Forums General Discussion "Join the Global Protest against War"

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???