serialist conflict of the Northern Hemispehere I can breathe relativly easy, however in WW11 Australia sent 800,000 young men (Army, RAN and RAAF combined) into battle "For King and Empire", which is pretty big for a country of about 6 - 7 million at the time. I'm hoping we don't have to repeat that. Let's hope all countries don't have to repeat it.

Iraq is a sovereign, independent state. The international inspections have found NO tracks of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

So is Kuwait, yet Iraq didn't mind trying to taker her as it's own about 12 years ago. Every man and his dog knows that the US only intervened because of the oil issue, proof of that was in the way the US reacted when Indonesia washed their hands of East Timor and let the warlords roam the place. When the world finally stood up and took notice the US 'told' Australia to go and tidy up. Work that out.

As for the weapons, yes, true, none have been found. Yet. When you look for things that a sovereign country might be hiding it is not always easy to find what you are looking for. Iraq isn't exactly small in land area, they could hide anything anywhere they like. Even a spy satellite can't take pictures of every square centimetre of Iraq in time to flush out any mobile operations.

So maybe Saddam doesn't have anything to hide. It's not like he's demonstrated this lately though. But then again, the UN, in a display of sloth and weakness hasn't bothered to enforce resolutions which allow weapons inspectors to search Iraq until the pressure of the war against terror required the new resolution. If Saddam hadn't have booted the Inspectors then the issue would probably have been resolved by now and Iraq could have been a major oil producer again, which in turn could have lead her people to have a more comfortable standard of living.

So is Kuwait, yet Iraq didn't mind trying to taker her as it's own about 12 years ago.

Iraq has paid for that. There have been the resolution of the UN, the Desert Storm operation, the sanctions. That's how it all should work.

As for the weapons, yes, true, none have been found. Yet..

C-mon, is that the only proof you need to break out a new war? Iraq agrees to continue the inspections. But GWB doesn't seem to care, like he doesn't care about innocent children living in Bagdad. That's too... insignificant

If any of you interested, here's a video of Colin Powell proving that Iraq intentionally hides mass destruction weapons from the UN inpectors eyes.

Of cours, nothing justifies killing innocent civilians, but that's the cost of war. Things might be looking different when the world's stability is taken into account.

Edit: btw, very cute song

Saddam has killed more people than any war against him will, civilians or otherwise. Ask any Kurd that and I am sure you'll get a favourable response.

As there, apparently, seems to be evidence of Saddam providing succour to Bin Laden, and given that a war in Iraq is merely an extension of the war against terror, isn't that a valid reason to disarm Iraq and block it's financial networks from giving Al Qaeda anymore money? I have a link to a news page on my website that demonstrates that Al Qaeda is still operating and is planning an attack that will make the bombing of the World Trade Centre look like a boy scout campfire (Al Qaeda's stance). How many more aeroplanes have to be hijacked and how many more skyscrapers occupied by innocent workers from all over the world have to be bulldozed before these people are stopped? Al Qaeda has many sources of funding and Iraq is apparently one of them.

For the record I hope that those involved can shoot straight. I don't want civilians hurt or killed anymore than anyone else does. No war altogether is the preferable option but what has Saddam done to help prevent it - not a thing. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying the US is perfect either, as they have around 6,000 nuclear missles aimed at Russia and China, though they have adequately demonstrated that they are prepared to cop it first before firing back and this principle is what the current conflict is all about. Saddam is prepared to attack without warning and without provocation, an ample reason for the West to stop him.

Ah, this proof you mean?



ps: I take this subject very serious, and I plan to remove this image soon, after we all had a smile over it

Where exactly is this evidence? Many countries around the world have terrorist cells. It doesn't mean that nation supports terrorrism. Take the IRA, for example. At one time in the UK, anyone with an Irish accent was treated with suspicion.

I have just watched Colin Powell's speech at the security council in New York. He has suddenly come up with all this evidence against Iraq...and has known about this for some time. How come that this 'evidence' wasn't made available to the UN weapons inspectors in November? How come nobody is calling the US (or any other power, for that matter) to account for their weapons of mass destruction? When did Saddam suddenly become such a threat again?

How come that this 'evidence' wasn't made available to the UN weapons inspectors in November?

A valid question which only the US can answer I reckon. However I would assume that giving evidence early in the peace can jeopardise those who gathered the intelligence to begin with, or at least the means they used to gather it.

As for the US having nuclear weapons, well... Many countries do and havent been barred from keeping them as I said in my original post there is France. Then there is Russia, India, Pakistan, and I believe the UK and China possess nuclear weapons too. I quote Baroness Thatcher "Nuclear weapons are absolutely vital". These countries don't currently have an agenda to threaten other people though. Saddam does.

First of all, a secret paper leaked from MI5 says that there is NO link between Iraq and Al-Qaida. There were some contacts, but they failed because of the ideologic diifferences. There is NO link between Iraq and 9/11 whatsoever. And that's exactly what Saddam Hussein, the odious but legitimate president of Iraq, says in his interview (taken from the news).

Second thing, the leader of the inspectors in 1992-1998 says that all the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq used to have were completely eliminated in 1991-1992 (taken from the news).

Powell's speech contains no direct proofs. Why not continue the inspections now, using Powell's "hints" ? Aren't ongoing inspections the best way to ensure that no weapons can be built or used?

I must be going crazy, guys, but do you really think that a country may attack another country if it finds it suitable? Do you really think you may kill a person if you're sure he deserves that? If Russia thought that Australia had a bad leader and were developing nuclear weapons, would Russia have the right to wipe Australia off the planet without UN's allowance?

Here, in Russia, we don't think so. We also hope that the western people, who have always taught us to value the human life the most, will recall their own lessons.

LMFAO now theres a magic expansion LOL that is hilarious!

Vital to whom exactly? How did Maggie Thatcher justify that statement? How can you justify quoting her without any rationale for it?



At the risk of repeating myself: based on what evidence???

I wish we could listen to our forum moderators. It's important to know their opinion.

If Russia thought that Australia had a bad leader and were developing nuclear weapons, would Russia have the right to wipe Australia off the planet without UN's allowance?

hehe. I suppose if Vladamir Putin thought a country of 500 million sheep, 200 million cattle, 18 million people, 50,000 cattledogs, 40,000 pubs (including the pub with no beer), a navy with about 20 warships, a gun battery under the Sydney Harbour Bridge with 8 '32 pounders' and two sentries outside the Victoria Barracks is a threat to Russia then I suppose he would try and attack us. But then again it would be well documented that John Howard is hardly a terrorist, any more than Vladamir Putin is.

The thing that does have me worried is the possibility that the crisis could escalate into a global conflict. Some countries (inluding allied nations) do oppose the US stance strongly enough for it to be a possibility. Having said that, I doubt the US or anyone else will or would involve nuclear weapons. The cost in terms of the existance of the human race depends on the hope that all nations will remain on the backfoot in this respect. A nuclear war would be won by no-one and lost by all 6 billion of us.

Sorry for that lousy example with Australia. I don't have anything against your country - I only tried to make you feel the problem as if it were your own.

Imagine you live in Bagdad. You know nothing about the "world stability" - you love your parents, your girlfriend. You respect your leader because everybody says he's great. How can you stop The Enemy from ruining your house, killing your relatives and friends, tearing your body apart with another sci-fi missile?

It's a mistake to think that the blood will be on GWB and Blair's hands only. It will also stain the hands of those who support war.

history and facts: iraq has tie to terrorist communities .... been proven time and time again ..... iraq as whole may not support its leaders thought but ..... do u judge a coutry on the belief of its ppl or the belief or the ppl in power???

thats a lovely photo .... but i will gaurantee that aint a photo the us government is banking on for thier conclusion ..... infact i just got done watching cnn and um the photo ur showing and the one they are showing is 2 different things ...... saddam is playing the UN for fools and maybe ppl are percieving the us to be a bull in a china shop ..... but ill tell u this ....... saddam is a madman and anyone who thinks differently is just plain insane ...... u can show me a hundred fuzzy photos ....... and im sure i can show u a hundred clear ones ..... point is ur gonna believe what u wanna ...... its great to think we live in a world of all common sense thinkers ..... unfortunatly we dont ...... to allow these ppl who make chemical weapons to even have control of a nation is stupid and outlandish ...... the us should walk right out of this whole mess and let all the nations around sadam figure it out since presantly sadam has nothing that can touch us soil without a terrist attempt being made ...... back out and let them all figure it out cause hell when sadam turns stupid and screws with u then we (the Us) can sit back and say hey its ok hes fine u all said so ....... sometimes stupidity is masked by beliefs and my thought is that anyone not supporting a war with iraq is just blind in believing things will change ....... this is the same man who a couple years ago took control of a small country neighboring him for OIL ...... and u ppl whined and complained then ...... now the us is tryin to step in and prevent him from having any weapons of mass destruction ( for a very good reason i may add) and u think we want his OIL???? u ppl kill me in the way u think ..... u are entitled to ur opinion but lets base it on fact and history and see whos right and wrong ..... pointing ur fingers at someone with a fuzzy photo isnt the way to prove ur mindset .... show historical proof and facts to base ur opinion on if u wanna sway ones mind .....

hell ive lost who im replyin to so ill reply to myself .... ya know after reading all these comments about all this its an equal stance of for and against this kinda thing ..... to go further into this ...... lets not doing anything at all to sadam for all this cause historical facts have shown him to be quite able to not attack others with his chemical weapons ...... nah he only reserves them for his own population ....... yes i did say his own population ...... nah hes not a mad man hes perfectly capable of having weapons that we cant find ..... i mean it makes no sense to put these weapons out were everyone can see em ...... that would be just stupid of sadam ....... so lets all cheer for the madman who is duped u all into thinking hes ok and that he wont launch an attack on any country ..... cause of cousrs he doesnt have these weapons that we can not find ..... of course ya all cant find santa at the north pole and kids still believe??

First off can I just point out one thing that's been killing me for weeks now: One full stop is all that's required. I think everyone on this board can see a full stop, seven or so is not necessary, really. Onwards...


- I have a notoriously bad memory, just remind me of one time when Iraq has been proven to aid terrorist 'communities'? As a whole, I think you'll find that the Iraqi people do support Saddam Hussein. Whether that support would continue if the Iraqi people knew the full story I don't know - to an extent the same question could be raised about G.W. and the American people.

I'm done. For once I'm not gonna go and out my thoughts on this because quite frankly I don't know the whole situation. I suspect that many of the people involved in this thread don't either. I'd be surprised if anyone really does know the full story what with all the bullshit that's getting thrown out by the sensationalist media and the various governments - all of which are giving out the 'truth' that shows them to be absolutely in the right.

First of all, that photo is just a parody of a popular card game...Secondly, this is about disarming a maniac whom threatens his people and the neighboring countries for i.e. cooperation with weapons inspectors, and dont forget the OIL! Saddam has in fact on many countless occasions, has been known to lie about posession of any weapons that could pose a threat to a nation or the world.

If this was about Oil, do you honestly think the US wouldnt have taken control of it by now? Thats whats basically being implied. The main purpose is to ensure that there is no threat of weapons of mass destruction especially from a country that would probably use them or for leverage. But lets not forget about all the other nuclear countries China, India, Korea, Russia, The United States....just to name a few.

Basically it all boils down to this. If Iraq has weapons that have been "evacuated" so that they aren't found by the inspectors, Would Saddam use them to his advantage or sell them to any terrorist network? Thats where the US have stepped in so that that scenario does not happen. Im sure that the iraqis do not want war but have to go on thinking that their leader is doing the right thing or he will kill them. Honestly i think hes trying to follow in hitlers footsteps by trying to become the most dominant nation....(note that i said trying)

People go on how well since Bush Sr. was in office and now that Jr. has taken office that he must follow in his daddys footsteps to start a war. Thats Bullshit. If the attacks on New York and Washington D.C. didn't happen then there wouldnt be a war on terrorism. Iraq came into play when intelligence pointed that
a. They were building weapons of mass destruction
b. They are buying/selling/ trading with certain terrorist networks
Do you honestly think Saddam is making chocolate chip cookies? Hell No! I believe he is hiding something from the world and if it takes war to find out what it is, so be it. Its just merely coincidental that both Bushes had to start a war. But the main purpose is to make sure that the events at Nagasaki and Hiroshima Do not happen again! As devastating as those events invoving the A-Bomb, and that the technology has evolved since. Imagine the destruction that did but with the magnitude of 10 times that!

Like i said before and i will say it again, This is just one big contest to see who has the biggest "prick". But with a cause LOL. I do in fact watch CNN myself and I am well aware of the situation and I myself am hoping that if there is a war that it doesn't last long and that the threat of Iraq is not a problem anymore. After Iraq, you can probably bet that other nations will be forced to disarm....the US included. But that will not happen for many years and many conflicts to come. But you can probably bet that a third world war is in the future...in this war on terrorism and disarming of contries that pose as a global threat.

I'll just point out that the bombs dropped on Japan to end WW2 were around 15kT each. Modern thermonuclear weapons available to the longstanding nuclear powers go up to 25MT - more than 1500 times more powerful.

In the event of all out nuclear war, I'd hope to be very close-by when one goes off - I sure as hell wouldn't want to be one of the 'survivors' of a nuclear war.

You keep putting small lies one next to another, building up an enormous one.

Open your eyes.

1. You have no proofs.
2. Non-sanctioned agression is a crime.
3. Inspections can be continued.
4. A humane catastrophe may occur because you, personally, support it.

Its not whether I have proof or not. The proof lies within the documentation of the weapons report....and what intelligence has gathered.....Its not about what I have ...the government could give a [censored] less what I let alone you think. of course aggession is a crime why do you think we are disarming Iraq...its aggressiveness toward its people and other surrounding countries...and to keep the aggression going you would simply not get caught by painting a billboard that states "Get your weapons of mass destruction here" you would hide them from the obvious.

I know inspections can be continued arent they now? ....but didnt they recently discover evidence of chemical weapons....Yep maybe not nuclear... And as you put it Humane catastrophes are caused because of personal support....I dont support a war at all thats the last thing that i want to happen. Our government has probable cause and well posession is nine-tenths the law...so if they at one point have evidence of these types of weapons be it -biological, chemical, and yes Nuclear then thats evidence enough that there is a probable threat.

You make it seem like its a big conspiracy...Its not Im just simply stating facts. You are stating things like its a crime this and its a crime that.. This entire subject is just a stalemate and we have our views You make it out to be an act of aggression on our part. Think about it if there was a definate nuclear threat on our country from another nuclear nation, by another nation that poses a severe threat wouldnt you personally like to see that it doesnt happen? And by that i mean aggress the agressor or one way to put it [censored] them first before they [censored] you! This is all one big political stalemate and does it need to continue. Nope. We all know where you stand and where the rest of us stand. Let it go.

Uhm,... Necroman The_Game, D3m0n, lets all keep our reactions to eachothers opinion, and to eachothers bad choice of words , friendly, ok? :tongue:

Correct - I have no proof which someone else cant tell me is a lie
Can YOU prove to me that the moon landings happened?
Can YOU prove to me that the cuban missile crisis wasnt just the US having dirt on their camera lens?

Didnt think so...

We only see half of what our leaders see... What I see is either the US and the UK are lying to billions of people, or there is evidence that iraq are deliberately hiding something (which is a breach of the UN resolution dun forget)
That is not to say that I believe iraq is hiding WMD and should be invaded....



That is a very simplistic approach - and it all depends what you mean by "sanctioned"
From what I understand, this agression has been sanctioned by the US government. Legally, thats all the sanction THEY need.
As long as they obide by the geniva(sp?) convention, it is not a crime for them to invade iraq (afaik - but I may be wrong)
The politics however, are incredibly different... I wont even pretend to understand the political side of things...



And they are continuing. But iraq may be able to keep hiding whatever it is they are hiding and thus the inspections may not find anything.



I dont believe that to be the case. Blair has already said that he is willing to risk his political career to ensure that iraq disarms - and the US view is even harder...
So - unless the war doesnt happen before the next election, and unless the UK people who dont support it vote someone else, there is very little that you or I can do
I'm not saying that we should do nothing - just that no matter how many protests we join, if this war would have happened without the protests, it will happen with them

I didnt mean for this thread to be a discussion over whether war is justified or not - it is obvious that nothing anyone on here says will convince either side to switch views
We are just spectators in a very complicated game of chess... arguing about whether bush should or shouldnt press his big red button will just get people up tight and nothing else

Like?

Like the United States..?

Oh..they did? Please enlighten me..show me links.. pictures..video..text..anything to prove they celebrated as a nation.

Here's something that hasn't been brought up: Kuwait drilled into Iraqs land and into their oil which caused Iraq to get pissed and attack. Don't play Kuwait off as an innocent country.

How does a poor quality tape in a different language that is somewhat vague prove that Iraq intentionally hides WMDs? Yes.. it's a PIECE of evidence.. but it can't be the only evidence or relied upon 100% as geniune proof.

Show me this evidence.

What reasoning do you have for this? When has Saddam ever attacked a foreign nation un-provoked? Kuwait DID provoke him, so don't try to use the Gulf War and the causes and an example.

Says who? Did you steal his Agenda book where it is written "TO DO: threaten other countries". When has he threatened other countries anyways? He HAS stated he is prepared to defend himself against any U.S. attacks.. that is not an agenda to threaten.

If you state something as fact, be prepared to have proof.. I will be waiting for this proof.

What threats against neighboring countries? Please provide some specific examples.

It's not that easy. Besides, that would have made it VERY OBVIOUS it's about oil, which is not what the U.S. government would want.

So you're accusing him of Imperialism.. What countries or regions has he ever had control of besides his own country? When has he ever actively attempted to control a region outside his own country?

CNN.. there's a reliable and unbias source..

Yet again accusing Iraq of agression against other countries. WHAT AGRESSION? Did I miss something here? I find it disgusting that you lump together the agression against his own people and supposed active aggression against other nations. That is a debate tool.. State one thing that is fact, and another that is not..and play them off as one thing that is fact.

When was this? I have not heard about it.

Any questions?

Yeah, just one question...

I didn't say half the things you quote me as saying. Kindly don't put words in my mouth.

The second thing is that you need a lesson in the English Language. Note where I said "seems". That is an indication of the way a subject matter appears to me, it makes no reference to the way something IS or ISN'T.

Having said that I can only stand by what I said originally, in reference to the threads original subject. I don't support the anti-war protests. While I don't want war to break out I can understand why it appears to be necessary. However I do support Khaled's right to have the advertisment on his page. The page belongs to him and if people don't want to read it they can click another page or click the back button. While not agreeing with the protest I did read their site and respect their views.

It's okay Necroman, all I wanted to do was keep the issue 'light' and in context. Your post was fine.

But others did in this thread, and that should be quite obvious who said what if you just read. I simply clicked "reply" on your post and started from there..then replied to various quotes from various people.. no where did i ever say those quotes were from you. I'm sorry that i didnt feel like making 5 different posts..

I take offense to your insult. I saw seems, and I even quoted it as to try not to take it out of context. I know that's how it appears to YOU.. and I want to know WHY it appears that way to you.. is there evidence that you've seen that I don't know about?

Im being honest, but as soon as I saw this today on this site I regulary visit I wasnt too happy. We are humans and we all think differently but an issue of war is a serious issue and I myself do not believe this should be posted on this public software site.

We're all against war. Especially George Bush, who would love nothing more than to stick the $50 billion its going to cost this country back into Americans' pockets.

The Bush administration has been reading its daily intelligence reports and giving each other strange looks as they wonder, "the guy before George was THAT big an idiot?" Saddam Hussein should have been gone years ago.

The exception to the "we're all against war" would be Saddam Hussein, who could stop the war at any time and place. Thats the point. Saddam does, in fact, want war - with a weaker foe such as Israel.

All I wonder about is where our noble moderators are? Where are the people who edit our posts and determine what's good and what's evil? Where are those who speak for Khaled when he's not there? We face a serious problem now, a question of life and death, and where have they all gone?

We need your opinion. We need to know what kind of people you are. Take a break from your Frequently Answered Questions and reveal your point of view, please.

Do you support war or inspections?

But others did in this thread, and that should be quite obvious who said what if you just read. I simply clicked "reply" on your post and started from there..then replied to various quotes from various people.. no where did i ever say those quotes were from you. I'm sorry that i didnt feel like making 5 different posts..

You replied to my post I believe. Therefore it stands to reason that if you mention no other names then people assume your quotes are from statements I made. My second comment was to correct a patently obvious oversight on your part. If you take offence to being taught the structure of an English sentence then at least read a post fully before replying and when replying don't misquote people.

I can hardly be accountable for what others say.

Necroman, if you think anyone is going to feel intimidated to stand down from supporting the President by the opinions of anyone on some internet forum, let alone moderators, then you're mistaken.

When you say "the blood" will be on our hands, has it never occurred to you that Saddam spilled blood first? Has it never occurred to you that our true intention is to stop him from spilling more blood? Has it never occurred to you that Saddam Hussein can and will spill more blood to fulfill his dreams of domination?

If you think the so-called "pro-war" people are the bad guys, then you need to look in the mirror and question your sanity. You need to do that because there's a butcher ruling Iraq from his palaces in Baghdad who does not care about you, your family, or the lives of the 2 million Muslims he killed in the 7-years war (1981-87) between Iraq and Iran. And then you need to ask yourself why a forum moderator's opinions would matter any more than would anyone else's.

When you say "the blood" will be on our hands, has it never occurred to you that Saddam spilled blood first?

Iraq has paid for its crimes. It was in accordance with the international law.

Has it never occurred to you that our true intention is to stop him from spilling more blood?

You must not kill your neighbour no matter what your true intentions are. You must respect the law, otherwise the world is going to fall into anarchy.

Has it never occurred to you that Saddam Hussein can and will spill more blood to fulfill his dreams of domination?

Stop saying nonsense about his dreams. We're speaking about alive people here.

And then you need to ask yourself why a forum moderator's opinions would matter any more than would anyone else's.

Because I find it strange that the people who are often the first to express their opinions on any subject are keeping silent now.

I'm sure that you recall that part of the "punishment" was that iraq was obligued to disarm - There is now evidence that that may not have happened (such as that contained in the blix report)
Also remember that iraq is STILL under trade controls as a result of their crimes...
So to say they have paid for their crimes when the "punishment" is still going on suggests you think less of their crimes than the internaltional community does...



Forum moderators are required to keep professional in what they do
Joining what is, in essence, an argument which neither side could win would decrease the respect that some members of one side of the argument has for the moderators who said they supported the other side

Personally, I applaud the moderators for not participating (or, alternatively, I applaud the person who told them not to)

Speaking for myself, i'm unsure why you feel all moderators need to express their opinion on this subject. My point of view is mine as a person, not as a moderator. We dont set ourselves up as arbiters of good vs evil nor would we presume to speak for Khaled. We are here to comment on mIRC related problems, and in response to questions may repeat something he has said or written. When we edit or delete posts, or ask ppl to not indulge in name calling or rudeness we arent setting ourselves up as judges of good/evil but are asking ppl to behave with common courtesy and common sense just as we do in #mIRC.

We are admittedly biased with regards to mIRC, Khaled, and Krejt. Obviously we must like mIRC or we wouldnt have spent years in mIRC channels and here doing our best to help ppl. I consider Khaled and Krejt to be friends, and i tend to be protective of my friends and that no doubt colors some of my responses. I fully support their right to put anything they want on THEIR website, as i support the right of anyone to have and state their opinions, expecting only that they do so with common courtesy. The original post here questioned that right, to which Krejt responded. It certainly isnt up to me, any moderator, or anyone else to dictate what they can/cant do on their website nor to explain their reasons for doing so.

So you feel you "need to know" what kind of person i am and apparently feel you can only get the answer to that based on my opinion on this one subject? I am the "kind of person" who has spent much of my free time for the past 7 years helping ppl online. If you look at my profile, you will see that i have spent the majority of my life responding to fires and medical emergencies... if that doesnt tell you the "kind of person" i am, i dunno what will. Yes, the subject of this thread is a "life or death" issue. Trust me, i am more familiar with life or death issues than you will ever want to be, and whether or not i state my opinion on this forum isnt going to matter one bit.

I agree that the forum moderators shouldn't jump in on this one...unless it's to lock the topic. It's quite evident now that this thread has gone WAY off the original topic and the people who have posted here - myself included - have used it as a platform to air their views on the subject. I think it's pointless to continue it now - people aren't going to change their minds unless there is hard evidence as to why they should. And looking at some of the posts, even then they might not. I still applaud Khaled and Krejt for posting the link on the main page though - if people don't like it, they don't have to follow it!

No one has told us not to get involved.. personally i am here to answer questions about mIRC/IRC, however i felt Necroman's comments regarding moderators needed to be responded to.

Thanks for your reply, ParaBrat. I didn't mean all the moderators should reply - I just hoped to see that at least some of you have hearts and do care.

Yup, I think this is a good moment to close this thread. Thanks to you all for your comments! I appreciated the contributions to this discussion a lot, even the ones I didnt agree with.
Better to have some disagreement then no discussion at all....

Best wishes,