Post by: cubefreak123 on March 19, 2003, 04:27:49 PM
Post by: RockmanX on March 19, 2003, 04:38:14 PM
Post by: Michael_82 on March 19, 2003, 05:04:37 PM
Post by: CijaroDSK on March 19, 2003, 05:21:07 PM
Yeah, so america takes over Iraq and then conveniently opens up shop...this war is a business venture. Take off your red, white & blue colored goggles and realize that Bush, in the name of america, is commiting a crime here. If this was, oh lets say...France, who was attacking a country for no good reason, the UN would have stopped them ages ago. Everyone is simply too scared to stop the USA...its a terrible, embarassing situation for the United Nations.
Also, its not only "usa ppls" that care about this war/ bloodbath.
Post by: Shift Key on March 19, 2003, 05:57:08 PM
I don't believe them. Peace is just ignoring the problems.
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The USA isn't after oil. They are attacking Iraq because of its links to terrorist organisations. Just because the inspectors haven't found them, doesn't mean they are clean. Saddam Hussein has a sophisticated underground network below Iraq, and he could hide just about anything down there.
As for the moral implications of this war, I think this is inevitable. If Saddam Hussein was left alone, one of his sons would become the King of Iraq, and the problems continue. But the sad thing is that people will die, on both sides. And that is what happens in war. I just hope that they get rid of Saddam this time around.
Post by: pimpcube on March 19, 2003, 06:21:26 PM
however, i was talking with my cousins about this situation. so much became clear to me about the american people. look at the protests that go on in the street throughout the country. they all support one thing: anti-war. that is because all the abnormal and influenced people are out there. all the people that support war are sane and hard-working people that stay at home rather than go around marching for war. Now, u might be wondering what i mean by "influenced". (there's a lot to say so bare with me, i mite not put this in any order that may make sense) first, older cousin, who is a freshman in college, told me of his anti-war music teacher. she told the class that they would get 10 extra credit points if any attended an anti-war march. this is obviously illegal and also a cheap attempt at recruiting more anti-war supporters. continuing with this idea, my 13 year old cousin claimed that he was anti-war. he told me of a class from his school that took a couple hours off to go march on the sidewalk for peace during school. again, an illegal and cheap way to recruit more anti-war supporters. we then discussed it very, very briefly. the 13 year old was all for war about 1 minute after claiming he was anti-war, greatly contradicting himself. this, i believe (even though he may be young), models the american public. the american people. eventually, we will all have to support this war and support bush in order to boost morale, but y not support it for the moral reasons going into it, not to mention our own safety (saddam has already threatened attack on america several times).
let's face it, we will all have to sacrifice, and i myself may have to do it too. i am currently 16 (soon to be 17), and may be drafted in the years to come(of course i can avoid the draft because of my academic achievements =]). however, we can not go into this war as a split nation, but rather united as one. war is the answer, we've been waiting for too long. we've waited for 12 years on saddam, and it's about time we did something about him.
Post by: 3_MaSteRPIeCE on March 19, 2003, 06:47:20 PM
Here we have highschoolers turning their backs to the american flag. i mean.. cmon in china they publicly behead you for doing that and put your family's name to shame. yes it's true we take things for granted. I'm not anti-war or anti-peace. Both sides are both bad. the world has no unity and love anymore. Even the anti-war people. Everyone is always fighting, but i think it is also healthy cause good always comes out from the bad.
plus, isn't this a political thread? cause there aren't any allowed since they usually get nasty.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 19, 2003, 07:05:45 PM
Post by: yrrab436 on March 19, 2003, 07:08:01 PM
I think France is very courageous for standing up to US imperialism. Some countries see the dark path the US is taking and they should be praised for standing up to a horrid, lying, aggressive state. Edit: Okay, so maybe that's a bit much. Still, the US habitually lies.
Hmm, when does the war start? When Iraq starts to cooperate better? I think Bushy was afraid of losing ANY "legitimate" reason to attack. Yes, Saddam needs to be removed. This isn’t' a mission of good will though. It's an invasion, and no one can deny that. France and the others tried to stop it, but the US seems to think it's above everyone else.
I hope we don't become like Germany was for the first half of the 20th century. Remember, Nazis were patriotic too. All this talk about boycotting French stuff and the Dixie chicks is warning signs of a slow drift into a state of fascism.
I agree with the Dixie Chicks. I'm ashamed to be an American right now. I'm ashamed of the blind faith people give this government. We're blissfully tossing our freedom away, and it sickens me. I wouldn't have started such a thread, but you bet I'm going to post about it if the subject already exists. This is a very dark time in the history of the USA, when we toss away great progress made over the last few decades. I'm afraid ludicrous stuff like "Patriot II" is just the tip of the iceberg. People are so stupid, blindly believing every bit of propaganda thrown about. A bunch of stupid puppets, with George W. holding the strings. I'm very ashamed of the American people.
This is a test. America needs to prove its innocense to the rest of the world after the inevitable victory. I sincerely hope we do.
After Iraq, I have to ask: Who's next? Do we have to launch preemptive strikes on all other countries to protect our security?
Edit:
Note that Iraq isn't the only country developing such weapons. I acknowledge that Saddam's regime is horrid, but you have to always be questioning! Why is it that the oil fields are the first on the list for the reconstruction of Iraq? Not hospitals. Not schools. OIL FIELDS
Edit2:
I'm very vehement, but that doesn't mean I don't respect other people. Yes, I think the public is being lied to and mislead, but that doesn't mean I have any enmity towards such people. I know my post will be offensive to many, but that's just the way it goes. I'm sure this is why this kind of topic is off limits.
Post by: BrianSLA on March 19, 2003, 07:36:37 PM
Post by: deminisma on March 19, 2003, 07:45:49 PM
The United States is helping Iraq get rid of their repressive dictator. Maybe one day they'll get rid of their own - the rich white male.
The United States is ignoring the world body in the U.N. look what happen last time countries began circumventing the world body (the League of Nations)... World War II. You say it is neccessary, how come all of of a sudden, they've had 12 years, 5 since weapons inspections stopped. If it is neccessary how come a mere 3 countries are behind it? I'm proud to live in a country where the government has taken a stance against U.S. terrorist acts against the Iraqi people.
NO WAR
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 19, 2003, 10:13:20 PM
Then you can wonder what the U.N. planned to do if they finally put their foot down and said Iraq has violated res.1441. They've been quite soft in the enforcement sense as of late. Or you can wonder how long weapons inspections would go on if George Dubbaya kept his mouth shut, and would Iraq would ever fully comply considering their "one hand behind their back" style of compliance. "U.S. to U.N.: Let's goto war next week!; Iraq to U.N.: Oh, look! Here's some Al Samoud missiles we forgot to mention 9 months ago........." next week, "Oh, look! Here's a nice book report on our VX gas, but unfortunately we can't prove how we discarded it..."
Post by: cubefreak123 on March 20, 2003, 03:38:19 AM
Post by: RickPowers on March 20, 2003, 08:43:57 AM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on March 20, 2003, 09:07:58 AM
The eyes of the world will be watching the aftermath of this so closely that it wont even be funny. Do you really think they would just let the Americans start pumping Iraqie oil back home?
get real.
Not 1 doller of Iraqie oil will leave Iraq. The money generated from the oil will be used to rebuild a country, not one devestated by war, but one that has been devasted by its onw leader for nearly 25 years.
Iraq under Saddam has been a country that has repeatedly lied the UN, and for decades have dodged the penalties. Iraq undoubtedly has biological and chemical weapons, and if history is any indication they will no doubt use them sooner than later.
Has the US been a little gung ho, sure they have, but then again they had people fly their own passenger aircraft into buildings full of civilians, and therefore have a right to be a little more aggresive when dealing with percieved threats. Many people during the clinton admin didnt believe that Al Quida was a legitimate threat on American soil. It appears they were a little wrong on that one. Now the same people are saying that Iraq poses no real threat to Americans. I cant blame the bush admin for saying we wont take that chance again.
Sure it is great for France to prance around on its high horse, it has not felt the sting of Terrorism the way the US recently has.
To think that Bush is a bigger threat than Saddam is so far from the truth.
Get the facts, sing the oil for blood song without fully knowing the facts is both iggnorant and dangerous.
By the way I am a canadian who is embarresed by my countries lack of support in this matter.
God bless the troops in the middle east, come home safe.
Post by: Munky on March 20, 2003, 10:07:44 AM
Post by: highenergyboy on March 20, 2003, 10:09:27 AM
And if you ask me the U.N. has demonstrated these last few months that it clearly remains incapable of backing its own resolutions with force. Resolution 1441, passed months ago clearly stated that if Iraq did not disarm they would face "serious consequences". Right there is where the U.N. authorized force to be taken, and if they did not intend for it to be interpreted that way then what was their definition of serious consequences? A slap on the wrist and a promise not to do it again? I would not be surprised...
It was not U.S. diplomacy that failed here in averting a war. It was the U.N. failing miserably to show some backbone by threatening Saddam with force to get him to voluntarily disarm. The U.S. could have easily provided such force. Now unfortunely it has to be done the hard way with a lot of brute force. All I see in the U.N. now is another powerless League of Nations that should be disolved and replaced with a new global defense organization that will take action when absolutely necessary instead of procrastinating and being gullible fools like those in the current U.N. who eat up everything that pawn of Saddam's tells them.
I would have no problem joining the army if the call went out for more people. Call it a draft if you want, but I would see it as nothing more then an urgent plea by my country for help. This is directed to those who would dare say that I blindly support the war because I am not in the front lines right now bunkered down in a gas suit fearful of chemical attacks. Watch what you say because it may just come to that if regimes like those in Iraq and North Korea keep rearing their ugly heads.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on March 20, 2003, 10:49:17 AM
People really need to use their heads here and stop protesting for the sake of protesting.
Post by: Gamer Donkey on March 20, 2003, 12:49:52 PM
I believe one of the great things about this democracy we call America is that we can freely express our opinions, even if they oppose our leaders or the common beliefs. I'm proud to live in the United States.
And a comment to Highenergyboy, may I remind you that we once supported Saddam Hussein. I believe in 1982 the quote was "the U.S. will do whatever is necessary and legal" to keep Iraq from losing a war with Iran.
I question how we entered this war under the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but last night Bush said we will find Iraq's "weapons of mass murder". Big difference.
I support the troops and hope this ends soon for their sake, but I do not approve of why they're there.
P.S. This is a tremendously better discussion than the debate I have going with my friend.
Post by: cubefreak123 on March 20, 2003, 01:06:10 PM
Post by: pimpcube on March 20, 2003, 01:27:32 PM
Quote
I'm 100% antiwar. So personally, I'm sick of the news coverage of it on all stations here, and interupting my tv! So I've spent a lot of time playin' Xbox and Cube. But really, I do think Saddam needs to be taken out.
thank u for proving how absolutely mindless the american public is. america is more worried about "american idol" than the serious situation at hand. 100% antiwar and u think saddam needs to be taken out?? how do u propose we do that, sit around with our thumbs up our asses all day like almost every country within the UN?? saddam is never going to cooperate, and yes, i think bush made the right decision about going to war. the u.s. has been patient for too long, and the UN is not patient, but rather full of crap, especially france. its sad that when other countries call for our help, the u.s. comes to the rescue, yet, when it is our turn, our time of "need", these countries turn their backs on us. by "need" i mean we don't need any physical help, but rather support by the whole world. everyone seems so urgent and quick to make the u.s. look like a terrorist, a hungry animal looking to gobble up anything, an imperialistic whore that's willing to take over the world. what we really are doing is liberating the iraqi people. almost every iraqi person has a family member that they lost to saddam. action needs to be taken, and the time is now.
Post by: rpglover on March 20, 2003, 01:27:45 PM
but i know it will not be like that
saddam is just one of those stubborn type of people who will not move away from their views- no matter what the cost
i was personally pro-war the whole time and i knew this would go to it, but i do want it over fast
i like how bush says he is commited to iraq even after war
unfortunately not all countries are with us on this one, and even we are viewed as the evil ones........
just as thecubedcanuck says- god bless those troops
Post by: Gamer Donkey on March 20, 2003, 01:40:46 PM
I'm severely saddened that the Dixie Chicks were shunned for expressing their opinion in a country as great as ours. Even though the comment was rather harsh, I don't think Bush should be immune to criticism just because he is in office. Though that has little relevance to this discussion, I think it applies somehow. It more shows that some people are being rather hypocritical about our nation and the rights we have.
And may I add to Pimpcube, we are a member of the UN. As a matter of fact we helped organize it.
Post by: RickPowers on March 20, 2003, 03:02:17 PM
When was the last time you saw a dictator removed from power "peacefully"? Sorry, just doesn't happen, not in this world.
Post by: Marcus Arillius on March 20, 2003, 03:13:24 PM
The country is not supposed to support whatever decision the President makes. That would make our government a dictatorship. The president is supposed to represent us, and meet the demands of the public, not the other way around! Don't take this offensively but I can't believe some people make statements such as "I support whatever decision the President makes." You're not supposed too! It is your right as a citizen of the United States to voice your opinion, and say when you think something is wrong!
In reference to the Dixie Chics remark: More power to them. They are U.S. citizens who have every right to voice their opinion. The people who decided to boycott them should feel ashamed for they are disgracing our nation. They are boycotting someone for exercising their right to freedom of speech. These people are practically giving up their guarenteed rights. Granted these people have a right to an opinion, but so do those singers.
Post by: Marcus Arillius on March 20, 2003, 03:23:04 PM
We don't run the world. Other countries don't have to support us. The point of the U.N. is for the world to make decisions that affect the world together. We are practically the ones who made the rules for it. However, most of the countries' representatives voted against the war. We should have went along with the voting results because we are part of the U.N. as well, and this is a global matter. However, we basically said "screw you" to the U.N. and did what we wanted. What is the point of the UN then? Most of the Iraqi people don't want liberation. I read an article that said most Iraqi's and other mid-eastern countries felt we deserved what happened to us on September 11 as well. I don't think we did, however, I can see why they hate us. The U.S. is a bully plain and simple, and by the U.S. I mean the government, especially George Bush, who is IMO the most aggressive president ever, and that's not a good thing.
Post by: Marcus Arillius on March 20, 2003, 03:34:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BrianSLA
First of all I think Bush is an idiot / I hate him / think & know he is ruining the economy BUT that said I support the war. I always have. Saddam Hussein is a madman who needs to be taken out sooner or later. As it is now our troops will probably be gassed or biowar assaulted sometime in this campaign. BUT better now then latter when Saddam has even more weapons of mass destruction to hit us with. As for why I support the war: 1.) Saddam is a madman who is kills his people. 2.) Saddam is madman who will try to kill us sooner or later. 3.) The Iraqi people don't support Saddam. In Gulf War 1, EVEN his troops surrendered en masse in the hundreds of thousands. They don't even support Saddam.
I would be more worried about the U.S. being attacked with biological weapons right now than our troops. No offense to them and I hope they all come back alive (sad but they won't). Saddam most likely has the capability to do it. His worth alone is over 5 billions dollars, that doesn't include what is military is being funded with. He most likely has weapons with the capability to hit the U.S., even if he couldn't build them, there are probaly of countries more than willing to seel them to him (heh hem, North Korea)
I know I'm triple posting, but I had to quote this
Post by: thecubedcanuck on March 20, 2003, 03:47:46 PM
Saddam was never going to leave Iraq, he was never going to fully disarm, he would never fully comply with the UN. He, along with his 2 sons would simply continue to rule Iraq with an iron fist, terrorizing their own people all the while building and experimenting with god only knows what kind of weapons.
This had to be done, it is just unfortunate that so many other countries chose this time to play politics and feed their own agendas. One could hope that the US will take names and when that givin country comes crying with its hand out for help, the US will simply say we have nothing to give. However they wont, they will simply continue to be the worlds bandaid in times of crisis and its bank in times of need.
Cheers to the Americans who get it, and a tear for those who dont realize just how good they have it.
Post by: pimpcube on March 20, 2003, 04:05:53 PM
the u.s. can be ruler of the world if it wanted to, but it won't. indeed at times it may seem that the u.s. is taking advantage of the power, but imagine any other country with this power. u can't tell me that france wouldn't take advantage of it. history proves that the people of the country are bitchy and conceited, and they'd love to be in our position. also, in turn, the u.s. isn't exactly ignoring the un. i'm sure the president feels the sting of the un countries criticisms and lack of support just like eminem feels the comments made against him by critics and the people alike. however, u.s. motives are for the most part, clean and moral. i mean, the government isn't exactly an angel, and we might take something home with us, although .highly unlikely, as the whole world IS watching. and that's the part of it that hurts the position of the u.s. the world is, in fact, watching. no support. no troops. no supplies. just countries "wanting to fill their own agendas" as one other poster said.
another thing, thanks for leaving this open rick. voice ur opinion too!!! this thread got me posting again, and it is very helpful and educational. truthfully, i've been open-minded about the whole thing. but from what i've seen, and believe, war is the one and only solution. we would have avoided it if possible, but it wasn't.
in addition marcus, the iraqi people are really upset with saddam. he is killing off the people that may say one thing against him. he is a tyrant, a dictator, and the people can't, and won't, do anything about it out of fear. the whole country lives in fear, and the u.s. is the "hero".
Post by: BrianSLA on March 20, 2003, 04:45:39 PM
NOPE. The UN is really a joke. The majority of the nations that belong to it are not democracies. Who is head of the UN Human Rights committee ? L I B Y A. Yes Libya is..... how? Because they have petrodollars to spend and spent them buying votes. As for the guy who talked about the League of Nations and WW1.... know your history the League was a massive failure. If anything President Bush is enforcing the true will of the UN even when the UN doesn't have the backbone to do what it must.
>> This could have been done peacefully <<
Thats the biggest joke of all. No it couldn't. People who believe this are really naive. You can not do ANYTHING short of war to get rid of dictators / tyrannts. Why ? Because as tyrannts they have complete control of their respective countries... unless you go in and fight them they NEVER leave. They have no reason to, you can't do anything to them. Put sanctions on them? It doesn't hurt Saddam... he still lives in luxury, it is just his people suffer. Embargo them? same thing. Take all his foreign money? It doesn't bother him he controls his country. There is absolutely nothing you can do to remove them BUT war. Iraq has been under HEAVY HEAVY sanctions for 12 years and Saddam is the same, it is only his people who suffer. He has just as many palaces, cars, etc. He doesn't feel a thing, he just takes it away from his people.
Post by: BrianSLA on March 20, 2003, 05:10:25 PM
I am not going to go with some of my idealist posters..... BUT YES OIL does in fact play a part of why we are there. Don't fool yourselves, oil does play a part. I am not going to be a hypocrite about it but oil does play a part. Unlike some of the anti-war people though it is NOT the biggest factor. It just isn't. If oil was the big deal..... we'd own it all. There is no one who could stop us. We are the biggest military power in the world..... all those europowers / etc couldn't do a thing about it if we wanted. The biggest reason why we are at war is that Saddam is a threat / he is a evil madman.
As for oil yes it is part of the reason but EVERYONE needs to acknowledge it... oil is vital to our economy and the world's economy / the fuctioning of modern society , etc al. If you are against the war and say it is because of oil....... I hope you don't use any. I hope you grow your own food, ride a horse & buggy that eats your home grown food, you wear clothes you made from scratch from natural resources and your job and life doesn't have anything to do with the consumption of oil / gas or you are a big hypocrite. Oil is one of the most important resources to society. Without it you don't have food on your table, you can't get to your job, you wouldn't be writing on a computer or watching tv or basically anything. Oil is part of almost EVERYTHING. From the tractors in the field to harvest food, to the trucks who bring it to market, to you having a way to go to a job or school , to transport goods from factory to your home, everything. IF oil / gasoline went to $10-100 a gallon tomorrow ..... your world is dead. There would be massive unemployment, mass starvation ( no trucks, no food, food is hyper expensive, etc. ), etc.
So don't just say it is just about oil. OIL IS YOUR LIFE.... most people are just too obtuse to realize and APPRECIATE the role of oil in the modern world. Oil is a vital resource. It isn't cabbage or lint. It isn't disposable and considering anyone reading this is reading this on the internet ( in REAL world terms a luxury. Try living in Africa or in the majority of the world ) ...... I am 1,000,000 % SURE oil is vital to your life.
Post by: BrianSLA on March 20, 2003, 05:33:42 PM
>> Bush using this to divert attention...... pass bills ..... Alaskan oil.... protected land <<
Nope. That bill got shot down in the REPUBLICAN controlled senate. Again I HATE Bush / think he is an idiot / he is ruining the economy but he isn't going to war to do anything BUT go to war. Saddam needs to go and I am glad is Bush is doing it.
>> The president is supposed to represent us, and meet the demands of the public, not the other way around! <<
The US is a representative deomcracy. We choose leaders to represent us, to do the work for us, to lead. The American people had a choice and BASED ON our system of electing Presidents ( the Electoral College ), the American " people " chose Bush. In reality it was Gore based on numbers but in our electoral system, if you take the majority of the state vote, you get the state. More people voted for Gore than Bush but Bush won more states. That said you blame all this on that MAJOR IDIOT RAPLH NADER.... you screwed up the election, acted as a spoiler that took away votes from Gore that cost him the election.
>> we are a member of the UN. As a matter of fact we helped organize it............. The point of the U.N. is for the world to make decisions that affect the world together ......... We should have went along with the voting results because we are part of the U.N. as well, and this is a global matter. However, we basically said "screw you" to the U.N. and did what we wanted. What is the point of the UN then? <<
Marcus, you have rosy colored view of the world. Yes the US basically created the UN. But the UN is NOT a world government. It is in reality, in poli sci terms, a NGO ( Non- Govenmental Organization ). It is just an organization. It isn't govenrment, it isn't supposed to be. The US and all members of the UN and those outside of it do not give any of their sovereignty to it. It is an organization to help countries solve their problems / disputes and to TRY to make a better world. That is it. The majority of the UN's members are not democracies. It is just an organization and when it becomes USELESS or ineffective, then it has to chucked.
>> Most of the Iraqi people don't want liberation <<
You can't be serious. The majority of the Iraqi people are Shi'ite muslims. He has genocided out of existance the marsh arabs. He has gassed his own people. He won 99.99999 % of the vote in his elections and the few hundred stupid people who voted against him are all missing or six feet under. TENS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi children have died since the Gulf War due to the sanctions and Saddam screwing them over.
Post by: pimpcube on March 20, 2003, 05:49:49 PM
Post by: zekermit on March 20, 2003, 06:44:43 PM
Post by: highenergyboy on March 20, 2003, 09:46:46 PM
Quote
And a comment to Highenergyboy, may I remind you that we once supported Saddam Hussein. I believe in 1982 the quote was "the U.S. will do whatever is necessary and legal" to keep Iraq from losing a war with Iran.
All too true, and I am also well aware of the fact that we provided support to the Afgan freedom fighters and Bin Laden that would eventually give rise to both the Taliban and Al Qaida after the Russian war in Afganistan. I will not deny our country is no angel but neither is France, Germany, China and Russia.
Quite a coincidence isn't it considering these major countries opposing the war also happen to be the same ones who are known to conduct business with Saddam's regime? Of course they will oppose the war. When the regime is removed they will likely lose all their investments. Ironic isn't it that some of these investments involve oil when the anti-war protestors are using the laughable slogan "no blood for oil" to oppose this very war.
Did you know Iraq possesses the lowest oil yield compared to others like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia? OPEC has already stated they will make up any shortage in the supply that is lost due to the current war so the claims that this war is explicitly for oil are complete nonsense. You should blame the oil companies for gouging us especially in California where its the worst. They are creating artificial shortages resulting in high prices. Surprisingly oil prices have actually been falling despite this war going on.
The reason why the U.S. is trying to seize the oil fields is because they will be counted on to finance the reconstruction of Iraq. Every one of them that Saddam sets ablaze will only further hurt the recovery of Iraq. He did the same thing in Kuwait lighting 700 of theirs on fire during the occupation. Its only common sense to secure the fields early on to make sure this scenerio is not repeated.
This is why I disregard the anti-war movement as laughable. They don't take in the facts, cannot comprehend reality, and the only excuse they can manufacture to oppose this war is a very poor one. That and the moronic celebrities who think their opinions actually take precedence over those of our government. They will never have to worry about getting drafted so of course they can freely further their own twisted political agendas. I say cancel the Oscars, there are more important events taking place that demand our attention.
To sum this all up I see regimes like Saddam's as pure evil along with that of North Korea and terrorist factions like Al Qaida and Hamas (who are slaughtering innocent Israelis with their barbaric suicide bombings in the West Bank). The reality is good and evil cannot coexist. For peace ever to be truly possible evil must be completely destroyed and war sadly is and will remain the only way to accomplish this. Like it or not this is the bitter truth. Just because you may want peace doesn't mean others will automatically share this view.
Lastly, I fully support our troops and appreciate the sacrifices they are making. I hope this war is brief and ends with the most minimal of casualties on both sides.
Post by: deminisma on March 21, 2003, 11:18:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BrianSLA
>> The UN <<
The majority of the nations that belong to it are not democracies.
Yeah, right. What sorta crack are you smoking, buddy? That statement is plain incorrect. Check your facts, instead of making blind assumptions.
Post by: Gamer Donkey on March 22, 2003, 09:27:54 AM
Quote
The United States has support from 35 countries, and we don't need france or germany they don't have crap.
And we bribed most of them. Up to $30 BILLION dollars in grants and loans are being offered to countries for support of war. I understand reimbersing countries for damages, but should we really be spending that much to gain support from countries who oppose us while cutting $92 billion from Medicaid, $14 billion from veterans' programs(good way to support the troops), and $7 billion from farm programs. Also, off the war subject, remember that the administration is retaining $726 billion over ten years in tax cuts for those with incomes over $1 million dollars a year.
Quote
Quite a coincidence isn't it considering these major countries opposing the war also happen to be the same ones who are known to conduct business with Saddam's regime? Of course they will oppose the war. When the regime is removed they will likely lose all their investments.
How do you think we got Bulgeria? We promised to make sure Iraq pays their debts to Bulgeria after the war.
Quote
Marcus, you have rosy colored view of the world. Yes the US basically created the UN. But the UN is NOT a world government. It is in reality, in poli sci terms, a NGO ( Non- Govenmental Organization ). It is just an organization. It isn't govenrment, it isn't supposed to be. The US and all members of the UN and those outside of it do not give any of their sovereignty to it. It is an organization to help countries solve their problems / disputes and to TRY to make a better world. That is it. The majority of the UN's members are not democracies. It is just an organization and when it becomes USELESS or ineffective, then it has to chucked.
As we are part of this organization, I believe we should at least consider the descisions that are reached by it. Instead we simply dismissed it saying they preferred inaction.
Lets say Germany wanted to invade Pakistan because their military was getting too powerful or something. If it was vetoed by the members of the UN and Germany attacked anyway, how do you think we would act? Would we just say, "Oh well, the UN is useless and ineffective anyway."
My poit is just because the UN disagreed with our course of action, doesn't mean its useless. We may never know for sure the reasons that some countries oppose the war, but we do know there were enough of them to veto our resolution for war. In my mind I think if we expect others to obey the UN's decisions, isn't it a little hypocritical for us not to?
I'm sorry my ramblings went on so long.
Edited for single spelling mistake.
Post by: sequoia on March 22, 2003, 10:28:46 AM
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on March 22, 2003, 02:27:56 PM
Quote
My poit is just because the UN disagreed with our course of action, doesn't mean its useless
Any body that has Syria on the damned SECURITY COUNCIL is truly misguided. Any body that condemns Israel almost daily for almost everything, the only recognized democracy in the Middle East(save Kurdistan and Turkey) yet looks away while a madman relishes his power should not deserve to exist.
Quote
Most of the Iraqi people don't want liberation
Then exactly why were they reveling when American troops liberated yet another village, relishing while they gleefully tore down posters of their hated leader?
Saddam Hussein has committed crimes against humanity. Routeenly(sp?), people are led out and given acid baths. Worse still are the pipe-rooms, which drip acid from the ceiling that a person must avoid, lest he/she burn. Then there are the gases and all. Only a handful of years ago, he had enough anthrax to kill every person on earth FOUR TIMES OVER!
Is the world supposed to stand by and do nothing as it did in the past with Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin and that Chinese guy(name escapes me at the moment)? Are we to appease such a person, as we have so foolishly done in the past?
The world is letting their egos get the best of them. Because the US is the only remaining superpower, the rest of the world feels it must be the counter-balance. While I could see where they're coming from, it is sad to see that they are letting this issue blind them. There is no reason not to support a just cause such as this one. It is equally sad that countries must be bribed in order to 'understand' us.
When all this is over, all you naysayers will be forever thankful that we got rid of a tyrant the only way possible.
EDIT: Yeah, and now some of you people are gonna say, yeah, that last sentence was a showcase of American arrogance.(got rid) If any of you believe that he stands a chance, check yourself into a mental asylum or something....
Post by: ThePerm on March 22, 2003, 02:57:27 PM
Post by: pimpcube on March 22, 2003, 08:42:32 PM
Post by: Marcus Arillius on March 23, 2003, 06:43:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BrianSLA
Marcus,
>> Bush using this to divert attention...... pass bills ..... Alaskan oil.... protected land <<
Nope. That bill got shot down in the REPUBLICAN controlled senate. Again I HATE Bush / think he is an idiot / he is ruining the economy but he isn't going to war to do anything BUT go to war. Saddam needs to go and I am glad is Bush is doing it.
>> The president is supposed to represent us, and meet the demands of the public, not the other way around! <<
The US is a representative deomcracy. We choose leaders to represent us, to do the work for us, to lead. The American people had a choice and BASED ON our system of electing Presidents ( the Electoral College ), the American " people " chose Bush. In reality it was Gore based on numbers but in our electoral system, if you take the majority of the state vote, you get the state. More people voted for Gore than Bush but Bush won more states. That said you blame all this on that MAJOR IDIOT RAPLH NADER.... you screwed up the election, acted as a spoiler that took away votes from Gore that cost him the election.
>> we are a member of the UN. As a matter of fact we helped organize it............. The point of the U.N. is for the world to make decisions that affect the world together ......... We should have went along with the voting results because we are part of the U.N. as well, and this is a global matter. However, we basically said "screw you" to the U.N. and did what we wanted. What is the point of the UN then? <<
Marcus, you have rosy colored view of the world. Yes the US basically created the UN. But the UN is NOT a world government. It is in reality, in poli sci terms, a NGO ( Non- Govenmental Organization ). It is just an organization. It isn't govenrment, it isn't supposed to be. The US and all members of the UN and those outside of it do not give any of their sovereignty to it. It is an organization to help countries solve their problems / disputes and to TRY to make a better world. That is it. The majority of the UN's members are not democracies. It is just an organization and when it becomes USELESS or ineffective, then it has to chucked.
>> Most of the Iraqi people don't want liberation <<
You can't be serious. The majority of the Iraqi people are Shi'ite muslims. He has genocided out of existance the marsh arabs. He has gassed his own people. He won 99.99999 % of the vote in his elections and the few hundred stupid people who voted against him are all missing or six feet under. TENS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi children have died since the Gulf War due to the sanctions and Saddam screwing them over.
I am very well aware that the bill was not passed, however, the point is that is was put up for vote in the first place. The war (and the economy) is being used an excuse to destroy the environment by loosening restrictions on pollution producing companies, and drilling for oil and what not.
I am also very well aware of how our representative democracy operates. You, however, are taking my comments out of context. People shouldn't blindly follow the President in whatever decisions he makes. Although we chose people to represent us it doesn't mean they always do. That is where the First Amendment comes in, allowing us the right to free speech, and the right to protest, which people should take full advantage of.
I never once said the UN was a government, ( You quoted me, you should know) however, there are governmental processes that take place within the UN. All countries in the UN have an ethical obligation to follow the voting process that is involved when making their decisions. Now an ethical obligation is not a legal obligation so it doesn't mean they have to follow what is voted, but if they didn't then there really isn't a point in having a "Non-governmental Organization" such as the UN in the first place.
And most Iraqis don't want liberation. Read up a bit.
Post by: SuperCube on March 23, 2003, 10:22:18 AM
QuoteCan you say Pentagon Papers? The time when most of our most powerful government officials and presidents lied to all of its citizens about what was happening in Vietnam and what the chances were of us "winning"? This did include President Truman and Kennedy.
I'm very vehement, but that doesn't mean I don't respect other people. Yes, I think the public is being lied to and mislead, but that doesn't mean I have any enmity towards such people. I know my post will be offensive to many, but that's just the way it goes. I'm sure this is why this kind of topic is off limits.
1.) Young men got drafted and sent to a farwaway country that they don't even know much about. They wer being drafted to die basically
2.) Again, the government lied to us about the chances of us "winning". The chances were extremely low and they kept saying we were doing well in battle so they could do well in elections and campaigns. Also so that they would keep rolling in the money from sponsors so that they could be re-elected.
It was all for the publicity and the money. If my own American government, which is supposed to be for the land of the free and lied to our people, why should I believe anything that they say now? Please tell me.
Now, I noticed somebody mentioning that Suddam was hiding his weapons. Let me ask you all something. If you were dictator of a semi-powerful country wouldn't you want to keep your government secrets...secret? I know I would want to keep them away from the world. I can't blame him for wanting to hide some of his precious so called "weapons of mass-destruction". Can you?
Once again on the oil topic, this is a clear stated fact on CBS's Sunday morning about 1 month ago. Iraq produced about 3.1 (30?) million barrels of oil each day. They have about over 120 BILLION barrels in their reserves. That is a lot of freaking oil. Now, Bush has been an oil freak ever since I heard about him, and with all of this oil in reserves, he probably thinks that it "might" save our economy from dropping even more. Don't say that this is an ignorant thought because it isn't. Thinking that attacking Iraq is for terrorist purposes (in a good way) may not be true. Attacking Iraq for world peace might not be true. The reasona are numerous. Please inform me where you got that information if you do think it's for anti-terrorist purposes or some other reason. I'd be willing to look at it if you show me.
One more thing. I doubt I'll be posting on this topic anymore, because political threads just lead to more and more fighting and useless bickering that isn't nessacary. I just don't enjoy posting on threads like those. Please keep this topic going and don't insult.
It just makes more and more people angry.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 23, 2003, 10:59:06 AM
Seriosuly, where are you getting that information? Last I checked civilians don't welcome US troops, defile posters of their "esteemed" leader, and surrender by the thousands if they didn't want to be liberated. Next you'll be telling me the people of Iraq *voluntarily* elected Hussein as their dicatator.
And get off the oil thing, people- YES politicians probably do want some oil out of Iraq. I'd personally like to see the US move towards alternative forms of energy, but that's what their doing. But you have to realise that the *opponents* of this war- Russia, Germany, and France- ALL have huge oil deals with none other than Hussein himself. so who's really fighting for oil? I'll admit that oil should not be the focus of this war, and so far it hasn't, it's only been an underlying desire that everybody knows about. Then again, knowing my fellow Americans, they'd rather bomb the $%# out of a country than have higher gas prices which are actually some of the lowest in the world.
Also, interesting little note- it was rather recently unveiled that certain people high up in Russia's government were giving Iraq weapons over the last year, including radar scramblers and anti-tank missiles, and are even now teaching the Iraqis how to use these devices. The US has known about this and has supplied the Russian goverment with all the necessary details of these people and urged them to get arrest these people. Russia has done diddly squat to stop these people, and now it looks like more Americans and British will die because of it.
"It was all for the publicity and the money. If my own American government, which is supposed to be for the land of the free and lied to our people, why should I believe anything that they say now? Please tell me."
Because that was 30 years ago! A lot of things change in 30 years, namely administrations/presidents. LBJ and Nixon are long gone. I'm not saying Bush is an angel, but I think we have more to trust in him than we did back then, especially seeing as that was a largely political war while this is for the defense of our own people. During Vietnam it was very *politically* advantageous of the US to lie about how the war was going- I'm not saying it was right by any stretch of the word, but you HAVE to agree that had a lot more to gain from lying about Vietnam than lying about Iraq. Do you really think Iraq is winning the war right now? I think the simple fact that the US has embedded journalists in Iraq shows that they aren't lying.
"Now, I noticed somebody mentioning that Suddam was hiding his weapons. Let me ask you all something. If you were dictator of a semi-powerful country wouldn't you want to keep your government secrets...secret? I know I would want to keep them away from the world. I can't blame him for wanting to hide some of his precious so called "weapons of mass-destruction". Can you?"
Well of course, but if the United Nations were on your back for the better part of a decade, don't you think you'd divulge those secrets, too? Don't even TRY to justify what Hussein has done- this guy kills his own people so he can have more palaces. He's INSANE. He has absolutely no use for weapons of mass destruction OR chemical weapons- no country does, not even the US. So why is he so vehemently guarding them?
What really surprises me is that some Americans are so selfish they'd rather we leave Iraq alone than help their people- what ever happened to our American compassion? Some might say it was never even there. I'd personally rather see Saddam Hussein and his regime taken down rather than have him supply nukes or chemical weapons to a terrorist and have another repeat of 9-11. Just my thoughts personally.
And who cares if the US doesn't have the majority of the UN's support? Most Arab nations are under the impression we intend of destroying the Islamic religion and replace it with Christianity, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Remember Kosovo? The UN didn't officially do anything ebcause Russia kept threatening a veto. The US came in and ended much of the ethnic cleansing in that area. When asked who they should thank for the end of it, most of the people in that area responded "Not the UN". We shouldn't let "UN officialness" stop us from eliminating a threat to our nation and people.
Post by: ThePerm on March 23, 2003, 11:16:43 AM
so you see the real reason were targeting him is because he's a jackass.
also people bring up the idea "why didnt we finish the job 12 years ago? when we were at war?"
because clinton got elected and had 8 years in office. The tides of power was handed off and the agenda was different. The person who started it never got to finish it. Politically, you can't accheive such a thing in just 4 years. It seems as though Junior's finishing daddy's unfinished buisiness.
Post by: SuperCube on March 23, 2003, 11:25:16 AM
QuoteThen why does Russia still have weapons of such type? Why do we? How about we get rid of our own and go on an expedition to Russia with freaking UN inspectars to destroy THIER MISSI3S!!!11ds omg
Well of course, but if the United Nations were on your back for the better part of a decade, don't you think you'd divulge those secrets, too? Don't even TRY to justify what Hussein has done- this guy kills his own people so he can have more palaces. He's INSANE. He has absolutely no use for weapons of mass destruction OR chemical weapons- no country does, not even the US. So why is he so vehemently guarding them?
That comment of yours is partially hypocritical, because if we have no intention of destroying Russia's nukes, why are we so eager to get rid of Iraqs? Should we actually ph33r Iraq? I seriously doubt we should.
One more thing. I'm still not going to believe any higher-up government officials until they can litteraly PROVE to me that they have changed. A lot CAN'T change in 30 years. Did you know that?
And another thing too (this is for your benefit). Proofread your posts.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 23, 2003, 11:43:52 AM
Because Russia's obviously not going to USE their nukes to bomb the United States, and vice versa. Iraq IS going to, if they ever get a chance. The United States and Russia both agreed at the end of the Cold War to dismantle the large majority of our nuclear weapons, and both of us HAVE. We have no intention of using ours, so no nation should be in fear of that possibility. If we did have that intention, believe me, this war with Iraq would've lasted one day.
"That comment of yours is partially hypocritical, because if we have no intention of destroying Russia's nukes, why are we so eager to get rid of Iraq’s? Should we actually ph33r Iraq? I seriously doubt we should."
Have you read anything I've said? Hussein is CRAZY. Would you trust weapons of mass destruction to a man that willingly kills people for little more than amusement? And don't give me any crap about how you don't think Bush is competent, as much as you'd like to cut him down.
"One more thing. I'm still not going to believe any higher-up government officials until they can literally PROVE to me that they have changed. A lot CAN'T change in 30 years. Did you know that?"
I'm starting to think you skimmed my post rather than actually read it- like I said before, I think the simple fact that the United States government has embedded journalists IN Iraq with the American and British troops is proof enough that they have nothing to hide as far as this war specifically goes. News organizations can and will report on anything they want. Besides, Iraq's military was decimated after Desert Storm. There's honestly not much to fear from them nukes and chemical weapons aside. Also, if you SEARCH for ulterior motives in everything the US does, you'll find them, exactly where you want to. I'm not saying you should believe 100% everything our government tells us, but calling everything lies is just stupid.
"And another thing too (this is for your benefit). Proofread your posts."
I'll make a note of that for future posts, but honestly spelling mistakes shouldn't matter as there has been no proven correlation between spelling and intelligence. Some guy who spells perfectly could be as dumb as a rock and some guy who has atrocious spelling could be the next Einstein- please don't dismiss my posts just because you see I've misspelled some words. If you want the truth, I chicken peck at close to 120 wpm and when doing so I often hit keys out of order or pull a fat finger and hit two keys at once. I'll look over my future posts, but like I said, don't ignore someone simply because they couldn’t pass a national spelling bee.
By the way, from the first paragraph of yours I quoted:
"How about we get rid of our own and go on an expedition to Russia with freaking UN inspectars to destroy THIER MISSI3S!!!11ds omg"
If I were you, I'd make sure my own spelling was perfect before critiquing others on it. I don't think of you any less because of it, especially since it was only one word compared to my many, but be careful when you're calling other hypocrites to make sure you're not one yourself.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on March 23, 2003, 12:33:42 PM
1) I think people who turn their back to the flag don't know what they are doing
2) The protests accomplish nothing
3) France wanted to gain power, Protesting war was just the means to gain it
4) Turkey is playing chicken with the US
5) NATO is outdated
6) The UN is outdated
7) The Dixie Chicks got the other end of free speech, public backlass (see O' Connor)
8) The US is not an imperialism
9) Bush knows more about foreign policy than the arm chair quarterbacks
10) People who breaking laws that have no bias (traffic laws) are incapable of deciding what is against the law
Edit: So there is some intellingent conversation in here I stand corrected.
About the lack of democracies in the UN. If there is not a majority, there are a whole lot that are not. Look at the continents that have/had one up until the last few years.
South America: Argentina, Columbia, Peru
Africa: Too many to list
Europe: Former soviet republics
Western Asia: Practically all nations (turkey and israel are no better for their oppression)
Eastern asia: North Korea, Laos, Myanamar, Indonisia for oppression
North America: Cuba, Haiti
There still is a whole lot of groups in the UN who love to see other groups oppressed, there is no way to deny there isn't.
Post by: ThePerm on March 23, 2003, 01:31:03 PM
200 years from now they'll be freeing someone else.
Post by: Matt on March 23, 2003, 01:52:21 PM
Liberating the Iraqi people, while good and important, is secondary.
Post by: ThePerm on March 23, 2003, 06:13:50 PM
Post by: Marcus Arillius on March 23, 2003, 07:07:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
"And most Iraqis don't want liberation. Read up a bit."
YOU SAID:
Seriosuly, where are you getting that information? Last I checked civilians don't welcome US troops, defile posters of their "esteemed" leader, and surrender by the thousands if they didn't want to be liberated. Next you'll be telling me the people of Iraq *voluntarily* elected Hussein as their dicatator.
THEN YOU SAID:
Most Arab nations are under the impression we intend of destroying the Islamic religion and replace it with Christianity.
Thanks for proving my point. Most arab nations do believe we want to impose our culture on them and change their way of life, including Iraq. They don't want that. Iraqis see what we call "liberation" as a military coming and destroying their cities and killing civilians (yes we have, even if it was accidental) then eventually imposing our culture on them. You might want to note that although some people have welcomed the troops, there are others who have "welcomed" troops and then attacked them in ambushes. (I got that from CNN. )
Do you not remeber when the September 11 attacks occured there was video of people cheering in the streets of Pakistan and other Arabian countries? I can't recall if there was video of Iraq's people doing the same thing, but being that Iraq and Pakistan are allies most likely their sentiments were the same.
Post by: cubefreak123 on March 24, 2003, 07:18:26 AM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on March 24, 2003, 08:38:45 AM
Here is the problem with that. I admit it would be great if all the world were free of any form of weapons of war. The problem is not all nations would comply, many would have programs that are secretly building weapons.
Do you really think a leader like Saddam would get rid of all his Army and weapons if the US and Russia did?
Iraq's track record with Saddam in power speaks loud and clear.
Some needs to be the watchdog, the US has taken on this role. Will they always make the right decisions? I doubt it, but I definately trust their decisions over some of the alternitives.
This had to be done. I wish their was a better way, an easier way, a peaceful way. Sadly dictators dont have a habit of resigning, leaving only one option. The swift kick in the ass approach.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on March 24, 2003, 08:48:42 AM
Quote
Do you not remeber when the September 11 attacks occured there was video of people cheering in the streets of Pakistan and other Arabian countries? I can't recall if there was video of Iraq's people doing the same thing, but being that Iraq and Pakistan are allies most likely their sentiments were the same.
This is so flawed it isnt even funny. Many of the people you see cheering have been raised with such a level of uninformed hatred that it is sickening. These people are in many cases uneducated, uniformed, and truly have no concept of what they are even cheering for.
They have been taught to believe that the Americans are evil, and that the American way of life is filled with sin and is also evil. I guess killing your wife because she showed her face to another man is just fine and dandy though, while your at, it why not brutally castrate your daughters as well.
Yes, our cultures are very differant, but that is no ecxuse at all to sit back and allow flagrent abuses on human life to occur.
Information, and education will truly be the only things that will really liberate the Iraqis, and the whole middle east for that matter. Only when they begin to realize we are not the evil people they think we are will thinks change, and here at home we must do the same thing, making sure our children know and respect them as well.
Removing Saddam is a step in the right direction, however it is just one piece in a very large and difficult puzzle.
Post by: SuperCube on March 24, 2003, 11:22:00 AM
QuoteMaybe you should stop that thought of yours because I did read your entire post.
I'm starting to think you skimmed my post rather than actually read it-...
I'm gonna stop posting on this thread since it is dying through my eyes. The thing's gettin' on my nerves. @_@
QuoteYou do know I misspelled that on purpose, don't you? *sigh* Have you never been to Jeff K.'s website? If not, then you must really be out of it.
"How about we get rid of our own and go on an expedition to Russia with freaking UN inspectars to destroy THIER MISSI3S!!!11ds omg"
If I were you, I'd make sure my own spelling was perfect before critiquing others on it. I don't think of you any less because of it, especially since it was only one word compared to my many, but be careful when you're calling other hypocrites to make sure you're not one yourself.
Post by: Phillpot on March 24, 2003, 03:03:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: yrrab436
Yep, this is a political thread. I think it's scary how people blindly believe the powers that be.
I think France is very courageous for standing up to US imperialism. Some countries see the dark path the US is taking and they should be praised for standing up to a horrid, lying, aggressive state. Edit: Okay, so maybe that's a bit much. Still, the US habitually lies.
Hmm, when does the war start? When Iraq starts to cooperate better? I think Bushy was afraid of losing ANY "legitimate" reason to attack. Yes, Saddam needs to be removed. This isn’t' a mission of good will though. It's an invasion, and no one can deny that. France and the others tried to stop it, but the US seems to think it's above everyone else.
I hope we don't become like Germany was for the first half of the 20th century. Remember, Nazis were patriotic too. All this talk about boycotting French stuff and the Dixie chicks is warning signs of a slow drift into a state of fascism.
I agree with the Dixie Chicks. I'm ashamed to be an American right now. I'm ashamed of the blind faith people give this government. We're blissfully tossing our freedom away, and it sickens me. I wouldn't have started such a thread, but you bet I'm going to post about it if the subject already exists. This is a very dark time in the history of the USA, when we toss away great progress made over the last few decades. I'm afraid ludicrous stuff like "Patriot II" is just the tip of the iceberg. People are so stupid, blindly believing every bit of propaganda thrown about. A bunch of stupid puppets, with George W. holding the strings. I'm very ashamed of the American people.
This is a test. America needs to prove its innocense to the rest of the world after the inevitable victory. I sincerely hope we do.
After Iraq, I have to ask: Who's next? Do we have to launch preemptive strikes on all other countries to protect our security?
Edit:
Note that Iraq isn't the only country developing such weapons. I acknowledge that Saddam's regime is horrid, but you have to always be questioning! Why is it that the oil fields are the first on the list for the reconstruction of Iraq? Not hospitals. Not schools. OIL FIELDS
Edit2:
I'm very vehement, but that doesn't mean I don't respect other people. Yes, I think the public is being lied to and mislead, but that doesn't mean I have any enmity towards such people. I know my post will be offensive to many, but that's just the way it goes. I'm sure this is why this kind of topic is off limits.
I just thought I would point out that the dixie chick... uh chick recalled her statment and appoligized, saying that now that we are at war she will stand behind the president and our troops. I read that in the paper.
As for me, I don't know why we didn't just send in some black opps to assasinate that dirty BAST%&# Saddam. We could have set it up to look like an inside job.... I know this still leaves a lot of problems for setting up a new government. I don't know, but something had to be done so I will stand behind president bush. A lot of my friends are turning into major hippys and that kind of scares me. Have any of you been to a peace rally? It's like mob mentality! There's nothing peacefull about most peace rallys. Most of those people, a lot of my friends included, are just there because it's trendy! Many are just trying to get out of class and get some excitment. Most of those people don't know the first thing about the historical and political situation. I can see why people protested they way they did in WWII, but this situation is sooo different. Besides, shouldn't we really be protesting people like Saddam or bin laddin? Just my 2 cents.
BTW Sorry about the quote thing, I'm still very new to this whole forum thing.
Post by: cubefreak123 on March 24, 2003, 04:18:36 PM
Post by: Marcus Arillius on March 24, 2003, 04:22:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thecubedcanuckQuote
Do you not remeber when the September 11 attacks occured there was video of people cheering in the streets of Pakistan and other Arabian countries? I can't recall if there was video of Iraq's people doing the same thing, but being that Iraq and Pakistan are allies most likely their sentiments were the same.
This is so flawed it isnt even funny. Many of the people you see cheering have been raised with such a level of uninformed hatred that it is sickening. These people are in many cases uneducated, uniformed, and truly have no concept of what they are even cheering for.
They have been taught to believe that the Americans are evil, and that the American way of life is filled with sin and is also evil. I guess killing your wife because she showed her face to another man is just fine and dandy though, while your at, it why not brutally castrate your daughters as well.
Yes, our cultures are very differant, but that is no ecxuse at all to sit back and allow flagrent abuses on human life to occur.
Information, and education will truly be the only things that will really liberate the Iraqis, and the whole middle east for that matter. Only when they begin to realize we are not the evil people they think we are will thinks change, and here at home we must do the same thing, making sure our children know and respect them as well.
Removing Saddam is a step in the right direction, however it is just one piece in a very large and difficult puzzle.
I hope your not saying my statement was flawed because it was 100% true. Even if they are undeducated, the point is, they still don't want to be liberated, especially by the U.S. Given, they will have a better life if they are liberated, but they don't know that. They are afraid of us.
And about the Iraqis welcoming the troops: Wouldn't you welcome another countries' troops, especially if that country were larger and more powerful (although none are), if they were invading America in the hopes that they wouldn't see you as a threat, and would let you live? Saddam has probaly told his people that the Americans are ruthless killers and to be afraid of them. People will do anything to survive, and I don't blame them.
I agree, removing Saddam is a step in the right direction, it needs to be done, however, our government can offer us no reassurance or safety. We could be bombed at any time. Thats the reality of the situation. That is why war with someone like Saddam is not a good Idea. Someone mentioned earlier that a stealthy assasination would be better, and I agree. It would be less risk to the American people.
I'll end with this: How many of you are willing to be killed to liberate the Iraqi people who most likely hate us and want us dead? Well, get ready. Now we are all in immediate danger (given we were before, but I think its a little more serious now) . Don't be surprised if we are bombed.
Post by: Marcus Arillius on March 24, 2003, 04:24:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: cubefreak123
ok the only reasoned she apologized about wat she said about the president IS FOR THE MONEY i bet the second she said that her manager said u better apologize or ur goona lose record sales its all for the money.
you hit the proverbial nail on the head, if I do say so myself.
Post by: yrrab436 on March 24, 2003, 07:09:20 PM
Wisconsin is my home, and I'm quite ashamed that McCarthy came from here, even though Lafayette (from early in the 20th century) alleviates that some. If Bush keeps rolling down this path, perhaps many more future Texans will feel ashamed of him as many are ashamed of McCarthy.
For those who don't know, McCarthy was a guy that amplified the Red Scare to eliminate political enemies. He became very powerful, but luckily was stopped when he started aiming higher than he should have too quickly.
Just like McCarthy, I think Bush is a very dangerous person. I can't trust a president that once called the USA a "Christian country" and openly supports bigoted legislation and reductions of personal liberties.
I've actually been ashamed of Bush long before the war. Who in their right mind would appoint someone like Ashcroft, who repeatedly attacked blacks and homosexuals in his dark work history, as attorney general?
I really hope Bush proves me wrong, but I've always seen him as the worst current danger to the country.
Edit:
I'm pretty sure people liked McCarthy during his time of fame. Scary, isn't it? My dad still insists that he's a "hero" for "stopping communists." I have to wonder how many "terrorists" are simply political enemies. What a convenient way of getting rid of foes. It hasn't gotten like McCarthyism quite yet, but it's important to watch out incase it does.
Post by: RahXephon on March 24, 2003, 08:23:58 PM
My final statement, anyone who claims to be a humanitarian and objects to the war are hippocrits to the highest degree worrying of only their own happiness and idea of self-righteousness.
Post by: ThePerm on March 24, 2003, 08:33:41 PM
Post by: RahXephon on March 24, 2003, 08:56:09 PM
We get 15% OF OUR OIL FROM IRAQ. THE PRICES ARE GOING UP BECAUSE OF A STRIKE IN ZENESVUela(spelled wrong but what can ya do). IF this was for oil, we would be working on that country instead. Please Please protestors read Hobbes. He was one of the greatest minds ever but understood war. And you know what, if we get some oil out of this, then what the hell, we do, if not, then what the hell we don't. I just know that if we do get oil from the IRAQI PEOPLE AFTER LIBERATION it will be by their contribution. yet some will say it "proves" the war was for oil. Do you people realize the longest period of time without MAJOR war was the roman empire. You see gladiator. THat was the goverment it takes to keep peace. One with a militia so powerful no one rises against it. THe only way to feep peace if fear. That is why there are no revolts against sadaam because the fear is greater. For all the anti war protestors, this is the only way to have true peace, it just is by OUR HUMAN NATURE. I wish it wasn't but it is.
Maybe there could have been SOME way to prevent war. Well we are at war. And here is the deal folks, Sadaam does NOT deserve a deal. Why should he need more than 24 hours to leave. I just don't see why. If he cared about his people he would. BUt nope, HE STARTED THIS WAR, AND DO YOU KNOW WHY, BECUASE HE KNOWS THAT SOME COUNTRIES WILL AGREE AND SOME WILL NOT AND HE WANTS THE WORLD TO BE IN CHAOS.
Also someone said that bush is using this war to pass bills that might not be passed. WELL WAKE UP GUY. This is called politics, it has been like this since man was organized and thewre have been people who pretend it never was and we just imagine it. Clinton did it. Yes the beloved Clinto passed bills WE didn't know about. But you know what, those people are still free today to be what they want. Even with the "lies" of politics we are still here. The reason these bills are passed quietly is because the common opinion is commonly wrong. I see the people in my College and i would not want them to pass laws, they are too lax, not asscertive, and are too self centered. What do superheros due, sacrifice themselves for the good of others. I think spiderman is the best example i can give. This is becuase there are many who dont like him yet he still does what is right.
I end with this, the only thing more valuable than a human life is one used to save many. I wish i could be fighting too, knowing that i gave up my selfishness for a cause much greater than myself, unfortunately i can not becaue of physical implications. I did test high enough for inteligence and would be interested in that, but i am almost done with my degree, so one thing at a time. God Bless the Troops, our President who for better our worse is doing what he believes is best for us and the world, for the people who are supporting the troops and letting them know we will welcome them back with open arms. And finally God bless Freedom, "freedom is a gift that belongs to the world". Said by a very wise man.
Post by: cubefreak123 on March 25, 2003, 03:06:33 AM
Post by: Gamer Donkey on March 25, 2003, 12:40:15 PM
Quote
Also someone said that bush is using this war to pass bills that might not be passed. WELL WAKE UP GUY. This is called politics, it has been like this since man was organized and thewre have been people who pretend it never was and we just imagine it.
Let's examin the word "politics": you have "poli-" as in many, and "-tics" as in blood-sucking parasites. (And I know that's not what it actually means so don't flame me.)
Quote
also people bring up the idea "why didnt we finish the job 12 years ago? when we were at war?"
because clinton got elected and had 8 years in office. The tides of power was handed off and the agenda was different.
We didn't chase Hussein into Iraq because that was not the purpose of the Gulf War. Bush Sr. intended to get Iraqis out of Kuwait, he did that. The UN's resolution only went so far as getting Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, unlike his son, Bush Sr. actually listened to the UN.
Remember, during the Gulf War the first disarmaments hadn't even been attempted yet, so Hussein's weapons were unchecked. Who knows how many lives could have been lost.
Post by: kennyb27 on March 25, 2003, 04:07:54 PM
1) Saddam had nearly 12 years and 17 resolutions telling him to disarm. Recently, the resolution passed by the UN stated that severe consequences would follow if Saddam didn't disarm. He didn't. Therefore, even without the UN officially stating again, the severe consequences could be followed through with.
2) People say the US is in this for the oil. I strongly disagree with this, if we were in it for oil we would capture the oil fields and send in bombs to Baghdad to kill Saddam. Also, I turn the statement about the oil around and say the French are not in it for the oil. Iraq's largest exportations of oil have been to the French for the past 10 or so years.
3) I find it even more ironic that after the first night of bombings, the Iraqis launched a missile. And the missile that they launched, they claimed to not have and were not supposed to have.
4) To think that there are people complaining of the casualties of the coalition force is completely ridiculous. Only 38 confirmed dead in nearly 6 days of combat is very good. And after talking to several retired Marines (all from combat situations), all of them believe these protests saying "bring our troops home" are ridiculous. Although they say that the possible situations are nerve-wracking, they love serving their country.
5) To the reports that the war isnt going as scheduled or the plan is failing because of the situations in the 101st division and the casualties is ridiculous. This is war, these things happen. Centcom will, out of their own statements, tell you that the war is above and beyond its planned state at this stage.
PS. Gamer Donkey
QuoteCan you make that any easier?! Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the Frenchman in the French castle in England lol
"Now go away! Before I taunt you a second time!"
Post by: simpsonsfan2003 on March 25, 2003, 04:36:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: cubefreak123
Im just curious if all these ppl hate bush right now why (in the u.s) does he have about 71% of america for the war i personally think bush is a great leader he goes by wat this nation was founded on God and the bible (dont deny it u no its tru)
That's not entirely true. True the Puritans came here for freedom of religion but that was still when the colonies were under British rule and the local churches in the colonies made the laws and enforced them (ie Salam Witch Trials incident, 1600's-early 1700's). After we gained our independence in 1776 we made up the Constitution that was adopted in 1789 which with the 1st amendment rights guarentees freedom of religion, which was not around when we was under British rule due to local churches ruling in the towns. Thank goodness for the establishment clause, which doesn't allow the government to establish a national religion. And thank goodness the majority of the popular held ideals by people don't turn out to vote, thus allowing minority ideals to be brought into law. I'm glad this isn't offically a Christian nation if it was it would be like Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, China, etc where you can only practice a certian religion(s) besides religious people are hypocrites and bigots.
Study your American history people.
Post by: Nintendork SP on March 26, 2003, 05:10:03 AM
My opoinion on the war, well I am one of those opinionless bastards who can't decide what I want.
Post by: cubefreak123 on March 26, 2003, 05:24:34 AM
Post by: sequoia on March 27, 2003, 09:08:35 AM
Post by: simpsonsfan2003 on March 27, 2003, 09:46:59 AM
Good Day Sir,
-SimpsonsFan2003
Post by: SSJBonacci2 on March 27, 2003, 10:51:32 AM
Post by: kennyb27 on March 27, 2003, 11:55:51 AM
) because that is one sure way to get this thread LOCKED.
Post by: simpsonsfan2003 on March 27, 2003, 12:49:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SSJBonacci2
Can u give me any bit of information about judism that disproves christianity? Im sure that it is a lie! And can you tell me how the Bible (meaning the ppl who wrote it) predicted things that are happening as we speak if it is a lie? Any way not to get to off topic I fully support the war and George Bush. GOD BLESS THE TROOPS!!!
Just research Jewish theology it proves Christianity wrong easily.
Post by: Marcus Arillius on March 28, 2003, 07:16:04 AM
I took a course in American History and we were taught back to the beginning of the church. It was this course that made me realize that the Christian religion was basically created to control the people and take their money. So now I definitely do not believe in any sort of organized religion especially Chrisitanity and Catholisicm because they are oppresive and discriminatory which no religion should be. I'm not going to get into it because there will definitely be arguments on religion. However, although informal, the show "Penn & Teller: Bullshit" (airs on Showtime) is actually a good source for information on this topic (I watched it last night).
All in all, I think religion is just something to appease people's fear of not existing after death. If you research you find that as soon as man was able to realize the concept of death and that they eventually will die, that is when the belief of an afterlife began.
Post by: yrrab436 on March 28, 2003, 10:07:45 AM
By the way, I've had two professors say that Bush LOST the election. Good thing he has a brother to control Florida. It was so close though (nation wide) that it seems people randomly voted for the two big parties. With large enough numbers of people that don't care or choose randomly, that's what happens.
As far as patrotism/idiotism goes, there's a fine line between patriotism and fascism. Bush and his cronies act like a religious dictatorship. Granted that we haven't fallen that low yet, but we're dangerously teetering on the edge. As long as people blindly follow the news, and as long as the news remains complacent to the regime, the regime can get away with anything.
Like I said, who knows what the truth is.
There's no point arguing about this. Everyone has views, and those views aren't likely to change.
The song Razzle Dazzle from the broadway musical Chicago applies to all sides here (and most politicians), especially George W. and Saddam. Saddam may be ten bazillion times as bad as George W. (I don't think anyone denies that), but they both succeed at doing this to people:
Quote
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll never catch wise!
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em a show that's so splendiferous
Row after row will crow vociferous
Give 'em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture 'em
How can they hear the truth above the roar?
Throw 'em a fake and a finagle
They'll never know you're just a bagel,
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll beg you for more!
Give 'em the old double whammy
Daze and dizzy'em
Back since the days of old Methuselah
Everyone loves the big bambooz-a-ler
Give 'em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance
Though you are stiffer than a girder
They let you get away with murder
Razzle dazzle 'em
And you've got a romance
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Show 'em the first rate sorcerer you are
Long as you keep 'em way off balance
How can they spot you got no talents?
Razzle dazzle 'em
Razzle dazzle 'em
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll make you a star!
Sorry if it's against the rules posting that, but it applies to the current situation from anyone's point of view. While I cling to my "conspiracy" stance, I fully admit that I personally have no idea what's going on.
Edit:
The song isn't about politics. I forgot to mention that. It applies to any fraud though, and that's why I love it so much.
Post by: sequoia on March 28, 2003, 11:28:27 AM
Post by: Gamer Donkey on March 28, 2003, 01:23:31 PM
Quote
I'd just like to note that I think we are taking this thing with France too far by changing the name of "French fries" to "Freedom fries." How immature and childish is that? Worse yet, our own congress has done that on their menus. I really want people who are acting like children running our country (note the sarcasm). Next thing you know they'll be throwing all French art out of museums, and they will ban teaching French history in schools. There are people who are partiotic and then there are people who are idiotic, now its hard to distinguish the line between patriotism and idiocy.
Yeah, and I've always wondered what they plan on renaming the Statue of Liberty. I read somewhere that a politician suggested sending it back (at taxpayers' expense I presume). I go back to my previous definition of politics. To add, I agree with your views on religion. The Bible can be interpreted so many different ways.
Quote
Religion is not a crutch for those who know how to use it. I think Bush is leading this nation in the right direction. He is not using his religion as a crutch.
What I don't like is how many of my Christian friends follow Bush just because he is a religous man. When I show them very good proof that Bush has lied in the past, they just dismissed it saying Bush was a Christian man and would not do such a thing, continuing to say that my source must have lied. This blind faith worries me, mostly for the economy. And they say Bush is leading the country in a Godly way, but I ask: Does God favor the richest? Because Bush does. Read about it here. Sorry to make a direct link, but I felt I needed a source for that statement.
Post by: kennyb27 on March 28, 2003, 01:41:55 PM
A quick comment on Michael Moore. To say President Bush is fictitious and this war is fictitious is just about as ignorant as one can get. The final count of the popular vote had Bush winning by some 500,000 votes over Al Gore. Given that this is not alot, but guess what, it is more than his opponent. Also, the Electoral votes were Bush: 271, Gore: 267 (note: 270 needed for a victory). Bush carried 31 states to Gore's 19. I really am lost in how Bush is a fictitious leader. I believe I mentioned how it is not possible for it to be a fictitious war. The UN declared in a resolution that if Iraq did not disarm, serious consequences would result. This is the serious consequences. The UN was too stubborn/ignorant to carry through with it.
PS, I have one comment on the "religion is for the weak" comment. How can this be true when all the leaders of the major nations in the world, who some would name the most men in the world, have a religion.
Post by: simpsonsfan2003 on March 28, 2003, 02:18:41 PM
Remember folks America started the war with Iraq, Iraq didn't start it with us. Besides if the Iraqis wanted to be liberated they wouldn't be fighting back so hard against collition forces.
Post by: Marcus Arillius on March 28, 2003, 07:23:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: kennyb27
I think some of these anti-war protests are extremely ridiculous and in some cases anti-American. For example, a sign being held in a protest in New York City read "I will support our troops when they shoot their officers." I don't understand how someone can say that when they are an American. If they say this about the American leaders, they should move to Iraq and try to live their way of life their. If they were to make stupid statements about their government there, THEY would be the ones getting shot, not the leaders.
That was just one person representing himself, not the sentiment of all the protestors. I have a million reasons to be against the war and a million for the war, so I don't know where I stand. However, I don't think anyone is being anti-american if they protest a war. They don't think it is right. It's anti-American to keep people from protesting. I don't agree with that person however. Most of those soldiers don't want to be over there anymore than you or I want to be over. They are just following orders. I think that person was doing it for shock value. I don't think that they really thought over what they were writing on that sign.
Post by: simpsonsfan2003 on March 29, 2003, 04:17:01 AM
Post by: kennyb27 on March 29, 2003, 06:01:18 AM
Quote[sarcasm]Yeah, that is what a Diploma from Yale and a MBA from Harvard Business school will do for you. [/sarcasm]
Atleast they could choose a president that atleast looks intelligent, in Dubya's case he's stupid and stupid looking, a deadly combination.
QuoteSo that is why the majority of Iraqi soldiers (excluding the Republican Guard) has laid down their weapons to the coalition forces.
Besides if the Iraqis wanted to be liberated they wouldn't be fighting back so hard against collition forces.
QuoteI was using an extreme example to coincide with this protestors extremely ignorant sign.
There is alot of better democracies out there besides America. Like Canada and Greece for example are a few of many. Why move to Iraq? Just move up to Canada atleast they don't start wars with people like the blood thirsty American government. No I am not Canadian either.
Oh, what am I doing, this is futile...
Post by: thecubedcanuck on March 29, 2003, 07:37:11 AM
Quote
There is alot of better democracies out there besides America. Like Canada
I am Canadian and it is obvious to me that your head is quite far up your ass.
We are no better than the USA in Canada, out countries are very similar, we both have our advantages and disadvantages.
We have an extremely Liberal government in Canada, one that so desperately wants to be seen as bi-partisan that is has become afraid to make even the simplist of decisions.
The war in IRAQ , and decision of our government in Canada is a clear example. Our government has stated that is will not support a war without UN sanctioning. The ironic part is we have troops that are part of an exchange program with the British, troops that are already fighting along side the Americans in Iraq. Our government refuses to tell Canadian public where these troops even are, saying only that they "may" be fighting, and that they "may" be in Iraq, all the while the British have said, "Yes, here they are." Again, clearly dodging the truth in an attempt to maintain an unrealistic feeling of moral superiority.
I love my country and would fight to protect it, but I refuse to back the decisions it has made in regards to the war in Iraq. I for one feel we have stabbed the Americans in the back on this, that we have walked away from our closest ally and neighbour, just to avoid critisism on the global front. IMO it was a cowardly act.
God bless to the troops fighting over there, and to my friends in the US, please remember, some of us still stand with you.
Post by: The Omen on March 29, 2003, 10:25:34 PM
Post by: simpsonsfan2003 on March 30, 2003, 05:05:56 AM
-SimpsonsFan2003
Post by: kennyb27 on March 30, 2003, 05:40:30 AM
Post by: cubefreak123 on March 30, 2003, 08:42:08 AM
Post by: Marcus Arillius on March 30, 2003, 09:46:50 AM
Post by: The Omen on March 30, 2003, 10:51:13 AM
Quote
I don't trust anything the government says because they are liers.
So do you trust the Iraqi goverment then? If the U.S. goverment told us everything, we would have mass riots all over the country. People can only handle so much info. Like for instance, the cuban missile crisis. We were within a couple of hours of Nuclear war, should they have told all of the world? Of course not. Panic stricken people running around thinking the world is coming to an end would be the last thing you want, as they would feel they have nothing to lose.
Post by: simpsonsfan2003 on April 01, 2003, 09:37:15 AM
-SimpsonsFan2003
Don't delay abort a baby today!
Post by: manunited4eva22 on April 01, 2003, 09:52:57 AM
Post by: kennyb27 on April 01, 2003, 03:06:01 PM
QuoteUm...let me explain the situation. First off, remember a couple days ago, when an Iraqi civilian waved down a group of American soldiers and then set off a bomb on his person, killing 4 US soldiers (btw, just to show exactly how sick this regime is, this--I'll be PC here--homicide bomber earned some $30,000--US dollars--to his family for this horrific crime). Now, not only did this incident heighten the security around bases but also the awareness of the Marines around Iraq. Ok, back to the situation at hand. This van was approaching the US base/checkpoint, they were given due warnings to stop and a warning shot was fired over them. They continued driving without any indication that they received this warning. Again, the soldiers tried to contact them to tell them to stop and another warning shot fired. In fact, the Marines followed the book on this, they went down and did everything they needed to do, probably a bit more, and still the van crossed the checkpoint. Then, obviously with all options run out (what if this van was full of more kamikaze civilians or soldiers?), the Marines were forced to shoot it for their own safety. My point is that this "attack" on the van was not the first and only option, I guarrantee you that it was plan Z if not lower.
HAHAHAHAHA American troops shot and killed Iraqi women and children HAHAHAHA OMG HAHAHAHA They need to kill more children though, it makes American seem like a damn fine country.
Post by: kennyb27 on April 01, 2003, 03:11:47 PM
Upon asked who is one of the greatest geniuses that the world has ever seen, who would your answer be?
Mine would be Albert Einstein--in a second. So here is one of his quotes just to toss into the mix:
"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
Post by: Gamer Donkey on April 02, 2003, 03:03:15 AM
Quote
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction... The chain reaction of evil—hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars—must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the darkness of annihilation.
That was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Sure this war will rid the world of Saddam Hussein, but then what. Al Queda has already been recruiting more people because of this war. Arabs are just becoming more anti-American. I don't think Bush realizes this. He rushed into this war avoiding all diplomacy and ignoring cultures in the Middle East not to mention lessons of the past. IMO I beleive he did it to boost his image and to clear his father's name(I've heard in this thread "Why didn't we finish this 12 years ago?"), not to mention ensure re-election. In his second term he will continue to favor big business and the rich only to send this beautiful country into economic despair. I end with another quote I think needs no explanation.
Quote
When we exchange our freedoms for security, we are in danger of losing both.
— Ben Franklin
Post by: The Omen on April 02, 2003, 09:29:09 AM
Quote
HAHAHAHAHA American troops shot and killed Iraqi women and children HAHAHAHA OMG HAHAHAHA They need to kill more children though, it makes American seem like a damn fine country.
Where do you reside? I certainly hope it's not in the U.S.. If you do, i'll personally pay for your one way ticket out of here.
Post by: kennyb27 on April 02, 2003, 12:32:07 PM
QuoteArabs are becoming more anti-American, and why wouldn't they. When WWII started, the whole of the western world (yeah, America was even before it was involved in the war) was anti-German. This is not new, the Arabs are becoming anti-American because we recognized the need of national and world security and invaded Iraq, a member of the Arab League.
Arabs are just becoming more anti-American. I don't think Bush realizes this. He rushed into this war avoiding all diplomacy and ignoring cultures in the Middle East not to mention lessons of the past. IMO I beleive he did it to boost his image and to clear his father's name(I've heard in this thread "Why didn't we finish this 12 years ago?"), not to mention ensure re-election.
President Bush did not avoid diplomacy, in fact this could not be further from the truth. President Bush has been working with the UN on this for an extended period of time, since the beginning of the his term (and President Clinton, who never acted on anything concerning it, and President Bush before that). Diplomacy was not avoided. Period.
He did this to boost his image? What about all the flack he is catching from various groups and countries? Oh, and to clear his father's name? From what? His father had a very high approval rating and did well as president, otherwise, his son would never have won a single primary for the Republican candidacy and would most certainly not have won the election (which he did). Oh, and the comment about ensuring re-election, incumbents have over a 70% (past average) of winning the re-election, so unless a president royally messes up, he will win the re-election.
Post by: MiamiHeat on April 02, 2003, 02:04:24 PM
Quote
So that is why the majority of Iraqi soldiers (excluding the Republican Guard) has laid down their weapons to the coalition forces.
God help your soul. That was major BS. Remember before the war they were saying that like 4000 Iraqi troops were surredering? Yeah they did surrender, wait now they didn't their giving the Americans a run for their money.
Quote
Troops have found camps where they have been manufacturing ricin, a toxin, as well as other chemical and biological agents. They say there have been evidence that Al qaeda and another terrorist group that I think was named Al sar Islam, or something to that nature were operating the site. I don't know about the rest of you, but this is definitely swaying me more toward the Pro-war slot. That is the stuff the U.S. government probaly knew but couldn't tell us.
God help you soul as well. I can't believe you are actually even buying into this stuff. It's just a way for the government to get simple minded fools to back them in the illegal war.
Post by: kennyb27 on April 02, 2003, 02:44:20 PM
QuoteAnd who are you believing? The Iraqi leaders who say they have nothing even though the inspectors found empty bombshells. Or how about the missiles that the Iraqis launched that they "didn't have."
God help you soul as well. I can't believe you are actually even buying into this stuff. It's just a way for the government to get simple minded fools to back them in the illegal war.
Post by: Gamer Donkey on April 02, 2003, 03:07:02 PM
Quote
Arabs are becoming more anti-American, and why wouldn't they. When WWII started, the whole of the western world (yeah, America was even before it was involved in the war) was anti-German. This is not new, the Arabs are becoming anti-American because we recognized the need of national and world security and invaded Iraq, a member of the Arab League.
President Bush did not avoid diplomacy, in fact this could not be further from the truth. President Bush has been working with the UN on this for an extended period of time, since the beginning of the his term (and President Clinton, who never acted on anything concerning it, and President Bush before that). Diplomacy was not avoided. Period.
Yes, many Arab nations already did hate America. But Going through this war is causing more hate. Whether or not we are trying to control the Middle East, many Arabs believe we are. Maybe W. Bush could've had some talks with these renewed America-haters before we went to war.
What work with the UN? I don't call pushing a resolution to approve war into the security council "working with." Maybe you could tell me what diplomatic attempts were made by W. He simply ignored American approval in other countries (great foreign policy) and called all diplomatic efforts "inaction."
Post by: kennyb27 on April 02, 2003, 03:27:25 PM
Post by: The Omen on April 02, 2003, 04:21:54 PM
Quote
God help your soul. That was major BS. Remember before the war they were saying that like 4000 Iraqi troops were surredering? Yeah they did surrender, wait now they didn't their giving the Americans a run for their money.
You are quite moronic, aren't you? A run for their money? The U.S. is losing 1 out of every 1,100 troops. The Iraqi's are losing half their Republican guard before we even engage them on the ground. The marines have moved 4 hundred miles in 14 day's. Baghdad is surrounded, the regimes demise is approaching, and yeah, they put up one hell of a fight with some disgusting war crimes for about 2 day's. Now their figured out, and they have no answers. What an army!
Post by: oohhboy on April 03, 2003, 02:10:12 AM
Post by: manunited4eva22 on April 03, 2003, 10:31:21 AM
2) Congress approved the use of force overwhelmingly last year
Not illegal, not a war, get the facts straight.
Post by: nolimit19 on April 03, 2003, 08:57:43 PM
Post by: The Omen on April 04, 2003, 03:23:30 AM
How surprising. You had to know there was something up France's sleeve, those punk's. And how could anyone ever trust Russia? Please....
Post by: ThePerm on April 04, 2003, 06:41:04 AM
Quote
There is alot of better democracies out there besides America. Like Canada and Greece for example are a few of many. Why move to Iraq? Just move up to Canada atleast they don't start wars with people like the blood thirsty American government. No I am not Canadian either.
what are you talkign about greece isnt a grea democracy! they banned video games for several months! They didnt even ask the people.... they just did it. Boy did those people get angry.
ok lets go on the topics one by one.
Bush: George W. Bush gets alot of flack because alot of people didnt like his tight assed father. This one however i believe is a little different. He shows great flexibility compared to alot of presidents. When we dont like bush because of his father we are genetically steriotyping him. For all you foreigners who dont understand how america works. We have three branches of government judiciary, legislative, and executive.
we have a system called checks and balances. What this does is allow for each branch to check to see if the other is overstepping its power. I wouldnt fear Bush he's not a tyrant. In fact it would be incredibly hard to become a tyrant in this country. We have very short terms compared to many countries. each senator and representative has 2 year terms with no term limits. Justices however have a life term but corruption isnt really a factor in the job they do and their job is to interpret the constitutionality of law. the Chief Executive officer of the country has a 4 year term with a maximum ability to have 2 terms. They can only have 2 terms if we vote for him twice. Which probably wont happen because by the time hes done we will want a better economy so we will probably elect some democrat similar to clinton after bush. Heck the way things are going
Hillary Clinton may just be the next president. For patterns iv noticed Republicans are great for war, democrats are great for the economy....anyways.... as long as its not liberman....darn censorship and policies...
oil: This isn't a good enough reason to invade iraq, although it will ahve some benifits for our economy.
al jazeera: Al jazeera doesnt have any competition i nthe arab world and is widely suspected to be entirely anti american and basically just there as anti american propaganda. I remember there were soime jokes on fox news saying something to the extent "man al jazeera needs a competitor, maybe then they'll keep honest". In the arab news world there is only one source which is never a good thing. In europe and in north america there are severral news sources. Sometimes i flip the channel to telemundo or univision to see if their reporting. I onlyu know a bit of spanish but its ebnough to understand the news because of all the buzzwords......hell i should wwatch spanish news mroe often..it may be a goo way to learn the language.
Post by: baberg on April 04, 2003, 08:49:18 AM
QuoteYou had better have a source for that information, The Omen. I cannot find any reference to that on CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, Reuters, or the AP. Either give me a source or I will not believe this.
Originally posted by: The Omen
This just in- France was supporting Iraq with weapons and giving them advice on how to 'last through the battle', so a diplomatic solution can be had. Obviously, France and Russia have definate monetary interests in Iraq, which is why their both 'talking Iraq through this ordeal'.
How surprising. You had to know there was something up France's sleeve, those punk's. And how could anyone ever trust Russia? Please....
EDIT: checked more sources and removed harsh language
Post by: ThePerm on April 04, 2003, 10:17:31 AM
Post by: baberg on April 04, 2003, 12:23:40 PM
Incidentally, you should all watch Canadian Bacon and read Manufacturing Consent (though MC can be a bit boring at times). Both describe how the media is used by governments to alter public perception. Another good read is a recent Onion article that, while satiric, really emphasizes a viewpoint not often heard. Another good movie is Wag the Dog, but most people have already seen that one.
Post by: kennyb27 on April 04, 2003, 12:36:09 PM
Quote
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: The Omen
This just in- France was supporting Iraq with weapons and giving them advice on how to 'last through
the battle', so a diplomatic solution can be had. Obviously, France and Russia have definate
monetary interests in Iraq, which is why their both 'talking Iraq through this ordeal'.
How surprising. You had to know there was something up France's sleeve, those punk's. And how
could anyone ever trust Russia? Please....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You had better have a source for that information, The Omen. I cannot find any reference to that on CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, Reuters, or the AP. Either give me a source or I will not believe this.
Actually, in the early 90's France went into Iraq and built a nuclear power plant for them. Obviously this is a bit far from the actual bombs, but its the basic technology. Also, France did provide Iraq with supplies for many of their weapons that we have found.
And the incident with Russia is not with the actual Russian government, but instead is with the Russian Mob. However, when I say the "Russian Mob" don't think some rogue group. It is believed the the world bank that the Russian Mob owns abou 70%-80% of the businesses in Russia. Also, many of the former government members alledgedly belong to the mob. And, actually, the head of the part of their government that deals with Plutonium, Uranium, etc. alledgedly is a member of the mob...So, obviously, that's not good.
Post by: The Omen on April 04, 2003, 12:40:16 PM
Post by: nolimit19 on April 04, 2003, 12:58:58 PM
Post by: baberg on April 04, 2003, 01:17:35 PM
Quote...which Iraq is allowed to have under the United Nations Non-Proliferation Treaty, specifically Article IV, and France is fully justified in giving them this information from Article IV Paragraph 2. It is not a crime nor is it morally wrong to give a nation peaceful nuclear energy. But such a facility is necessarily large and cannot be very well hidden (less so if France helped set the facility up for them). It is also a huge step from generating power to producing fissionable materials for use in weapons.
Originally posted by: kennyb27
Actually, in the early 90's France went into Iraq and built a nuclear power plant for them. Obviously this is a bit far from the actual bombs, but its the basic technology.
QuoteFrom what I've heard, most of the Iraqi weapons are Soviet-made AK-47s. I could be wrong, though. And it should also be noted that selling weapons to other nations is hardly restricted to France-Iraq, since the US has been supplying Israel with nearly $10 billion in weapons.
Also, France did provide Iraq with supplies for many of their weapons that we have found.
I'm sorry for ranting so much, but this manufactured hatred of France is really getting on my nerves. The US media has encouraged this hatred for the French ever since they had the nerve to threaten to exercise their vetoing rights on the Security Council. I went out to a bar last week with a friend who is French. We know the guitarist who was playing that night, and he says "I'd like to say hi to my friend in the audience. He's from France, but don't hold that against him". That was met with boos and jeers. It's unbelievable.
And don't get me started on "Freedom Fries"...
Post by: The Omen on April 04, 2003, 03:30:52 PM
Quote
I'm sorry for ranting so much, but this manufactured hatred of France is really getting on my nerves. The US media has encouraged this hatred for the French ever since they had the nerve to threaten to exercise their vetoing rights on the Security Council.
Incorrect. It's been going on for years. I've been to France, and can tell you they despise americans. The threat of veto was just the latest incident in a long line of pacifism.
As for France selling weapons to Iraq-everyone sells arms to everyone, I agree. However, France has the most to gain with a cease fire, as they trade with Iraq more-so than almost any country. They get more oil than the U.S. from the region as well. France has been backstabbing the U.S. , and they perpetuate the backlash they receive now from america.
I don't need the U.S. media to point out the ridiculous actions of France, I can see them with my own 2 eyes.
Post by: kennyb27 on April 04, 2003, 05:34:47 PM
QuoteI never said it was illegal, I was simplcy clarifying the statement.
...which Iraq is allowed to have under the United Nations Non-Proliferation Treaty, specifically Article IV, and France is fully justified in giving them this information from Article IV Paragraph 2. It is not a crime nor is it morally wrong to give a nation peaceful nuclear energy. But such a facility is necessarily large and cannot be very well hidden (less so if France helped set the facility up for them). It is also a huge step from generating power to producing fissionable materials for use in weapons.
QuoteI wasn't speaking of the arms they carry, I was talking more about the supplies we discovered in various plants before and after the war began. A lot of this was French made (I understand that this is probably because France and Iraq are two of the biggest trading partners of the Western to Arabic world).
From what I've heard, most of the Iraqi weapons are Soviet-made AK-47s. I could be wrong, though. And it should also be noted that selling weapons to other nations is hardly restricted to France-Iraq, since the US has been supplying Israel with nearly $10 billion in weapons.
Post by: RahXephon on April 04, 2003, 05:51:18 PM
and on religion, if you havent read aquainas or kierkregaard or Nieztshe then please hold your unfound opinions to yourself. Your website were all comments again posted by fools who instead of finding comfort in religion, find comfort in hating it. If there was no religion, they would have a site dedicated to hating something else. I feel bad for you, you really should read some of these authors, your world will change if you can understand them that is, they are quite complex. Also if you ever read real stuff on religion... IT IS IMPOSSIBLE 3000% to prove it right or wrong, absolutely cant be done, even with all the knowledge in the universe, read DesCartes. It is something that cant be known by our minds.
To close, unless you know EXACTLY what you are saying and have researcheed it, then keep it to yourself, for it is only an opinion dressed up to look like fact. Ex. "Bush is not really President, we are being lied to." Well i have no proof but it sounds true doesn't it. Please, if you are to make a sentence you cant back up in entireity, then say "in my opinion" first.
In my opinion, war is a necessity, thus is the destiny of human nature we have built for ourselves. We are responsible for everything any other human being has done. (read Sarte)
Books people books. Weither i agree or not with anything doesnt matter (i agree on the war, and others), just please make your statements well grounded, otherwise all they are is jibberish and cathcy phrases (thats from Berkely or spinoza.)
These countries that hate america have good reason, but i still believe in doing what we are doing. Why do so many people think the world can change in a day, we have already defined our human existence the first time one man killed another, it is to late to think it can change by some protests, the only thing we can do is try to be righteous inour own opinion. the action through opinion should not belong to the common people because "the common peple are commonly wrong"(Aristotle). It is unfortunate, yet true. Untill we realize our fate, we can do nothing to change it. Put your humanitarian efforts into charities, and do it annonymously, because only though this are you doing it for ONLY the right reason. (Utilitarianism)
1 last thing, about your statement that the peeople are fighting instead of wanting to be liberated. Unless you can fully understand the logic behind there actions, and let me say you cant, then do not say if they wanted to be liberated or not, it is complete and utter ignorance.
Ignorance-the puposeful lack of knowledge
P.S. I am proud to be american, becuase i believe we are just, and there arent any better options. Long live freedom in the hands of america.
Post by: JoeFalco on April 04, 2003, 07:10:30 PM
Anyway, moving on, I just learned from the Washington Post yesterday (4/4/03) that the Bush administration believes that victory has been achieved when the US forces manage to control a significant amount of Iraqi territory and have greatly reduced the power of Saddam's Baath party. Bush, himself, only wants "nothing less than complete and final victory" but what I find fascinating is that the administration doubts that the initial US plan to liberate all of Iraq has now become more of hope that the US will be able to establish a base of operations outside of the capital Baghdad and exert control over the country from there. At first, the Bush administration was certain that troops would be greeted as liberators but so far the only part in Iraq that has done any of that is the southern part of Iraq that is known for its opposition to Saddam's regime.
Well, time to go. Flame away!
Post by: RahXephon on April 04, 2003, 07:14:39 PM
A)The enemy's fear is greater than their hate.
B)The enemy no longer exists.
Post by: JoeFalco on April 04, 2003, 07:49:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: RahXephon
My one fear, Sadaam or others will use a single atomic weapon in the center of Baghdad once we get inside.
Well let's hope that the US is wrong in their claim that Saddam possesses such weapons...
Post by: The Omen on April 04, 2003, 09:51:10 PM
Quote
At first, the Bush administration was certain that troops would be greeted as liberators but so far the only part in Iraq that has done any of that is the southern part of Iraq that is known for its opposition to Saddam's regime.
That's because, until they're sure Saddam and his regime are gone, greeting the coalition by celebrating would be met with execution. Once the Iraqi people are sure they're going to be free, you'll see massive acceptance. Think about it.
Post by: Gamer Donkey on April 05, 2003, 05:05:26 AM
Quote
That's because, until they're sure Saddam and his regime are gone, greeting the coalition by celebrating would be met with execution. Once the Iraqi people are sure they're going to be free, you'll see massive acceptance. Think about it.
The majority of people are glad(even if in secret)that Saddam is going down. Unfortunately many of these same people fear America is going to take over. Whether or no this is true, it has become a common thought across the Middle East. While we could not inform the Iraqis of our plans(I'm sure you heard of the leaflets getting stolen by Republican Guards), whatever they end up being, we seemed to ignore many countries who had worries about our motives. This is one big trouble I have with the war, I think Bush hurried into war ignoring how bad it reflects on us to the world. I find it hard to do this sometimes, but try to look at the US from another country. We weren't attacked by Iraq anytime in the past years, we had some rather shaky evidence showing Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,
And finally (to end this shorter than I had originally planned) the slightly hypocritical move of supporting a UN resolution by invading without UN consent.
Quote
It is believed the the world bank that the Russian Mob owns abou 70%-80% of the businesses in Russia. Also, many of the former government members alledgedly belong to the mob. And, actually, the head of the part of their government that deals with Plutonium, Uranium, etc. alledgedly is a member of the mob...So, obviously, that's not good.
Much of the Bush administration has ties to large corporations. Bush already favors them with his tax cuts and now he has proposed an energy bill that repeals laws made to prevent another Enron fiasco(finally found a use for that word). This same bill also eases back laws restricting the export of nuclear bomb-grade uranium. I'm finding it harder and harder to trust Bush. Especially when in an ongoing debate I have with a friend, after he says Bush has done a lot good for the country, I ask, "What good things has Bush done?" and he replies,"You should find out for yourself."
Quote
The resolutions were based on the fact that Saddam had to disarm, this is called "diplomatic efforts," just in case u needed a definition.
We had no proof Iraq hadn't disarmed. The resolutions weren't very diplomatic because they basically auto-approved war.
Quote
we are part of a democratic system.....and that theoretically means we elect the person that we trust the most to make big descions for us
I'm not too happy about congress giving up its right to declare war, I don't find it very democratic because no matter what happened after the decision no one could have stopped Bush. And we technically didn't elect Bush, it came down to a supreme court decision in which 5 of 9 justices were diehard conservatives. I can't fathom Gore winning in that situation.
And might I add that "freedom fries" are ridiculus IMO. Okay, I'm done now. Sorry for the length.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on April 05, 2003, 06:23:12 AM
Quote
and canada is horrible....they make all health care the same price....they are practically comunist...there is no incentive to be a good doctor, and as a result a lot of them practice in the us.
LMAO, have you ever been to Canada?
My wife is Pediatritian, and her brother is an optomotrist and they would both beg to differ.
As for communism, I remember voting every 4 years, so you may be a little off base.
We are very democratic. We are a little to liberal for my own taste and our government loves to sit on the fence but so be it.
Please try and base your comments on fact from now on instead of your overly active imagination.
Post by: The Omen on April 05, 2003, 07:25:46 AM
Quote
I'm finding it harder and harder to trust Bush. Especially when in an ongoing debate I have with a friend, after he says Bush has done a lot good for the country, I ask, "What good things has Bush done?" and he replies,"You should find out for yourself."
I don't think any presidents really do alot of paticular good for this country, to tell you the truth. Many subjects, such as economy, appear to me to change almost on it's own, in which case the pres. gets the blame or credit. But in this case , I have no problem with dismanteling the Iraqi regime. Saddam is a dictator. His people have been tortured. He is unopposed because of his guerilla war tactics. He has invaded a country the size of my thumb. He's gassed the kurd's. Sounds like a Dictator who is hell bent on achieving power through any means available. We can't let that happen ever again.
As for the u.n. resolution, we had every right to use military force to disarm saddam if he did not. That's what these supposed 'allies' agreed upon. Because the USA was the 'super power' to have enough gut's to undertake this, doesn't mean we're wrong. Did you ever think France and Russia have other reasons to keep Saddam in power? The U.N. has been shown to be for political posturing, if little else. When we went to Kosovo, i believe there was no UN support.(i may be wrong) Most of those country's that threatened to veto, gave no credible reason , other than to say give more time for inspections. As if 12 years of trying to inspect , while Saddam played cat and mouse games wasn't enough. Go back and look what inspectors have been through. The UN is lucky we didn't go on our own years ago.
As for weapons of mass destruction., Hans Blix has stated , in his final report, that there is still no proof that Iraq has destroyed their chemical weapons. We are now finding cryptic proof of their existence as we go through Iraq. So, what is the exact anti-war uprising about? These protestors make up 5% of americans, but get all the media coverage by acting like jack-asses. These people would be protesting war, no matter what the circumstances are. I went to a PRO war rally in Philly about a week ago, and not 1 protestor had anything useful to say. This is the jist of their argument-how many Iraqi children must we kill/? How about they realize 450,000 Iraqi CHILDREN have died over the last 7 years because of mal-nutrition and disease. Don't give me it's because of sanctions, because they've got a fat rat goverment over there worth billions. If Saddam really cared about his people , he would've worked with the UN, but he didn't. Don't get me wrong, it's their right to protest ,but how about realizing the only reason they have any of these rights is directly bore from past wars.
Post by: kennyb27 on April 05, 2003, 08:59:07 AM
Post by: baberg on April 05, 2003, 10:49:37 AM
QuoteThe federal budget, which is drafted by the president and approved by Congress, has a lot of influence over the economy. In that budget are tax cuts to stimulate the economy, incentives for new businesses to open, military funding so that contractors can employ more people, and so on. But in mid-year, the person you're looking for with respect to the economy is Alan Greenspan, who determines the federal interest rate. So yes, the president actually has a lot of direct influence over the economy. And as for indirect influence, we have factors such as the security of the country, confidence in the leadership, uncertainty about going to war, etc. A strong leader will make people believe investing money is a good thing. A weak leader yields more saving and less spending.
Originally posted by: The Omen
Many subjects, such as economy, appear to me to change almost on it's own, in which case the pres. gets the blame or credit.
QuoteSyria's government is a dictatorship. Syria tortures political prisoners. These Iraqi "guerilla war tactics" are simply tactics that go against the established rules of war, just as the USA went against the established rules of war during our Revolutionary War. Saddam Hussein has not invaded a country in 13 years, and even then, was tacitly approved by the US. Our "Partner in Peace" Saudi Arabia (from which 15 of the 19 September 11th hijackers came from) let 15 schoolgirls burn to death because they were not properly dressed to be in public. Oh, and Osama Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian.
Saddam is a dictator. His people have been tortured. He is unopposed because of his guerilla war tactics. He has invaded a country the size of my thumb. He's gassed the kurd's.
Why are we attacking Iraq again?
Quote...and there is also no proof that they did NOT destroy their chemical weapons. Nor have they found any "smoking gun." But now I guess we'll never know, because the inspectors were not given their chance to finish the job. Any weapons found in Iraq now will bear the suspicion of being planted by coallition forces.
As for weapons of mass destruction., Hans Blix has stated , in his final report, that there is still no proof that Iraq has destroyed their chemical weapons.
This war is about distracting people from a failing economy. This war is about diverting the public's anger from an enemy we cannot kill (Bin Laden) onto one we can (Saddam Hussein). This war is about the incredible monetary gains that can be made, mostly by companies who contributed to Bush's campaign.
This war was set in motion in March 2002. Saddam had no choice - Bush had already made up his mind. "F___ Saddam. we're taking him out."
Post by: nolimit19 on April 05, 2003, 12:51:17 PM
as for the coperations in the us.....i totally agree that they have too much power and that the campaign finance reform needs to happen...mccain didnt win the elections for a reason.....actually the reason is people are too dumb to vote for him....he was heads and above a less shadey guy the bush or gore.
and although i am not the biggest fan of bush, the people that are against the war are just bush haters/republican haters.....just as the other dude said no one protested clintons wars. democrats (maybe not all) are haters.
Post by: nolimit19 on April 05, 2003, 01:07:53 PM
Quote
...and there is also no proof that they did NOT destroy their chemical weapons. Nor have they found any "smoking gun." But now I guess we'll never know, because the inspectors were not given their chance to finish the job. Any weapons found in Iraq now will bear the suspicion of being planted by coallition forces.
This war is about distracting people from a failing economy. This war is about diverting the public's anger from an enemy we cannot kill (Bin Laden) onto one we can (Saddam Hussein). This war is about the incredible monetary gains that can be made, mostly by companies who contributed to Bush's campaign.
This war was set in motion in March 2002. Saddam had no choice - Bush had already made up his mind. "F___ Saddam. we're taking him out."
sorry abot the double post but this is the first decent argument i have heard against the war......but i still have to say i am supporting bush until there is proof that he screwed up....just listen to logic
starting a war to distract the american public from a failing economy doesnt make that mush sense to me.....for one, the economy was already heading down when clinton was 1st in office....the market fluctuates and thats a fact....presidents can do things to make it improve, but there isnt that much bush can do at this point anyways.
bush knew that before the war there would be public backlash....and all though i do think most people agree with the war....i doubt he will get re-elected just because of the assosiation that bush was around during some of the harder times......and him going to war didnt help him out either. and i dont think he is stupid. americans have never really liked war.....we have opposed almost every single war that we have been in the past century. so why would he go to war??? people arent forgetting about the bad economy.....i hear in on the news all the time. and there is all the worry about the national debt and blablabla....i dont think bush was looking for a fight, but time will tell and i think that if time proves bush was wrong like many people have been saying, he will go down as the worst and most dishonest president of all time.....but it just seems too outrageous to me.
Post by: kennyb27 on April 05, 2003, 01:52:52 PM
QuoteThat is extremely outrageous. In a poll released by Harvard (I think it was Harvard, which by the way is a liberal university) stated that he was presently ranked as the 17th best president in the history of the US. His father was just under him at 18th. Oh, and Clinton: 22nd. 17th is most definitely a far cry from worst.
i dont think bush was looking for a fight, but time will tell and i think that if time proves bush was wrong like many people have been saying, he will go down as the worst and most dishonest president of all time.....but it just seems too outrageous to me.
Post by: ThePerm on April 05, 2003, 03:23:54 PM
Post by: The Omen on April 05, 2003, 04:07:28 PM
Quote
...and there is also no proof that they did NOT destroy their chemical weapons. Nor have they found any "smoking gun." But now I guess we'll never know, because the inspectors were not given their chance to finish the job. Any weapons found in Iraq now will bear the suspicion of being planted by coallition forces.
This war is about distracting people from a failing economy. This war is about diverting the public's anger from an enemy we cannot kill (Bin Laden) onto one we can (Saddam Hussein). This war is about the incredible monetary gains that can be made, mostly by companies who contributed to Bush's campaign.
12 years is not enough time to finish the inspections? They found millions of litres of chemical weapons, in 98. So what exactly happened to them? Oh, that's right, the inspectors were kicked out. I wonder why? We've already found thousands of chemical suits, what were they for, the prom? And as we speak, there are sites being dug up that are believed to be chemical weapon hiding spots. What will you say when it's proven?
And if you're so afflicted with A.D.D. to not notice the failing economy, just because of war, then chances are you're below the average i.q. I notice the economy, and you know what? It'll get better, like it always does. It's cyclical.
As for Bush and his cohorts going for monetary gain, everything in this world is based on gaining something, even if it's not the main reason. Does that mean Saddam should stay in power? Of course not. Also, you say we couldn't find and kill Osama, but as far as I know there haven't been any attacks here in the U.S. since 9/11. And it's not like ALqueda aren't planning anything. So I think the operation , so far, has been rather successful. Syria and Saudi Arabia are problems, agreed. Where did I say we shouldn't attack them? I don't trust any country in that region. If I had my way, I'd go to Syria next, but we know that can't happen. We can't attack everyone. It's not feesible, and you know it. But Syria 's goverment, and Saudi Arabia's goverment, are different for the fact that they feign being friendly towards us. We wouldn't attack a supposed ally, even if it's a ruse.
F Saddam, we're taking him out? Indeed.
Post by: nolimit19 on April 05, 2003, 08:29:46 PM
well i dont think that he is the worst at this point, but he could be if he is lying his ass of.....which like i said, i dont think he is. i am glad that there are people on this board that at least listen to reason....not all these people blindly saying this war is about oil.
Post by: baberg on April 06, 2003, 07:06:29 AM
QuoteSo a nation is not allowed to own chemical suits to protect itself against weapons? I bet Canada has chemical suits in their hospitals and their military bases, even if they have no chemical weapons. It's called "preservation of human life" and is hardly proof of chemical weapons. And it can never be "proven" to me that Iraq has any WMD after this invasion. Any evidence that is found will always bear the suspicion of being placed there by coallition forces.
Originally posted by: The Omen
We've already found thousands of chemical suits, what were they for, the prom? And as we speak, there are sites being dug up that are believed to be chemical weapon hiding spots. What will you say when it's proven?
QuoteADD has nothing to do with it. How many news stories have been devoted to the economy in the past 2 weeks? What about this SARS illness that's shut Hong Kong down? Investigation of the Space Shuttle Columbia? How about information on Afghanistan's new government? You give the average American far too much credit.
And if you're so afflicted with A.D.D. to not notice the failing economy, just because of war, then chances are you're below the average i.q. I notice the economy, and you know what? It'll get better, like it always does. It's cyclical.
But yes, the economy will get better. The economy got better after the Great Depression, too. But I sure don't want to live through something like that based on the promise "It'll rebound." Saying "the economy will get better" is like saying "the medicine will kick in eventually." Yes, it's good to know that the pain will go away, but nobody will focus on improving the economy during wartime.
I grow weary of this debate. I've had it far too many times with far too many people swayed by US propoganda. The fallout of this war will be felt for decades. It will produce a rift between Europe and the US. It will anger all Arab nations and unite them against the US in a way never seen before. It will reinforce the concept of the US as an aggressive imperialistic nation who gives the middle finger to the world when they want to do something. It will create thousands of orphaned children, angry at the US for killing their parents, who will turn to terrorism for their revenge. This war will cause more problems than it will solve.
And with that, I depart.
Post by: simpsonsfan2003 on April 06, 2003, 07:36:06 AM
Post by: simpsonsfan2003 on April 06, 2003, 08:28:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
Where do you reside? I certainly hope it's not in the U.S.. If you do, i'll personally pay for your one way ticket out of here.
No no my dear friend I live in Honduras and I work in a sweat shop manufacturing Fruit Of The Loom t-shirts that are sold at Wal*Mart for around six American dollars. Hahaha we take your factory jobs hahaha because we work for a lesser pay and make better quality goods because you Americans how do you say half ass everything hahaha You Americans and your Wal*Mart and fast food resturaunts. That's why you are the fatest nation Hahaha all that McDonalds food hahaha you fat nation hahahaha You guys must be proud to be fat hahaha *wipes tears from eyes because I was laughing so hard* but seriously though lose some weight because if you all fell down at once you might throw the Earth out of orbit, or if all the Chinese jumped up at once hahahaha but China is cool though since they hate America. AIDS is a pretty big thing in my country but meh atleast it's not as bad as Africa.
"Ha-ha-ha you a winner ha-ha-ha" -Bart Simpsons Japanese Game
Post by: manunited4eva22 on April 06, 2003, 08:36:24 AM
Post by: The Omen on April 06, 2003, 09:30:24 AM
Quote
I grow weary of this debate. I've had it far too many times with far too many people swayed by US propoganda. The fallout of this war will be felt for decades. It will produce a rift between Europe and the US. It will anger all Arab nations and unite them against the US in a way never seen before. It will reinforce the concept of the US as an aggressive imperialistic nation who gives the middle finger to the world when they want to do something. It will create thousands of orphaned children, angry at the US for killing their parents, who will turn to terrorism for their revenge. This war will cause more problems than it will solve.
And with that, I depart.
How long was the fallout from ww2? Did all those children come and attack us because we killed their parents? Point being, these people in the middle east hated us prior to this war. This battle for Iraqis freedom could sway some opinions, and if not, were in the same boat we were in to begin with. So if we didn't go to war, terrorism would be lessened? That's a bunch of BS. Terrorism is getting worse no matter what we do, so we should be pro-active and 'disable' some of these factions when we have the chance. As far as the chemical suits go, they were found with paperwork on how to conduct chemical warfare, written in Arabic. Along with the antidote for nerve gas. But oh, the coalition planted it. Which 'propaganda' are you being spoon fed >? I don't even care for Bush as a president, but it doesn't mean I can't agree with some of his actions. I follow what I believe. What I believe is what I see. What I study. You are just another conspiracy theorist with trust in nothing and even if you see proof, as you stated, you still won't believe.
By the way, SARS is in the news every hour on the major news stations, so I don't know what you're watching. Also, in almost every case, the economy improves after war. I didn't say just sit there and not worry, but if you've got an understanding of these things, you would know that it will get better. Also, the space shuttle story was on MSNBC just yesterday. Of course it's secondary, but it's still broadcast.
You know what i've grown weary of? Your Anti-American rhetoric.
Post by: Marcus Arillius on April 06, 2003, 10:34:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: kennyb27
One of the problems I have with those who disagree with Bush is that they aren't anti-war, they are anti-Bush. They are still upset with November of 2000. When Clinton bombed various countries in the Middle-East (without the approval of the UN), no one was yelling at him and running out on the streets to protest. People need to stand behind their President in times like this. Imagine what would've happened in WW2 if we didn't stick behind Roosevelt then Truman? What about if England didn't stick with Churchill? Or what if we just decided to live with appeasement then? We'd all be speaking German because the nations of the world would continue to grant land to Hitler who just decided to expand. You can protest against the war, but get some reasons besides "Because Bush is stupid" or some ignorant remark like that.
I think your partially right. Sure, some of the people may be anit-bush, but with Clinton, people actually felt like he knew what he was doing. However, I do think Bush is doing what he thinks will be best for the world. I think that he is just trying to prevent another Hitler-esque situation with Saddam which I think it would have eventually led to.
Post by: kennyb27 on April 06, 2003, 10:46:50 AM
QuoteSure he knew what he was doing, he was smart enough to bomb Kosovo on the day that Monica Lewinski was going on trial, so guess what the big news story was that night, certainly not Monica
Sure, some of the people may be anit-bush, but with Clinton, people actually felt like he knew what he was doing.
. Haha, ok sorry, but I had to add that.
Post by: cubefreak123 on April 06, 2003, 12:10:17 PM
Post by: The Omen on April 06, 2003, 07:13:59 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on April 07, 2003, 04:26:31 PM
Post by: manunited4eva22 on April 07, 2003, 04:39:19 PM
Post by: The Omen on April 07, 2003, 05:04:33 PM
By the way, Saddam may be dead as i type this.
Post by: nolimit19 on April 07, 2003, 07:04:17 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/clinton_under_fire/latest_news/238784.stm
he lied and u cant really argue that he didnt.
Post by: Bloodworth on April 07, 2003, 07:10:02 PM
Post by: nolimit19 on April 07, 2003, 07:12:50 PM
Post by: baberg on April 07, 2003, 07:44:40 PM
QuoteTo draw analogies between World War II and this Gulf War II is preposterous. In World War II, we had a violent aggressor in the form of Adolf Hitler. He invaded several nations and made his point clear that he would stop at nothing short of world domination. The United Nations did not exist at that point. Japan attacked the US without clear provocation at Pearl Harbor. Only after the US was attacked did they enter into the war, to say nothing of the fact that nearly every non-Axis nation was united in their goal to defeat the aggressors.
Originally posted by: The Omen
How long was the fallout from ww2? Did all those children come and attack us because we killed their parents?
Compared to the current war, we have a dictator who has not invaded any country in 13 years. We have the United Nations formed to solve such disputes (which both Iraq and the United States have blatantly ignored). We have no attacks on Americans from Iraq. We entered into this war with a majority of the world (including 3 permanent members of the UN Security Council) decrying this aggressive invasion.
There can be no comparisons between WWII and GFII.
QuoteYou have twisted the meaning of my words. Terrorism will always increase as people become more and more frustrated with their inability to harm a superpower. That cannot be helped. But in going to war, the number and frequency of these terrorist attacks will increase (as opposed to not being aggressive). Look at this from the Arab point of view: The USA has attacked a nation without provocation and with shaky legal ground. The USA has invaded Iraqi territory and made the killing of Saddam Hussein their top priority. The USA is technologically superior to Iraq - they stand no chance against us. From their point of view, the USA is a bully picking on a weaker kid.
So if we didn't go to war, terrorism would be lessened? That's a bunch of BS. Terrorism is getting worse no matter what we do, so we should be pro-active and 'disable' some of these factions when we have the chance.
As for "disabling" factions, I refer you again to the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia. Do you know how many were from Iraq? Zero. Zilch. Nada. Thus ends the "stop terrorism" debate - this aggression will do nothing to stop terrorism.
QuoteI did not say that everything was planted. I said that it will bear the taint of possibly being planted. Or, the possibility of being pesticides when it's already been widely reported (and believed by most Americans) as a WMD.
As far as the chemical suits go, they were found with paperwork on how to conduct chemical warfare, written in Arabic. Along with the antidote for nerve gas. But oh, the coalition planted it. Which 'propaganda' are you being spoon fed?
The difference between you and I is that you trust what you read and see in the media. You believe that the media dilligently works to check their facts on news stories. You believe that the media cannot be controlled by the government. I treat everything that I read with speculation. I realize that the media is controlled by the government.
QuoteIt on for a 30-second blurb and then it's back to the live coverage of Operation: Iraqi Freedom with your co-hosts Chuck and Betty, reporting Live via Sattelite on our new Quasi-Opto video phone from AT&T, brought to you this hour by Snickers: When you're invading a country, grab a Snickers! Come on. Turn on your TV right now - it will be people talking about the war. Look at the front page of a newspaper - war headline, and probably nothing but war above the fold. For the average American, the war is the only thing happening in the world of interest now. And that's the media's fault.
By the way, SARS is in the news every hour on the major news stations, so I don't know what you're watching.
QuoteThat's right, call me unamerican. I have a viewpoint that is different from the accepted norm. I choose to question the government as is my right and responsibility to do, so therefore I'm unamerican. When was the last time you heard a news anchor put forth the possibility that the US was not doing the right thing? Is that truly an objective media? Or is this just the fallout of September 11th, where criticizing the government became "unamerican"?
You know what i've grown weary of? Your Anti-American rhetoric.
I do love America, and I hope with all my heart that no American soldiers are harmed in this war. I also love life, and I am saddened whenever I hear of civilian and military deaths in Iraq. They look like pretty pictures, but those are explosions going off on the other side of that camera. Those are 2000 pound bombs being dropped from 40,000 feet above ground, and there's nothing Iraqis can do to defend themselves. Tonight, a civilian area where Saddam Hussein and his children were rumored to be meeting was heavily bombed. Nobody knows how many innocent people were killed tonight. And for what? To kill a single bad man and his children.
It's not worth it.
Post by: nolimit19 on April 07, 2003, 09:27:44 PM
i really dont see that as true...the only nations openly opposed to this war, that i am aware of, either have huge investments in iraqi oil, or named north korea. most world leaders that have come out against the war have only done so because they want to make the voters happy. egypt, jordan and south korea are prime examples of this.....jordan asks for a cease fire, but still allows the us the operate out of their country.....all the leaders of the world know that this action is for the best, otherwise they would outright oppose the us. and u see it with civilians from other countries going into iraq to fight with the iraqis. i mean all these countries that are "so sure the the us is going to attack them next" have nothing to lose right??? wrong everyone knows iraq is harboring terrorists and that they financially support al quaida.....as soon as the renagade governements go down, there will be less terorism. the taliban and sadaam where the biggest governments that fit under that catagory that i know of. america is not perfect, and they have done bad things and still are today, but they are no worse then any other government....at least not yet. i think they obviously have the potential to be the worst cuz they have the most power, but that is hardly their fault. anywyas i think the war will be over by juneish hopfully....i say as soon as that happens the us let the un take over from there and let them deal with setting up a governemnt.
Post by: The Omen on April 07, 2003, 10:11:32 PM
Quote
That's right, call me unamerican. I have a viewpoint that is different from the accepted norm. I choose to question the government as is my right and responsibility to do, so therefore I'm unamerican. When was the last time you heard a news anchor put forth the possibility that the US was not doing the right thing? Is that truly an objective media? Or is this just the fallout of September 11th, where criticizing the government became "unamerican"?
I don't believe everything i hear on tv. But when there is obvious evidence, unlike you, I don't question everything either. Saddam has used WMD before, has he not? There is a track record there, we're not just pulling this out of thin air. Also, you stated in a past post that we have no proof they DIDN'T destroy their WMD. I would tell you it's up to Iraq to prove they destroyed them, not us or the UN to prove they didn't.
I didn't say you were unamerican, I said anti-american rhetoric. If you watch the news, you'll know that %90 of democrats are opposed to this war, but to support the troops, they've backed off the bickering. The New York times and LA Times are very liberal in their views, and have wrote several article portraying the war in a bad light.
Yes we bombed a house or diner in a residential area. How do you think we got that intelligence? The CIA has sources, Iraqi's, who want Saddam gone. Yes, there were most likely civilian casualties, but I hear nothing about the coalition restraining from shooting because the FEDAYEEN is holding human shields hostage. Or tanks positioned next to Mosques. Or the suicide bombers. A women jumps out of a car crying, we go to her aid, and the car blows. I hear nothing about the loss of civilians on 9/11. Just the poor Iraqi's/. I 'm quite curious as to your reaction to seeing Iraqis celebrating and cheering the Brits in Basrah, or to the uprisings where they're killing the Fedayeen in the streets of Baghdad. They will be better off than they were, will you dispute that as well? Freedom is always better than living in fear of a dictator.
In closing, I would like to state, i'm not a blind patriot who doesn't see the negatives of war. I also am not a democrat or republican. I love being free. I also see that war is human nature, and all through history, the greatest accomplishments, including the freeing of this great country, were brought on by people who fought for their rights.. This is a good cause, just for the fact Iraqis will know what freedom feels like. As far as i'm concerned, France, Russia and Germany are the countrys that wont fight for what they believe. They are no longer super powers. They are 'old europe', and we really don't need them.
I'm not trying to start a fued, but you calling me a blind loyalist is just as bad as me calling you anti-american(although i didn't)
Quote
And for what? To kill a single bad man and his children.
It's not worth it.
When that one person has killed hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people,(directly or indirectly) it is.
Post by: nolimit19 on April 08, 2003, 08:59:23 AM
Post by: The Omen on April 08, 2003, 10:39:06 AM
Post by: kennyb27 on April 08, 2003, 04:11:42 PM
QuoteEvery single one of the Coalition bombings are pinpointed. Nearly everyone of our bombs is now GPS/satellite guided or laser guided. It was in a civilian area, sure. But these bombs can be so precise to hit within a 10 meter radius of a specified target. Also, do not picture this house that they were in to be some small 100 sq. foot household with the neighbors right next to them. It was a mansion, in fact it had a bomb shelter underneath it. That is not the norm for Iraqi houses. Americans and their British counterparts are doing everything in their power to save civilian lives, and everyone knows this, but some members of the media and world public do not want to admit it. We have soldiers over there, not immoral monsters.
Tonight, a civilian area where Saddam Hussein and his children were rumored to be meeting was heavily bombed. Nobody knows how many innocent people were killed tonight. And for what? To kill a single bad man and his children.
QuoteThe Omen, not to disagree with many of your points, but 60% of democrats back the war, oh and Bush's approval rating is up to 70% nation-wide.
If you watch the news, you'll know that %90 of democrats are opposed to this war, but to support the troops, they've backed off the bickering.
Oh, and for my sanity's sake, I said this
QuoteThis statement was about JFK, not Clinton. I was simply following the posts, and I forgot to include his name. If ya'll would glance at my posts, I think you could tell that I know that Clinton lied under oath.
I don't recall him lying under oath about it...Then again, maybe I'm wrong.
So that means, nolimit
QuoteI wasn't arguing that he didn't
he lied and u cant really argue that he didnt.
.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on April 08, 2003, 05:09:08 PM
Post by: The Omen on April 08, 2003, 08:20:43 PM
Quote
The Omen, not to disagree with many of your points, but 60% of democrats back the war, oh and Bush's approval rating is up to 70% nation-wide.
Yea, I did some research, and it seems I did inflate the numbers. The democrats are pretty fragmented on this, more than normal. Good to see more of them support the war.
Post by: nolimit19 on April 08, 2003, 09:30:34 PM
Post by: Berto2K on April 09, 2003, 01:47:08 AM
The news reports from within the police jail (aka torture chamber), gave me slight visions of when I visited the Holocaust museum years ago. True it is a smaller scale in Iraq, but the basis is the same. People were hung by arms, hands, and maybe even their feet by cords and whipped or electrocuted to near death if not all the way.
On a side note, I would like to see the minister of (mis)information (Baghdad Bob as Fox News Channel has dubbed him) be the second person taken out if not for plain stupidity, then for blatently lying all the time to the press like when our tanks were a few hundred yards right behind him during his breifing on top of the hotel.
Post by: The Omen on April 09, 2003, 01:49:32 AM
Quote
I think the best is just starting for the Iraqis. From the south in Basra, to Baghdad itself, and to the north in Kurdish controlled area there is celebrating and to me looks like pure genuine happyness. I myself got goosebumps from watching it all live on tv.
Yea, it was definately heartening to see their reaction. Made me choke up a bit, I must say.
Post by: ThePerm on April 09, 2003, 01:14:13 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on April 09, 2003, 01:37:23 PM
QuoteHa ha. That guy is soo funny. The first day that we sent the most troops into Baghdad, he came on trying to convince the Iraqis that no Americans were in the city. Then he said that the Iraqi soldiers had taken back the airport. THEN he said that so many American soldiers were dying, that the others were just committing suicide because of all the gore. He is so great to listen to. Maybe he doesn't realize that we have captured the majority of other TV towers.
On a side note, I would like to see the minister of (mis)information (Baghdad Bob as Fox News Channel has dubbed him) be the second person taken out if not for plain stupidity, then for blatently lying all the time to the press like when our tanks were a few hundred yards right behind him during his breifing on top of the hotel.
Post by: nolimit19 on April 09, 2003, 04:43:24 PM
Post by: The Omen on April 09, 2003, 05:59:34 PM
Quote
well a lot of what u see on american television is somewhat distorted...even they admit that what u see is "only one slice of a whole pie". i mean i thinik there are a lot of iraqis who would rather have sadaam, but i am sure that most would rather have freedom.
The people that were in Saddams circle, who were rich beyond belief, definately do not want Sadamm to go. They are a low percentage, however. Most of the 'normal folk' were opressed.
Post by: Berto2K on April 09, 2003, 11:40:23 PM
Post by: sequoia on April 10, 2003, 11:01:06 AM
Post by: nolimit19 on April 11, 2003, 04:57:00 PM
Post by: The Omen on April 11, 2003, 05:50:33 PM
Post by: Berto2K on April 11, 2003, 05:53:32 PM
Post by: nolimit19 on April 12, 2003, 01:44:45 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 12, 2003, 02:46:26 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on April 12, 2003, 06:53:57 PM
Ah well, I'm sure someone will find something to complain about soon.
Post by: nolimit19 on April 12, 2003, 08:03:44 PM
Post by: cubefreak123 on April 14, 2003, 08:16:38 AM
Post by: RahXephon on April 14, 2003, 09:44:19 PM
Post by: Gamer Donkey on May 04, 2003, 10:03:33 AM
Quote
lol thats truly stupid. And they say ther iraq people r antiamerica? thats not wat i saw on fox news
The Irari people seem to always root for the winning team, if you know what I mean. When those Apache pilots weresupposedly in the river the Iraqis burning the trees and bushes(pardon the pun) on the river banks didn't look like they were going to hug the pilots.
I'm sorry.
Post by: TrekGeekMid on May 04, 2003, 12:56:11 PM
Anyway, back to the Iraqi people, I don't expect that a population that has been so brutaly repressed for so long is going to be very stable. There is a real danger that a fundamentalist Islamic movement that has already taken root in the country could bring about another totalitarian regime. I don't think the people of Iraq "root for the winning team" so much as they do what is necessary to survive. Back when Saddam was incharge, that meant rooting for Saddam and harrasing downed American pilots. With a number of radical Muslim groups threatening violence in various parts of the country and American forces seemingly unable or unwilling to stop them, survial might mean taking up the radicalist cause.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on May 04, 2003, 04:52:26 PM
Post by: baberg on May 15, 2003, 06:16:15 AM
Looks like there were no WMDs after all. Halliburton, the company that Dick Cheney presided over and sill receives $1 million a year from, has been awarded exclusive rights to put out oil fires and, what's more, has been given an addition $50 million for a total of $76 million in government money. That money, by the way, comes out of your own pockets and the pockets of every taxpaying American.
Saddam Hussein is still alive and still urging the Iraqis to fight against the indavers. US troops killed 13 civilians who gathered to protest the US occupation of a schoolhouse. Before anybody says "the Iraqis fired first" should look at the source of that quote - the soldiers who killed the civilians. We'll never know who really fired first, or if the use of force was justified.
Terrorism still runs rampant and Al-Qaida is obviously still alive and kicking. And guess what? Osama Bin Laden is still alive.
But that's ok! The jobless rate at home jumped to 6 percent, the federal deficit will be the largest ever, and Jenna won Survivor!
So all is well!
EDIT: It appears there's more to the story about Halliburton's contract than I knew. Up to $7 billion. No bidding. And VP Cheney only stepped down from being CEO when he received the Vice Presidential nomination. Where's the outrage? Oh, right, it's directed at Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. Sorry.
Post by: oohhboy on May 15, 2003, 07:03:15 AM
I favor re-titling the thread to "Discussion on Iraq" as it is a continuing issue which is still related to the war. Although the war all but offically decleared finnished, it still warrants continued discussion as phase two of any war begins. Depending on the point of view occupation/liberation/rebuilding.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on May 15, 2003, 12:07:43 PM
Post by: nolimit19 on May 16, 2003, 02:08:04 PM
Post by: oohhboy on May 16, 2003, 09:28:42 PM
Bush went too fast, yet the UN was too slow. The UN had failed in thier mission they had failed to enforce thier own resolutions. France, Germany, Russia have fail because because of thier own self centered interest had prevented them from estabishing a united front. They were against the war but failed to agree to themselfs as to what to do about it.
Post by: nolimit19 on May 17, 2003, 11:34:09 AM
Quote
Bush went too fast, yet the UN was too slow. The UN had failed in thier mission they had failed to enforce thier own resolutions. France, Germany, Russia have fail because because of thier own self centered interest had prevented them from estabishing a united front. They were against the war but failed to agree to themselfs as to what to do about it.
well said.....people talk about secret agendas with the us, but i think that france, germany and russias were no different. and the un needs to keep their crap together. why even have resolutions if u wont enforce them??? the one thing i find interesting is that a lot of people act like iraq was cooperating before the war......they werent. u can go to the un web site and read blix's reports. he clearly states that iraq needed to do more. there is no doubt in my mind that iraq had/has womd....but the us just havent/wont find them. either because irq sold them, or destoryed them.
Post by: baberg on May 19, 2003, 04:55:03 AM
QuoteWhat an odd statement. I could understand my cynicism hurting my credibility if I presented no facts and simply ranted without backup. However, when I give facts to support my ideas I don't see how the delivery should affect those facts. Maybe it's just my style - sarcastic, cynical, and bitter.
Baberg you present good facts, but your cynicism does nothing for your credibilty.
Try reading it as if Jon Stewart of The Daily Show were reading it - add a touch of humor, some sly remarks. That's the style I'm looking for. But regardless, I find it strange that my presentation should have any bearing on the facts therein. But that's just me.
QuoteThat's right, those three nations did have their own self-centered interests. So did the US. It just so happens that the US's interests involved invading a soverign nation while France, Germany, and Russia did not. As for "upholding UN resolutions" I ask you this - why did the US and UK essentially fight this war alone? Gulf War I (with Bush Senior) was fought with the united backing of the UN. France sent warplanes, Germany assisted... Everybody was fighting against the Iraqi aggressor. But in Gulf War II, there were only a smattering of nations involved.
France, Germany, Russia have fail because because of thier own self centered interest had prevented them from estabishing a united front.
I had a revelation last night. I was thinking of the book 1984 by George Orwell which, incidentally, you all must read. It's a short book but packed full of relevant material in the post-9/11 world. Startling, as it was written in 1949.
In one scene in 1984, the people of Oceania (US and UK, essentially) are in the midst of a "hate fest" where people gather together to hurl insults at the leader of Eastasia (China and other eastern nations, essentially). Then, in the middle of the hate fest, the image changes to the leader of Eurasia (Russia et al). The populace, so used to taking what the government and media say for granted, immediately forget that they were at war with Eastasia and now hurl insults at Eurasia. The anger of the populace was redirected immediately onto somebody who was, until that moment, not hurting anybody in Oceania.
Compare this to the US with respect to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. For weeks after 9/11 the populace of the US was made to hate Osama Bin Laden and everything he stood for. Afghanistan was invaded, the Taliban was overthrown, but Osama Bin Laden was replaced by Saddam Hussein. People redirected their hatred of Osama onto Saddam almost immediately, to the point where a majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the planning of 9/11 (when, in fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and none from Iraq).
EDIT: Fixed formatting
Post by: nolimit19 on May 19, 2003, 07:01:44 AM
i read 1984 and it is a good book, but somewhat depressing....and i do believe that one day we may live in a similar situation.
Post by: baberg on May 19, 2003, 08:38:52 AM
And yes, 1984 is depressing. It's supposed to be depressing. It's supposed to make you so sad and enraged at the thought of Thought Police and doublespeak that you take action against it when you begin to see it in your own world. And therein lies the beauty.
Post by: oohhboy on May 19, 2003, 09:15:49 AM
I did not say that the U.S did not have it's own agenda. Every nation had it's only agenda. The reason why the U.S didn't invade during the Clnton years was because there was not policitcal will to do so. Instead, clinton tried to negoiate with all these states that are or were labeled part of the Axis of Evil. Givin them deals, comproises etc. 8 years later? The world is back to square one. Why? Because of Korea's, Iraqs, Osama, Arafat own agendas. They never had any thought about going through with Clinton's plans. They were never intrested in peace. For 8 years, the UN could have solved the Iraqi problem. They could have sovled it in the first war. The coilition forces had the rug pulled out from under them during the first wars and the UN has been going down hill ever since.
With everybody moving in every which direction, over the years, everybody had moved too far apart to form a working compromise.
Post by: baberg on May 19, 2003, 11:15:25 AM
Personally, I like the last one best.
Post by: kennyb27 on May 19, 2003, 12:15:16 PM
QuoteThis is said because the resolution that was passed said that unless Iraq listens and obeys the Security Council, "it will face serious consequences" (Link, Acrobat Reader required). The US and UK were the ones that had to act in place of the UN, this is where it failed as a world-peace organization.
As for "upholding UN resolutions" I ask you this - why did the US and UK essentially fight this war alone?
Post by: manunited4eva22 on May 19, 2003, 01:04:35 PM
Post by: Gamer Donkey on May 19, 2003, 03:49:25 PM
Quote
I favor re-titling the thread to "Discussion on Iraq" as it is a continuing issue which is still related to the war.
I would prefer changing it to "World Relations" as we do discuss things not pertaining directly to Iraq. Just my personal opinion.
Quote
France, Germany, Russia have fail because because of thier own self centered interest had prevented them from estabishing a united front.
These countries should not be persecuted in any way, shape, or form because any country will do anything to protect their interests. You didn't hear on the news about the weapons funded by us (USA) during the Iraqi war with Iran. Heck, we even funded much of Al Quieda. They're bad decisions in retrospect, but back then they were best for our country.
Quote
Go look in the Congo, look at Sarivajo, look at Iraq. The UN had failed to uphold it's resolutions and failed even to uphold the peace. Congo reverted back to civil disorder, Bosina is barely a country, Iraq got invaded due to in part to it's inactions.
It's been said far earlier in this discussion that the UN is not a government. The worst thing they can do is condemn a hostile action and authorize governments to go in and fix the problem. I'm willing to bet they would have supported our invasion, had we gone about it in a different manner. I believe if we had gone in there saying, "Hey, we think Iraq poses a threat to us. We want you to send in inspectors and if they find something or are denied access, we will take pre-emptive action." Now of course it wouldn't be worded quite like that, but this is what I think the US sounded like to other countries: "Hey, we hate Saddam and we're going in there whether you like it or not, so you might as well approve our resolution." Please don't flame me or anyone who supports that statement (God forbid) as it was purely opinion.
Quote
Would you report what you saw on the daily show as something you believe to be the whole hearted truth?
He was not saying his information was from the Daily Show, he was saying his statements sound better if read in Jon Stewart's parodic style.
Post by: oohhboy on May 20, 2003, 03:16:59 AM
Quote
These countries should not be persecuted in any way, shape, or form because any country will do anything to protect their interests. You didn't hear on the news about the weapons funded by us (USA) during the Iraqi war with Iran. Heck, we even funded much of Al Quieda. They're bad decisions in retrospect, but back then they were best for our country.
I never said these countries should be persecuted. I said they failed to help maintan peace becauses they could not come up with a united front which was a result of each country having thier own agendas. If they came out in one strong voice, the US would have had to think otherwise.
Quote
It's been said far earlier in this discussion that the UN is not a government. The worst thing they can do is condemn a hostile action and authorize governments to go in and fix the problem.
I ask you, who are those soldiers in blue helmets? They are UN troops. Donated to work in the countries they are deployed it. They were deployed in Congo and even they are too scared to enforce the law there leading to civil disorder. Of course, the UN does not have enough troops to figh a war, but they were never ment to.
Quote
I'm willing to bet they would have supported our invasion, had we gone about it in a different manner. I believe if we had gone in there saying, "Hey, we think Iraq poses a threat to us. We want you to send in inspectors and if they find something or are denied access, we will take pre-emptive action." Now of course it wouldn't be worded quite like that, but this is what I think the US sounded like to other countries: "Hey, we hate Saddam and we're going in there whether you like it or not, so you might as well approve our resolution." Please don't flame me or anyone who supports that statement (God forbid) as it was purely opinion.
What happened when the UN got kicked out of Iraq in 1998? Nothing. Iraq violated a key resolution. Instead of trying to get back in, they waited till some one(The US) got pissed off enough to even bother asking the UN to send in weapon inspectors. Since 1998 the UN had done nothing in the region, they sat there with thier continueing sanctions and did nothing. Now even with Saddam gone, the sanctions continue. After the first gulf war, the UN has simply been unable to get it's act togeather. It is a shame really, I like Kofi Annon. A good guy surrounded with people who can't even agree on what thier doing in the UN.
As for the "We hate Saddam thing" he had it coming for 5 years since the inspectors were kicked out.
Post by: The Omen on May 20, 2003, 12:06:29 PM
Of course we have interest there, but France has much more economically speaking, than the U'S'. That is why they did NOT back us, after saying they would. They were giving counsel to Saddam up to the eve of war. How can anyone defend them? Pacifists can, because they'll defend anybody against aggression. Unfortunately, until these people realize that war and aggression are here to stay, and have always been a necessity, they will continue to defend any country that opposes war. If it wasn't for war, where would we be now? Where would France be now? Kuwait? Go through history, and you'll see war is sometimes the only solution, and when you are given standards by which to abide, and you agree, then spit in the face of them, you have just sealed your own fate. As Saddam has done for 15 years. I was proud when the iraqis tore down the Saddam statue. I am proud today, no matter what else transpires, because i know these people will taste freedom for the first time. Who could be against freeing a people?
By the way, go through history, and you'll see we are the only 'super power' -EVER- to not try and take over another country.
Post by: Ocarina Blue on May 21, 2003, 02:23:43 AM
War is thought by most to be needed sometimes, but only in the right situations. Not many people were against theGulf war, because it was to most, clearly justified.
Pacifists rely on solving conflict through non-violent means, not through ignoring them.
France and Russia prevously both had large oil contracts with Iraq.
Even though the sanctions resulted in over half a million deaths in Iraq after the first gulf war, no country in the UN bothered to try to fix it.
The USA used cluster bombs in towns in Iraq, cluster bombs are designed to kill lots of people in concentrated areas, and were the cause of 1500 recorded deaths after the first gulf war.
There have been more brutal things happen in other parts of the world for a long time now, that have been completly ignored by almost all nations. Examples of this are persecution and flooding of traditional culture in Tibet by the Chinese government, torture and slaughtering of rebels in Aech in Indonesia and ethnic massacres in Rewanda.
The USA has no need to invade a country, it protects its 'forien interests' such as oil wells in Saudi Arabia and Nigera quite well. China before the 'communist' regime there never invaded another country.
Post by: oohhboy on May 21, 2003, 03:51:09 AM
Quote
Pacifists rely on solving conflict through non-violent means, not through ignoring them.
That is true, but is the UN a Pacifist? I believe it is not. It either athorises action, or completely ignores it. You very own examples prove that. THe UN was built to be the world police. It's primary mission included preventing another world war and to settle new or continuing conflicts. Thankfully it has keeped another World War from erupting, but has failed to even address the second point with any true resolve.
Quote
France and Russia prevously both had large oil contracts with Iraq.
Fair enough. They had thier own agenda and so does everybody else.
Quote
The USA used cluster bombs in towns in Iraq, cluster bombs are designed to kill lots of people in concentrated areas, and were the cause of 1500 recorded deaths after the first gulf war.
Same is said about landmines, there is supose to be a ban on both isn't there now?
Quote
Even though the sanctions resulted in over half a million deaths in Iraq after the first gulf war, no country in the UN bothered to try to fix it.
The US after taking control, tried to get the sanctions lifted immediatly only to be stone walled by France and Russia. Why?
Quote
There have been more brutal things happen in other parts of the world for a long time now, that have been completly ignored by almost all nations. Examples of this are persecution and flooding of traditional culture in Tibet by the Chinese government,
Tibet happened 50 years ago when China and US relations were at an all-time-low. Even if the UN authorised war to kick China out, who would go in? Not the US, not Britian. Why? No will to do so and authorising action against China at the time would have caused world war 3. But even now nothing is done. The UN has ignored pleas from the leaders of Tibet. Why? It is the price of world peace. Until some one thinks of a way around this problem, the status quo on this issue stays.
Quote
torture and slaughtering of rebels in Aech in Indonesia and ethnic massacres in Rewanda.
Both been Civil Wars is outside of UN power interms of authorising miltary action, but does allow sending in of peace keepers. It is clearly a UN matter. The US and allies has not intention or right or obligation to do anything about it until they are attacked themselfs.
Quote
The USA has no need to invade a country, it protects its 'forien interests' such as oil wells in Saudi Arabia and Nigera quite well. China before the 'communist' regime there never invaded another country.
The differences is that those foregin intrests ask asked for the US's help and China before the Communist moved in was like France, always invaded.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on May 21, 2003, 10:16:53 AM
Post by: Ocarina Blue on May 21, 2003, 09:47:31 PM
Quote
That is true, but is the UN a Pacifist? I believe it is not. It either athorises action, or completely ignores it. You very own examples prove that. The UN was built to be the world police. It's primary mission included preventing another world war and to settle new or continuing conflicts. Thankfully it has keeped another World War from erupting, but has failed to even address the second point with any true resolve.
Aside from the issue of the sanctions in Iraq, which could be easily fixed without war, there was no conflict.
Quote
The US after taking control, tried to get the sanctions lifted immediatly only to be stone walled by France and Russia. Why?
I don't know why, I am not a representitive of France or Russia at all. The USA could have tried to lift the sanctions without invading anyway.
Quote
Tibet happened 50 years ago when China and US relations were at an all-time-low. Even if the UN authorised war to kick China out, who would go in? Not the US, not Britian. Why? No will to do so and authorising action against China at the time would have caused world war 3. But even now nothing is done. The UN has ignored pleas from the leaders of Tibet. Why? It is the price of world peace. Until some one thinks of a way around this problem, the status quo on this issue stays.
Good point, I was wrong there.
Quote
Both been Civil Wars is outside of UN power interms of authorising miltary action, but does allow sending in of peace keepers. It is clearly a UN matter. The US and allies has not intention or right or obligation to do anything about it until they are attacked themselfs.
Here is where I failed to point out my statement. Instead of an attack on the USA, this more an attack on how much the UN and world care about other countries. If the USA govenment really cared about the people in Iraq, would they not at least raise the issue of these countries within the UN?
Quote
The differences is that those foregin intrests ask asked for the US's help and China before the Communist moved in was like France, always invaded.
But no country could afford to upset the USA in a refusal. The huge capitalist corparations of the USA do the same things economicly (eg McDonalds) anyway, and I forgot to add about the USA taking chunks of Mexaco a while ago. Also, now is alot different to 300 years ago. It was practised by many countries, and was generaly accepted by the people of those countries then, but few people would stand for something like that now. China managed to get around this through profuse use of propaganda, but that cannot be done so easily now due to the existance of so many international information sources (Television, the internet etc). So naturaly, large countries use their influence to somethin like the same effect.
Post by: Matrix on May 21, 2003, 11:11:15 PM
Also, anyone who doesn't think oil plays a factor, needs to have their head exaimined. The oil wells were the first thing the US forces ran off to save.
*sigh*
Oh well. What's done is done. I'm going to keep a very close eye on how the US "rebuilds" Iraq, though. We all should. I'm worried Iraq will go the way of Afganistan.
Post by: oohhboy on May 22, 2003, 03:21:51 AM
Quote
Aside from the issue of the sanctions in Iraq, which could be easily fixed without war, there was no conflict.
I am confused by thsi statment, can you clearify?
Quote
I don't know why, I am not a representitive of France or Russia at all. The USA could have tried to lift the sanctions without invading anyway.
The sanctions were there to prevent Saddam from getting WMDs. But the U.S. needs them lifted so they can bring in technologies that were formerly banned under the UN sanctions so they can rebuild Iraq. The reason for invading Iraq was not to lift the sanctions, but to remove Saddam from power. With Saddam gone, continuing sanctions are not neededas it is hindering the rebuilding effort. Also it frees up the oil in Iraq so that it can be sold freely on the open market to rebuild Iraq. But I blieve the immedite lifting of sanctions may threaten France and Russias oil contracts even more than now.
Quote
Here is where I failed to point out my statement. Instead of an attack on the USA, this more an attack on how much the UN and world care about other countries. If the USA govenment really cared about the people in Iraq, would they not at least raise the issue of these countries within the UN?
The US did so agressively for 6 months before the war because there was political will to do so, even if is wasn't directly related to U.S. agenda. Clinton was happy with the Status quo so nothing happened. Again the price of peace. Clinton had undirectly given up on the Iraqi civilians so that he did not have to go to war. I has already shown that Saddam was not willing to step down, even with the threat of war, so any other measures would have been hopeless.
Quote
But no country could afford to upset the USA in a refusal. The huge capitalist corparations of the USA do the same things economicly (eg McDonalds) anyway, and I forgot to add about the USA taking chunks of Mexaco a while ago. Also, now is alot different to 300 years ago. It was practised by many countries, and was generaly accepted by the people of those countries then, but few people would stand for something like that now. China managed to get around this through profuse use of propaganda, but that cannot be done so easily now due to the existance of so many international information sources (Television, the internet etc). So naturaly, large countries use their influence to somethin like the same effect.
Going back to the original statment, Saudi Arabia had requested a U,S, presence to deter attak on them from Iraq especially after the first Gulf War. As for economicaly challenging China to release Tibet, it would be economic suicide. China is the U.S. largest maker of all the stuff that the U.S. themself could not produce econoically at thier current wage rate. Labour is dirt cheap in China. The U.S has lots of money to hire that labour. but cutting them off would hurt the US just as much as it would hurt China. It would be impossible for the U.S. to maintian thier current life style. No american is willing to give up thier living standards over Tibet. Basicly they are econoimcaly interdependant on each other now. you could go to Mexico, but then they don't have the amount of industrialisation that China has. Simply no matter how you go about it, the cost to victory is so high that it would turn to defeat.
Quote
I'm still quite upset at this war for happening. It was done for all the wrong reasons. Not a word of how "We put this evil bastard in power, so maybe should fix our mistake." Instead, we get this manufactored threat of "weapons of mass destruction." Have they even found any of these weapons yet? If stuff like that is so important, then North Korea should be taken out. We know they have nukes, so arn't they the biggest threat? Oh, wait, they're damn poor, and have nothing of value.
North Korea is a totally new level of threat to any country. Lets say that US has already got all the units they need to move in. What happens if N.K. was to nuke Bejin? China would quickly blame the U.S. for letting it happen and to the chinese, it would look like the U.S. had dropped the nuke themselfs. Quickly everything headeds off to WW3. The first time the U.S. went in they had UN approval. But before victory could be claimed, China moved in with 2 million troops, restablishing the stalemate which has now lead to the formation of th DMZ you see today. Russia had supported N.K, but only in equipment, not troops. If the UN forces were to continue fighting the chinese, if victory was to be had, the price was too high. casulties on both sides would have numbered in a million in total, if it ever ended.
Post by: nolimit19 on May 22, 2003, 08:22:39 AM
"Also, anyone who doesn't think oil plays a factor, needs to have their head exaimined. The oil wells were the first thing the US forces ran off to save."
also this is not as true as everyone says....america gets most of its oil domestically, and the oil that it does import is mostly from the western hemisphere(canada, mexico, and venezuela). the u.s. gets about 20 percent of its *imported* oil from the middle east. the whole thing that the war in iraq was about oil is blown out of proportion.....look at the first gulf war....guess how much oil the us got from kuwait before and after the war....none that i am aware of. i read an article in the la times a couple weeks ago, and according to that article niether iraq or kuwait have never shipped oil to the us on a regualr basis. the reason they secured the oil fields is because it was americas war. the us takes it upon themselves to fix up the country that they destroy in the wars. so sooner or later hte us would have either had to: a) put out the fires......or b) secure the oil fields before they were set ablaze. i am by no means a huge bush supporter or a pro war fanatic, but i think stating that the war was about oil is somewhat misleading....not to mention i dont see how a war in iraq had any effect on how much oil cost. i really hope bush is not re-elected, and i never thought i would say it, but i am almost to the point where i wish *god forgive me* gore was elected.....*runs in shame*
Post by: oohhboy on May 22, 2003, 08:35:15 AM
Post by: ThePerm on May 22, 2003, 01:33:55 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on May 22, 2003, 02:18:48 PM
QuoteNot to get a whole "blind-follower" thing going here, but I believe this should have at least been mentioned: A couple days before the military presence began in Baghdad, Israeli intelligence, (set up by US and it has been acknowledged by most governments as being the premier intelligence agency of Middle-Eastern affairs, confirmed that they saw several caravans leaving Iraq and heading into Syria. The trucks in this caravan just happened to be the correct size for carrying missiles and such.
Instead, we get this manufactored threat of "weapons of mass destruction." Have they even found any of these weapons yet?
Comment how you will...
Post by: The Omen on May 22, 2003, 04:14:46 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on May 22, 2003, 05:26:27 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on May 23, 2003, 11:46:14 AM
Post by: nolimit19 on May 23, 2003, 04:52:16 PM
to me there is no doubt that womd exsisted in iraq before the war.....iraq was not being cooperative before the war! i dont know how many people think that bush attacked despite weapons inspections "working". they were not being fully cooperative. look at blinx reports on the un web page. the reports are in plain english and he specifically states that he was upset that iraq was not fully cooperating. and stop saying the war is aobut oil! if anything(assuming u are trying to find fault in america invading) america went in to flex its muscles, or to turn the attention away from domestic problems. although i firmly believe that bush is not directly reponsible for this world wide economic situation, i dont think he is doing much to fix it. he is cutting taxes for the rich(i do understand why) but the whole principle behind it is wrong. i just hope we get through bush alive. i hope the democrats can find someone better, cuz i really, REALLY do not want him in office again. and i am the biggest flamming republican ever...anyways back to the original topic....i dont think that oil was a real reason for going in there. it makes no logical sense.....i dont remember the us stealing iraqs or kuwaits oil in the 1st war....bush has made so many enimies after this war(and he had to of known that he would)....i cant help but think that his intentions were probably better then a lot would like to think.
Post by: Dr.Mario on May 23, 2003, 05:21:32 PM
“War what is it good for?”
Well I guess that plays in my mind. War of course is horrible and if you watch the news too much (with this tons of coverage and much of it LIVE) then it can be scary at times. War is a last resort in many cases and should be, but what about war and Iraq?
I have done some research on the man Saddam Hussein. I have also watched lots of special coverage on the man (not only now, but years ago). On a special coverage it is estimated that he ordered killings on his own people of 500,000 to 1,000,000. This man has killed half a million or even (and probably) more then a half.
After watching a show on TV some women that were from Iraq said that a girl wrote in her notebook and said something bad about the government. The teacher saw this and then reported it. After that the girl was put in jail they then the officers put electrical shocks attached to her lips and other parts of her body. The parents were brought to this prison and then had to watch them give her electrical shocks and rape her. When they were there they also saw meat grinding machines that the government placed living people in to grind them up. I can’t imagine what it was like for that mother & farther to have been there and saw things like this. This government has done tons and tons of acts of killings. They use chemical weapons on there own people like the Kurdish people. Killings thousands of them . . . people that saw this said that they could see people coughing up blood everywhere . . . a very horrible sight and way to die.
If this by it self does not justify action against him and the government, then I don’t know . . .what does. Should we let another half a million die? How about waiting longer and another half million and another?
Should we wait until he has killed even more people and has tons & tons of more weapons? Weapons of mass destruction (or how it is also called “weapons of mass murder”) building up? Letting him build a nuclear bomb? And then we decide to take action and have to confront a much more powerful enemy?
Let me do the math here. First off he would have killed thousands of more people in his own country. With a nuclear bomb (or even more biological weapons - which I consider more dangerous) would again could be used to kill more people in a future conflict. More people would die in a future war that would happen sooner or later.
This math is real. This is reality. The world is not a perfect place and I wish it was peaceful and I wish there were more people in the world like me & you, but the world has people unlike me & you who are evil.
I guess the questions that are out there are “is he an threat to us now - right now”?.
Well first I can definitely say off bat he is a threat right now to his own people.
What about us in the United States and other places?
Well first off a question like “is he a threat to us” places a higher value on our lives then the people of Iraq. It does! And that is not right in the first place. All life if it is here or in Iraq is important. That kind of argument is not right! Saying that we are more valuable then the hundreds and hundreds that Saddam kills is not right.
But is he a threat to United States and others? When I turn on my TV they said in the north of Iraq there is a group who are very deeply connected with Al-Qaeda. This group in fact is supported by the government of Iraq. In the first Gulf War they helped bring down the Kurdish. So is there a connection with Al-Qaeda? There is! And I don’t know why there is doubt of that. And if Hussein had an opportunity would he not do something like Sep 11th? Of course he would. This is a man who has his government teaching kids in schools to hate America. Some are and some are not brainwashed, but the ones that are hate America very much. Just imagine that and imagine them through official or unofficial channels take or get some weapons like biological or chemical. Imagine now them using something like biological weapons or even shipping them to the leaders of Al-Qaeda.
Is something like this a real possibility?
Of course it is and to think other wise is pretty dumb.
People are taught to hate America and some believe it. They would not give it a second thought to use there country’s weapons of mass destruction against us or someone else.
And we even know that there are connections. I have stated that the news has said that there are deep connections in the north and that the government supports them. Hey, the government was having larger parties after Sep 11th. And is a very possible connection for funding from Iraq to the Al-Qaeda networks. And a good possible connection to Sep 11.
I remember a week or two after Sep 11th that CNN was doing its own private investigations of the matter and they actually traced back funding from Iraq. Well now someone might ask “why has this not been an issue?”. Well if you look at the facts I believe that Iraq destroyed them. Iraq has even killed some of the deep rooted connections, then there will be no evidence tracing back. On the news during that time they have said that Iraq has killed some Al-Qaeda connections. These people had parties . . . they were just cleaning off some of the finger prints on the manner.
Some of the interesting things that I see when watching TV is that Russia has sold (and has done even a few days before the war) weapons to the Iraqis. They have economic investments in Iraq. France made a major deal with management of the oil. They have major economic investments. Germany also another economic investment . . . .
These countries are loosing thousands because of this war.
While I’m not saying this is the primary reason why they don’t favor it, but this is definitely a big one.
But I must ask myself “Why do people from Europe oppose this war as they do?”
I think this is because they don’t feel as vulnerable as we do here in the U.S.
First off we are really target #1 and Europe is really an after thought. This is the real reason to why that a majority of them don’t support it. If they lived in the U.S. they would have a different picture . . . a different window. They did not have a Sep 11 so they don’t feel the grand and problem that Iraq brings. This is the reason I think. And if a Sep 11th happened in Europe, then I could most definitely say a majority would support the war.
But now there has allready been evidence . . . . .
Quote
Papers found Saturday by journalists working for the Sunday Telegraph reveal that an al Qaeda envoy met with officials in Baghdad in March 1998, the newspaper reported.
(Thats from CNN)
Both Iraq and al Qaeda have shared objectives and I think it would be foolish for someone to think that a dialog was not opened between them and this proves that there was. Just imagine if Iraq gave some of its weapons (like biological / chemical) to al Qadea. If we never acted to bring down Saddam Hussein's regime, then we could have faced a much bigger problem in the future which could of cost thousands of more lives by them using biological (or chemical) weapons.
But of course now the war is over, but this war was completly right (IMHO) and this link between Al Qaeda helps prove that
Post by: The Omen on May 24, 2003, 07:34:40 AM
