War

[achtungbaby]

Simple question.

[BeTheReds]

No. Saddam is an Asshole, but it is not our responsiblity to remove him.

[Shuriken]

You ask that as if we actually had a choice...

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Jan 29 2003, 09:11 AM
You ask that as if we actually had a choice...
The YW Mafia are ready and awaiting their orders... :lol:

[sandra]

a preemptive strike is not the only way to remove saddam...

[pfc beansprout]

hey...the wheels are in motion...we have no say here.... <_<

[angel nympho]

It's not really UP to the public, is it?

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by tazadar@Jan 29 2003, 12:03 PM
It's for our country's strategic interest. Saddam must be removed from power and replaced with a puppet regime. What's a few Arabs worth? Lives must be sacrifice for the greater good. The oil must flow. Let's invade.
Yep. I'd like to see who next on the invasion list.

[sandra]

bush did say that there was conclusive evidence tying iraq to terrorist organizations, including al qaeda. he asked us to imagine what could happen if such terrorist groups got a hold of iraq's nuclear weapons. at the same time, however, our investigation of iraq has not revealed much about the development of nuclear weapons in iraq...so what are we to believe?

there is also the possibility that bush is withholding information from us. what if there is conclusive but confidential evidence that iraq is providing weapons to the terrorist organizations? and what would the reasons be for keeping the public in the dark?

[Craig]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Jan 29 2003, 08:46 PM
Yep. I'd like to see who next on the invasion list.

Iran

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Craig@Jan 30 2003, 01:17 AM
Iran
Those poor Iranians. What were they thinking in sending their condolences after 9/11?

[rakovlam]

Those poor Iranians. &nbsp;What were they thinking in sending their condolences after 9/11?
Apparently, you didn't watch the SOTU speech.

"Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny — and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom." -Bush

bush did say that there was conclusive evidence tying iraq to terrorist organizations, including al qaeda. he asked us to imagine what could happen if such terrorist groups got a hold of iraq's nuclear weapons. at the same time, however, our investigation of iraq has not revealed much about the development of nuclear weapons in iraq...so what are we to believe?

Febuary 5, Colin Powell goes to the UN to show off some new evidence.

It's not really UP to the public, is it?

I'm sure the Republicans won the Senate because of economics. Please. 3 months ago, Congress voted for military action against Iraq. The vote was made by almost all Republicans and Democrats who like to get reelected. To this day, almost no one is this board knows why Americans voted for such a pro-war party. Hmm... must be on the partial birth ban.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 30 2003, 02:55 PM
"Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny — and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom." -Bush
Oh, that guy? You mean the guy telling us there's an undeniable link between Al Qaeda and Iraq?

[Elizabeth A.]

The army verse in Rakovlam's signature inpired me to post this slightly less romanticized version of war. Wilfred Owen's one of my favorite poets. He was killed in World War I, but not before he wrote some wrenching verses.


So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went,
And took the fire with him, and a knife.
And as they sojourned both of them together,
Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father,
Behold the preparations, fire and iron,
But where the lamb for this burnt-offering?
Then Abram bound the youth with belts and strops,
And builded parapets and trenches there,
And stretched forth the knife to slay his son.
When lo! an angel called him out of heaven,
Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him. Behold,
A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns;
Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him.

But the old man would not so, but slew his son,
And half the seed of Europe, one by one.

-Wilfred Owen

[VV o n g B a]

iran should really be invaded before iraq. the iranian ppl actually seem to care somewhat about their country's current plight. it doesn't necessarily have to mean invasion, but it should be taken care of before iraq.

saudi arabia next b/c its versions of islam that originated there that have caused so much trouble. if they didn't run a near theocracy, nobody would listen to them. iraq should be an afterthought.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 3 2003, 08:05 PM
iran should really be invaded before iraq.
But do you really think it's necessary to invade Iran? Following the 9/11 attacks, Iran was one of the first to send their condolences to the U.S. State Department, the first time their government has had direct contact with ours since the late 70s. There are other viable alternatives to waging war on all of our enemies.

It's only a matter of time before the U.S. begins to engage in a number of smaller skirmishes around the globe, and gets their asses handed to them.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 4 2003, 04:01 PM
But do you really think it's necessary to invade Iran?

notice that i DID say, it wasn't necessary. just logical. its people want help. iraq's don't seem to want help.

[wylin]

I think we need another big world war, the population is getting too large.

Im all for it:
1. it lets me pick up sum stock cheaply when it starts.
2. we havent had a world wide conflict (if Nk joins) in a while... nice to see sum cool technology
3. maybe once we can see a real conflict on the scale of world war 2; with high casualties on both sides to teach the world we shouldnt fight like this again.
4. Unilateral Action shows the rest of the world America rocks and that they should bow down, and the overall uselessness of the United Nations. I see this basically like the unification war in macross, america acting alone...and eventually just steam rolling all rivals. yay! Solidifying the position of America as the worlds cop.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 4 2003, 02:33 PM
notice that i DID say, it wasn't necessary. just logical. its people want help. iraq's don't seem to want help.
Will we overthrow any and all states in which its peoples are tired of the government?

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by wylin@Feb 6 2003, 10:11 PM
I think we need another big world war, the population is getting too large.

Im all for it:
1. it lets me pick up sum stock cheaply when it starts.
2. we havent had a world wide conflict (if Nk joins) in a while... nice to see sum cool technology
3. maybe once we can see a real conflict on the scale of world war 2; with high casualties on both sides to teach the world we shouldnt fight like this again.
4. Unilateral Action shows the rest of the world America rocks and that they should bow down, and the overall uselessness of the United Nations. I see this basically like the unification war in macross, america acting alone...and eventually just steam rolling all rivals. yay! Solidifying the position of America as the worlds cop.
So will you be picking up a rifle when the U.S. invades China?

[wylin]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 6 2003, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by wylin@Feb 6 2003, 10:11 PM
I think we need another big world war, the population is getting too large.

Im all for it:
1. it lets me pick up sum stock cheaply when it starts.
2. we havent had a world wide conflict (if Nk joins) in a while... nice to see sum cool technology
3. maybe once we can see a real conflict on the scale of world war 2; with high casualties on both sides to teach the world we shouldnt fight like this again.
4. Unilateral Action shows the rest of the world America rocks and that they should bow down, and the overall uselessness of the United Nations. I see this basically like the unification war in macross, america acting alone...and eventually just steam rolling all rivals. yay! Solidifying the position of America as the worlds cop.
So will you be picking up a rifle when the U.S. invades China?
yes alongside my fellow americans, to kill sum commies, with my fellow capitalist brothers( im taiwanese remember)... only good chinese is capitalist one! Down with the reds! Actually if North korea starts a conflict im probably gonna sign up...might as well be an officer rahter than a drafted grunt...plus i get to fight for freedom and reunification in korea...spreading my seed against communism! right doc lets spread our SEED.

[contra_diction]

Originally posted by wylin@Feb 6 2003, 10:11 PM
4. Unilateral Action shows the rest of the world America rocks and that they should bow down, and the overall uselessness of the United Nations. I see this basically like the unification war in macross, america acting alone...and eventually just steam rolling all rivals. yay! Solidifying the position of America as the worlds cop.
i like this one.
but how unrealistic.
hasn't stuff like all this happened before?
and the results were...

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 7 2003, 12:30 AM
Will we overthrow any and all states in which its peoples are tired of the government?
if the gov't isn't chosen by the ppl and for the ppl. iran's is a compromise. but they actually want full democracy now that they've had a taste. only 6% of iranians in tehran are satisfied w/ their current government. they clamor for democracy at student protests. should we not help them out?

as long as we don't install another dictator in the ayatolla's place, the iranians will thank us.

[rakovlam]

4. Unilateral Action shows the rest of the world America rocks and that they should bow down, and the overall uselessness of the United Nations. I see this basically like the unification war in macross, america acting alone...and eventually just steam rolling all rivals. yay! Solidifying the position of America as the worlds cop.

We're not invading Iraq unilaterally. There's about a few dozen countries who are going to support the war. In you want unilateralism, Germany is taking the anti-war position alone. France is already faltering in its position because they're French, the 11th hour people.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Feb 7 2003, 10:09 AM
We're not invading Iraq unilaterally.
maybe not, but the world sees it that way. most of the supporting countries are getting paid off in one way or another. not exactly what u would call unequivocal support. if u don't care about the rest of the world's reaction, it's not like that makes them go away. there will be consequences. german elections for instance. but since germany's not a hot spot, thats not really a big deal.

s. korea is a different story. having a leader opposed to US policy in korea becomes a big deal. showing a uniform face to the n. koreans no longer becomes possible. what if the same thing happened all across europe even britain? if anti-war sentiment there gets strong enough, the next prime minister may be reluctant to support the US in every endevour.

also, what does bribery do to ppl? it corrupts them. i would say the same for nations. if we bribe nations for their support, the next time we want something, even if its in their interest, they may want a bribe for support. not a particularly good practice to continue.

[jimbo]

http://logo.cafepress.com/8/168472.23098.jpg

http://logo.cafepress.com/4/168472.60294.jpg

Thats what its all about.

[syc]

bush did say that there was conclusive evidence tying iraq to terrorist organizations, including al qaeda

If there was "conclusive" evidence that Iraq has clear ties to AL Qaeda then wouldnt that be grounds enough to invade? If that was the case then Iraq would already have been attacked. Bush is just pulling shit out of his ass to sway the public and internaional opinion.

[BaiginLong]

essentially the whole thing is bullshit there are no weapons of note in Iraq because
a. they're poor and busted up
b. even if they have the warheads and whatnot there is almost no way they could have the proper delivery systems
c. we've been sweeping their asses for this stuff for how long now and in order to hide something that big you need a lot of manpower intelligence and whatnot and they definitely do not have a top ranking intel. department

Bush wants to steer our eyes away from the economic problem and possibly help it by waking the war industry
also the one big thing to gain out of this is...you guessed it, OIL.

If we are supposed to be the world's police force simply because we are the most powerful nation then we really suck at it cause we have not the maturity restraint or judgment to make such decisions and carry such a responsibility

[Danny]

I for one and so far 22 others are against it.... I saw the SOTU and I also saw Powell's speech and evidence. Granted, the evidence pointed to something more that is going on, but it did not prove anything beyond a shadow of doubt. I believe that increasing the weapon inspectors and also putting UN Forces on the ground to aid the weapons inspectors would bring more evidence to light. Right now if America and the Brits go in (which is what it would really be) and finds ANYTHING, do you really think that the rest of the Muslim world will sit back and go... oh NOW I see, you were right all along.

No, this is going to blow up in Bush's face because all this is going to do is increase membership in these terrorist pods which is going to bring more problems to the US and Britian. Getting rid of Saddam is not worth it, even if he is slightly involved with the Al Quada people. If you are going to bring that kind of terrorist reign on the US and Britian, it should be for somebody worth it. Not just for oil.

[BaiginLong]

Originally posted by Danny@Feb 9 2003, 04:10 PM
I for one and so far 22 others are against it.... I saw the SOTU and I also saw Powell's speech and evidence. Granted, the evidence pointed to something more that is going on, but it did not prove anything beyond a shadow of doubt. I believe that increasing the weapon inspectors and also putting UN Forces on the ground to aid the weapons inspectors would bring more evidence to light. Right now if America and the Brits go in (which is what it would really be) and finds ANYTHING, do you really think that the rest of the Muslim world will sit back and go... oh NOW I see, you were right all along.

No, this is going to blow up in Bush's face because all this is going to do is increase membership in these terrorist pods which is going to bring more problems to the US and Britian. Getting rid of Saddam is not worth it, even if he is slightly involved with the Al Quada people. If you are going to bring that kind of terrorist reign on the US and Britian, it should be for somebody worth it. Not just for oil.
werd
war only breeds more war
don't be stupid Bush, you should know better...errrr...wait lemme take that back.... <_<

[kitty]

Hear hear, I agree with the people saying no. Has anyone noticed how Bush was like "they had so many warheads capable of biological warfare"... puh-leeze... all they found were a couple of empty war-heads. Saddam coulda filled 'em full of jellybeans and launched them... they didn't exactly find a "smoking gun", just a conical piece of metal.

Bush is looking for a war... he's no better than a playground bully. And has about the IQ of a five-year-old, so it's all strangely apt.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 7 2003, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by wylin@Feb 6 2003, 10:11 PM
I think we need another big world war, the population is getting too large.

Im all for it:
1. it lets me pick up sum stock cheaply when it starts.
2. we havent had a world wide conflict (if Nk joins) in a while... nice to see sum cool technology
3. maybe once we can see a real conflict on the scale of world war 2; with high casualties on both sides to teach the world we shouldnt fight like this again.
4. Unilateral Action shows the rest of the world America rocks and that they should bow down, and the overall uselessness of the United Nations. I see this basically like the unification war in macross, america acting alone...and eventually just steam rolling all rivals. yay! Solidifying the position of America as the worlds cop.
So will you be picking up a rifle when the U.S. invades China?
If it comes to that my ass is moving to Switzerland or something. Switch my specialty from surgery to "female breast inspector."

Edit: Or mebbe move to that European country with legalized weed might be a better choice.

[kitty]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Feb 10 2003, 12:45 AM

Edit: Or mebbe move to that European country with legalized weed might be a better choice.
Amsterdam?

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by kittygirl@Feb 9 2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Feb 10 2003, 12:45 AM

Edit: Or mebbe move to that European country with legalized weed might be a better choice.
Amsterdam?
Yes! Geography was never my strong suit.

I haven't used my bong since college!

Thanks Kittygirl.

[kitty]

no problem. actually, i wouldn't have know either 'cept for trivial pursuit two days ago.

[wylin]

Originally posted by BaiginLong@Feb 9 2003, 01:40 PM
essentially the whole thing is bullshit there are no weapons of note in Iraq because
a. they're poor and busted up
b. even if they have the warheads and whatnot there is almost no way they could have the proper delivery systems
c. we've been sweeping their asses for this stuff for how long now and in order to hide something that big you need a lot of manpower intelligence and whatnot and they definitely do not have a top ranking intel. department

Bush wants to steer our eyes away from the economic problem and possibly help it by waking the war industry
also the one big thing to gain out of this is...you guessed it, OIL.

If we are supposed to be the world's police force simply because we are the most powerful nation then we really suck at it cause we have not the maturity restraint or judgment to make such decisions and carry such a responsibility
good fight for oil, cuz oil is what drives my favorite things. its like any RTS u fight over resources b4 u can take over the map.

[pfc beansprout]

man, nice to see we have some individual thinkers here-unlike how the media and bush adminstration is distorting and spreading propoganda for this war; i was thinking the other night...it is a matter of time before i get deployed now; the REAL consequences of war; Could you Kill somebody? could you kill a father, brother, son, daughter-LOVED from somebody....this is the blunt reality of it; ok, we shall 'bomb' the living shit outta iraq...yeeeah, dehumanize it...we see no faces; but imagine the consequences. these are supposed to be 'strategically' bombed areas...what about hiroshima? we all know thousands died there-granted we are not using an atom bomb this time, but the results may be simialar....children, mothers, grandmothers, etc lost. innocents killed; try to think if somebody obliterated camp pendleton sp? and it's surrounding area...yes, millitary personall are there...but what about the civilians? closing, think about war and it's real LIFE consequences....you are taking away a loved one from somebody...

[wylin]

Originally posted by pfc beansprout@Feb 10 2003, 05:48 PM
man, nice to see we have some individual thinkers here-unlike how the media and bush adminstration is distorting and spreading propoganda for this war; i was thinking the other night...it is a matter of time before i get deployed now; the REAL consequences of war; Could you Kill somebody? could you kill a father, brother, son, daughter-LOVED from somebody....this is the blunt reality of it; ok, we shall 'bomb' the living shit outta iraq...yeeeah, dehumanize it...we see no faces; but imagine the consequences. these are supposed to be 'strategically' bombed areas...what about hiroshima? we all know thousands died there-granted we are not using an atom bomb this time, but the results may be simialar....children, mothers, grandmothers, etc lost. innocents killed; try to think if somebody obliterated camp pendleton sp? and it's surrounding area...yes, millitary personall are there...but what about the civilians? closing, think about war and it's real LIFE consequences....you are taking away a loved one from somebody...
Good we need a good war to teach us that life is precious. Actually i think its good when war is faught w/ human lives, it makes it more then the glorified videogame that many have tried to make us believe. W/o human loss there is no point to war. So i hope for this war many perish and die meaningless deaths, then it can show us that theres more to just fighting. <- central theme to Gundam Wing.

Or alternatively

War is a population control, there really are too many useless human beings on this planet, and war is our natural instinict to control our own population numbers. Right now there are almost 7 billion lives on this mudball we call earth... quite a few too many.

[pfc beansprout]

Originally posted by wylin@Feb 10 2003, 11:07 PM
Good we need a good war to teach us that life is precious. Actually i think its good when war is faught w/ human lives, it makes it more then the glorified videogame that many have tried to make us believe. W/o human loss there is no point to war. So i hope for this war many perish and die meaningless deaths, then it can show us that theres more to just fighting. <- central theme to Gundam Wing.

Or alternatively

War is a population control, there really are too many useless human beings on this planet, and war is our natural instinict to control our own population numbers. Right now there are almost 7 billion lives on this mudball we call earth... quite a few too many.
population control....do you volunteer your family? your elders, brothers or sisters? hell, do you volunteer to be part of your "solution?" in 'useless' people, what is your definition? that is relative...to others, the u.s. are the fucked up ones....

[wylin]

Originally posted by pfc beansprout@Feb 10 2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by wylin@Feb 10 2003, 11:07 PM
Good we need a good war to teach us that life is precious. &nbsp;Actually i think its good when war is faught w/ human lives, it makes it more then the glorified videogame that many have tried to make us believe. &nbsp;W/o human loss there is no point to war. So i hope for this war many perish and die meaningless deaths, then it can show us that theres more to just fighting. <- central theme to Gundam Wing.

Or alternatively

War is a population control, there really are too many useless human beings on this planet, and war is our natural instinict to control our own population numbers. &nbsp;Right now there are almost 7 billion lives on this mudball we call earth... quite a few too many.
population control....do you volunteer your family? your elders, brothers or sisters? hell, do you volunteer to be part of your "solution?" in 'useless' people, what is your definition? that is relative...to others, the u.s. are the fucked up ones....
yah, i do everyone should contribute to limiting our population, that arguement doesnt work with me if its my family or myself, sure why not the hand of justice isnt picky. Also who cares about people in general who are not productive, a majority of human beings can be replaced by automation or technology, the redundant ones should be eliminated, for the good of all. :dance:

[kitty]

Are you saying we should all kill ourselves to limit population growth? How about more preventative measures like voluntary birth control (make condoms globally available?)

[syc]

yah, i do everyone should contribute to limiting our population, that arguement doesnt work with me if its my family or myself, sure why not the hand of justice isnt picky. Also who cares about people in general who are not productive, a majority of human beings can be replaced by automation or technology


are you willing to die for you beliefs? why dont you go enlist to take part? unless you yourself are ready to go to Iraq and fight for whatever it is you think will be achieved then you shouldnt advocate war.

the redundant ones should be eliminated, for the good of all.

basically what you mean is that everyone useless to the US is redundant and should be eliminated for... the good of the US?

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by wylin@Feb 10 2003, 10:07 PM
Good we need a good war to teach us that life is precious. &nbsp;Actually i think its good when war is faught w/ human lives, it makes it more then the glorified videogame that many have tried to make us believe. &nbsp;W/o human loss there is no point to war. So i hope for this war many perish and die meaningless deaths, then it can show us that theres more to just fighting. <- central theme to Gundam Wing.
i find it somewhat ironic and self defeating that u're advocating more war to make war less palitable. i mean, many ppl already believe that war is unpalitable. the rest probably wouldn't change their minds anyways. why do we need another WW2 when we should have learned our lessons from it? if WW2 hasn't taught us as lesson, then a future war on gundam scale is just as unlikely to permanently teach us a lesson.

i would say that u were being sarcastic except u advocate the same things over and over. do u truly feel what u write or are you joking? or is it partly both? i try not to take u seriously but sometimes i can't help it.

*edit* the reason i ask this is that i don't really know if its worth my time to respond to your views. if u aren't really serious about your views, i'll just take it as u joking around and trying to start arguments.

[DragonKnight]

As humans, we must cherish our lives and the lives of others. Despite having a base desire to destroy our enemies, as humans we also have the ability to be conscious of our decisions and to resist that desire.

It is true that it is easy to simplify things with war. The strong will prey on the weak. The strong shall survive. But we are not beasts. We are not animals.

As my favorite psychology professor would say,

"We are human."

-Rich, "against war..."

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Hello everybody, meet Wylin :P

[wylin]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 11 2003, 11:12 AM
i find it somewhat ironic and self defeating that u're advocating more war to make war less palitable. &nbsp;i mean, many ppl already believe that war is unpalitable. &nbsp;the rest probably wouldn't change their minds anyways. &nbsp;why do we need another WW2 when we should have learned our lessons from it? &nbsp;if WW2 hasn't taught us as lesson, then a future war on gundam scale is just as unlikely to permanently teach us a lesson.

i would say that u were being sarcastic except u advocate the same things over and over. &nbsp;do u truly feel what u write or are you joking? &nbsp;or is it partly both? &nbsp;i try not to take u seriously but sometimes i can't help it.

*edit* the reason i ask this is that i don't really know if its worth my time to respond to your views. &nbsp;if u aren't really serious about your views, i'll just take it as u joking around and trying to start arguments.
actually i believe in what i say bout conflict, i believe its a natural occurance, that has been a part of humanity since its inception. Human beings will never stop fighting among themselves, until they see sumthing much different from themselves and go fight that instead.

I dont see a point to pacifism and cowardace from those who are so afraid to put their lives on the line for sumthing worth fighting for, of trying to contridict the brave and noble efforts of the united states governement, in trying to clean up the mess they left in iraq, help stabilize and control oil prices, and pacify the planet of anti-united states sentiment... i think that we all benifit from any conflict in many ways, first off it helps stave off the current economic down turn with an infusion of monies from the government to a portion of the heavy industries, it provides both employment and population control, and it helps solidify american militaty and diplomatic supremacy. Since i live in america, im glad our government is willing to be such a light unto the world.

With that said, u'll see me first in line to sign up if theres a conflict in korea. I already do a form of public service in my current profession, and i'd expand on that by signing up and killing sum communist bastards and saving our kimchi eating, hyundai driving, samsung memory making economic partner south korea. Sorry pacifists, you aint got nothing on me... long live human conflict and loss.

[wylin]

Originally posted by syc@Feb 11 2003, 10:47 AM
basically what you mean is that everyone useless to the US is redundant and should be eliminated for... the good of the US?
exactly if it doesnt benifit the master what use is it. Human beings are nothing but tools for each other to use and abuse, useless tools should be discarded.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by wylin@Feb 11 2003, 03:56 PM
exactly if it doesnt benifit the master what use is it. Human beings are nothing but tools for each other to use and abuse, useless tools should be discarded.
this is a difference in philosophy. by your logic, if u were the master of the world, u would probably kill all the males, and then kill off all the ugly females except for the ones that maybe farmed your food or made cool stuff for u to use. its amazing that society still works with people like u around. :rolleyes:

[wylin]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 11 2003, 02:11 PM
this is a difference in philosophy. by your logic, if u were the master of the world, u would probably kill all the males, and then kill off all the ugly females except for the ones that maybe farmed your food or made cool stuff for u to use. its amazing that society still works with people like u around. :rolleyes:
There are only 2 types in this world the hunter and prey. i rather not associate with prey. i live to defame and dehumanize the weak and trample on their downtrodden nature. People like me, control the sheep that populate this planet, and consume the weak. jk.

no need for personal attacks when u've been beaten in philosophy, sorry u've been owned in a discussion.
<img src='http://www.attrition.org/gallery/computing/forum/ownedboy.jpg[/img]

[VV o n g B a]

ok, i apologize if u took it as a personal attack. i didn't mean anything by it. i don't agree that my philosophy (which i haven't even told u) has been owned, but whatever. u believe we are nothing more than animals. ok... i can accept that and it explains much of your views. but i think even animals can be capable of more than we give them credit for usually.

[kitty]

wylin, if you think all the prey should die, what would the hunters eat? and the prey eat the carnivores when they die, so really, you can't say that one's more vicious or stronger than the other. both are forms of life that have survived since the birth of this planet: two philosophies for life that are equally viable. Hunters are just bloodier.

[wylin]

Originally posted by kittygirl@Feb 11 2003, 05:58 PM
wylin, if you think all the prey should die, what would the hunters eat? and the prey eat the carnivores when they die, so really, you can't say that one's more vicious or stronger than the other. both are forms of life that have survived since the birth of this planet: two philosophies for life that are equally viable. Hunters are just bloodier.

lala lalala same shit different person, come up w/ sumthing orginal to say.

[SunWuKong]

ok settle down people

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by wylin@Feb 11 2003, 12:31 PM
With that said, u'll see me first in line to sign up if theres a conflict in korea.
Would you be able to pass the physical?

[SunWuKong]

people. you should know by now that it's quite pointless to discuss the idea of war with will. i stopped months ago.

[BaiginLong]

Originally posted by wylin@Feb 11 2003, 03:56 PM
exactly if it doesnt benifit the master what use is it. Human beings are nothing but tools for each other to use and abuse, useless tools should be discarded.
and since when did the US become the master
even the bear can be torn down by a pack of wolves
it's cooperation and cohesion that makes wolves better than the bear and a world community better than a superpower nation

[BaiginLong]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Feb 11 2003, 10:02 PM
people. you should know by now that it's quite pointless to discuss the idea of war with will. i stopped months ago.
yeah he was on the other side of the Anna Guo case
that should tell you something ppl

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by BaiginLong@Feb 12 2003, 04:28 AM
yeah he was on the other side of the Anna Guo case
that should tell you something ppl
Quit ripping on the guy with that passive-aggressive shit just for having an opinion. Anno Guo was an entirely different issue. And there were others on this board who were on the other side of the Anna Guo case, too. The Anna Guo case has no bearing on the War with Iraq. Let's not pass judgement or do a cyber online witch hunt on a guy just because he's the silent or vocal minority on YW for having a different opinion on the war by trudging up old and irrelevant issues.

[wylin]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 11 2003, 08:01 PM
Would you be able to pass the physical?
yah probably, can u? does old age stop u from being selected.

Tho one thing bout korea is that i might NOT be able to survive eating kim chi for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

[kitty]

I agree with CSB... while will and i have different opinions, there's no need for personal attacks... Will has just as much reason to think what he thinks as I do... maybe everyone should settle down...

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by BaiginLong@Feb 12 2003, 04:28 AM
yeah he was on the other side of the Anna Guo case
that should tell you something ppl
hey man don't be putting words in my mouth. i'm just talking about his views on war, that is all.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by wylin@Feb 12 2003, 11:03 AM
yah probably, can u? does old age stop u from being selected.

Well, why don't we compete than, my geritol body versus...yours :D

[DragonKnight]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Feb 12 2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by wylin@Feb 12 2003, 11:03 AM
yah probably, can u? does old age stop u from being selected. &nbsp;

Well, why don't we compete than, my geritol body versus...yours :D
:lol:

Ouch, ouch, ouch!

-Rich, "is getting old himself..."

[Commando_turned_MD]

Yes.........................

[pfc beansprout]

didnt catch this other day but...

and since when did the US become the master
even the bear can be torn down by a pack of wolves
it's cooperation and cohesion that makes wolves better than the bear and a world community better than a superpower nation

*applauds..........................

[VV o n g B a]

the following comes from this nytimes link. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/opinion/07KRIS.html)

Then the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper conducted a (hopelessly unscientific) poll on its Web site, asking Canadians whether they agreed that "Americans are behaving like 'bastards.' " The returns aren't good: as of yesterday, 51 percent were saying yes.

When even the Canadians, normally drearily polite, get colorfully steamed at us, we know the rest of the world is apopleptic. After all, the latest invective comes on top of the prime minister's spokesman calling Mr. Bush a "moron" last fall.

So let's take stock of how our invasion of Iraq is going. The Western alliance is ferociously strained, NATO is paralyzed, America is resented by millions, the United Nations is in crisis, U.S. pals like Tony Blair are being skewered at home, North Korea has exploited our distraction to crank up plutonium production, oil prices have surged, and the world financial markets have sagged.

And the war hasn't even begun yet.


As one savvy official observed, occupying Baghdad comes at an "unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships." Another expert put it this way: "We should not march into Baghdad. . . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."

Those comments may overemphasize the risks, but they are from top-notch analysts whose judgments I respect. The first comment was made by Colin Powell in a Foreign Affairs essay in 1992; the second is in "A World Transformed," a 1998 book by the first President Bush. &nbsp;

[SunWuKong]

and i still can't connect saddam's slow-paced disarming to equate to the necessity of war.

[Danny]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Mar 7 2003, 01:16 AM
and i still can't connect saddam's slow-paced disarming to equate to the necessity of war.
I even forgot that I replied on this topic and was against the war initially... I researched a lot more since my last post and also found a strong case in regards to war, one that I think a lot of people would agree with. If the UN backed a reslolution of force I would be more apt to be in favor it than I am now. Right now I say go in and light the bitch up, but only with UN backing. Going around the UN will just make the UN look powerless. Which begs the question, why would the US go around the UN in regards to this, but want the UN's opinion on North korea?

It has been 12 years since Saddam was defeated and 17 resolutions later he is still defiant. There is a case in regards to the fact that Saddam may have weapons of mass destructioin. The weapons inspectors are not going to find moving weapons labs, or underground weapons labs. They are going to find what Iraq basically wants them to find.

This is not brain washing by the media, nor is it following the republican line. You have a handful of weapons inspectors in a country the size of I think they said California. The chances of finding anything is going to be remote to say the least.

There is also the issue of the chemical and biological weaponry that they said they destroyed after 91, there is no proof that is was destroyed. The stockpile can be moved or hidden very easily.

What happens if this stockpile is handed over to a terrorist organization, Saddam may be a total tool and do this, becuase isn't it, the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

I heard on the news today that out of the three axis of evil communities mentioned by Bush Iran was the closest to having a nuclear weapon. So Iran may be next on the hitlist.

[syc]

so what after you go into iraq? is the US going to go and fight war after war with regimes it doesnt agree with?

right now iran and n korea are closer to having nukes than iraq is. why is iraq such a high priority right now?

[deez nuts]

let's do this thing and be done with it.

[angelwiththesword]

george bushwacker should shove that nuke up his urethra

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 10 2003, 03:51 PM
I even forgot that I replied on this topic and was against the war initially... I researched a lot more since my last post and also found a strong case in regards to war, one that I think a lot of people would agree with. If the UN backed a reslolution of force I would be more apt to be in favor it than I am now. Right now I say go in and light the bitch up, but only with UN backing. Going around the UN will just make the UN look powerless. Which begs the question, why would the US go around the UN in regards to this, but want the UN's opinion on North korea?

It has been 12 years since Saddam was defeated and 17 resolutions later he is still defiant. There is a case in regards to the fact that Saddam may have weapons of mass destructioin. The weapons inspectors are not going to find moving weapons labs, or underground weapons labs. They are going to find what Iraq basically wants them to find.

This is not brain washing by the media, nor is it following the republican line. You have a handful of weapons inspectors in a country the size of I think they said California. The chances of finding anything is going to be remote to say the least.

There is also the issue of the chemical and biological weaponry that they said they destroyed after 91, there is no proof that is was destroyed. The stockpile can be moved or hidden very easily.

What happens if this stockpile is handed over to a terrorist organization, Saddam may be a total tool and do this, becuase isn't it, the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

I heard on the news today that out of the three axis of evil communities mentioned by Bush Iran was the closest to having a nuclear weapon. So Iran may be next on the hitlist.
but how do you go from that iraq has WMD to the US needing to go in there and forcibly do a regime change? i just think there are less drastic measures. and last i check, it was the UN that placed those resolutions on iraq. if bush is going to use the violation of those UN resolutions as an excuse to go in, at least respect the UN's decision, but he's basically said that the US would go in with or without UN backing.

[VV o n g B a]

now that war has become an inevitability, do u guys feel some sense of excitement? i do. i wanna see this massive bombardment thats gonna occur in baghdad. its become like an exciting movie that u've been waiting for for months. i gotta get some popcorn.

i wonder what the ethics of this are tho. does the fact that i'm eager to be entertained by this war make me as evil as the romans back in their day?

[SunWuKong]

i don't want my tax dollars to contribute to killing people. :pissed:

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

I'm honestly conflicted about war. Part of me feels its necessary for the long term stability of the region and as a first step to remedy the hundreds of years of interference. We're a country that depends on expansion and world stability for our economic well-being, so the idea of poking our nose in there isn't completely offensive to me.

At the same time, will we really be able to do it right this time around? Is the new regime change (assuming we win, which isn't too unsafe) going to be like what we did in Japan or what we did in Guatemala and Chile? I don't really trust this government we have now to pull it off and I don't trust the American people enough to commit to the long term commitment this entails.

Anyways, I don't see a way out of this. In the end, we have to get Saddam out. We can't have the region remaining this half-ass collection of petty sheikdoms and fundamentalist governments. Somehow, we have to modernize the region and get them hooked on western-style economics and democracy and war is probably the only way you can get Saddam out. We're just doing it the wrong way as far as working with the international community and going through the diplomatic motions that we need to humor.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by VBKao@Mar 18 2003, 01:29 PM
I'm honestly conflicted about war. Part of me feels its necessary for the long term stability of the region and as a first step to remedy the hundreds of years of interference. We're a country that depends on expansion and world stability for our economic well-being, so the idea of poking our nose in there isn't completely offensive to me.

At the same time, will we really be able to do it right this time around? Is the new regime change (assuming we win, which isn't too unsafe) going to be like what we did in Japan or what we did in Guatemala and Chile? I don't really trust this government we have now to pull it off and I don't trust the American people enough to commit to the long term commitment this entails.

Anyways, I don't see a way out of this. In the end, we have to get Saddam out. We can't have the region remaining this half-ass collection of petty sheikdoms and fundamentalist governments. Somehow, we have to modernize the region and get them hooked on western-style economics and democracy and war is probably the only way you can get Saddam out. We're just doing it the wrong way as far as working with the international community and going through the diplomatic motions that we need to humor.
those are pretty selfish reasons, don't you think?
turkey, a democracy in the region, overwhelmingly voted against providing a base for US military action.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Well, international affairs is the conflict of the self-interest of various nations. We need that region stable. The people of that region would like it stable and prosperous too. It helps us and probably helps them in the end, right? Most people are peaceful if you keep them fed and somehow self-sufficient, so we should be taking steps that will get us there.

If war can do it, then it's worth it. I'm just not sure if war will work even though it theoretically can.

[Danny]

fast forward to today... Turkey has in fact allowed the US to based their troops there.....

it was not on overwhleming majority either, it was four votes shy of becoming granted... they need a specirfic number of votes in positive, more than 50% of their government... I think it fell short by four votes, but was still in fvaor of it none the less.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

I think Turkey doesn't want us there for historical reasons, domestic concerns and because it's not confident in our ability to do things in a way that can sustain itself. We haven't done things the right way in that region for a while. War done the wrong way will fuck all the countries in the region over.

It's not that they like Saddam or don't feel that getting him out in some way won't benefit the region. It's the fact that we might go storming in there and then jet out when things get rough and let everything go to shit again. They actually have to live there and, understandably, they're hesitant to let our cowboys play in their backyard.

[SunWuKong]

i stand corrected.
but nonetheless, i still see bush's warmongering as selfish.
again, i don't want my tax dollars to contribute to bloodshed. i would rather have it go toward fixing the economy. (yes i know bush is banking on a quick victory to jumpstart the economy, and the stock market is apparently supporting him).

[Danny]

dude, this guy has been out wandering about doing basically what he has wanted to do for 12 years, flipping the UN off. He is in a position to create a lot more problems for the economy in the future if he somehow sells his chemical agents to someone that will eventually bring it stateside and use it in a metropolitan area. I see this as being a prevenative measure rather than a reactionary measure.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 18 2003, 01:48 PM
dude, this guy has been out wandering about doing basically what he has wanted to do for 12 years, flipping the UN off. He is in a position to create a lot more problems for the economy in the future if he somehow sells his chemical agents to someone that will eventually bring it stateside and use it in a metropolitan area. I see this as being a prevenative measure rather than a reactionary measure.
except that the cia has said that the only reason he would do what u said is if he was about to get invaded. but whatever. debate about rightness and wrongness are beside the point now since the point of no return has been passed.

just pull up a chair and watch the fireworks. :lol: :ph34r:

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Mar 18 2003, 05:29 PM
except that the cia has said that the only reason he would do what u said is if he was about to get invaded.
exactly. the reason they hate america is because we place sanctions on them and now we're going to invade them.

and is saddam really that big of a threat to the US? i think the bush administration has a lot to do with fanning the fears of the average american. and where is bin laden?

[Elizabeth A.]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Mar 18 2003, 06:16 PM
exactly. the reason they hate america is because we place sanctions on them and now we're going to invade them.

and is saddam really that big of a threat to the US? i think the bush administration has a lot to do with fanning the fears of the average american. and where is bin laden?
Nail. Hammer. Bang!

[SunWuKong]

13 Myths (http://islandimage.net/oc/13myths/Factsheet.cfm?ID=5)

[Danny]

moot point now

[angel nympho]

Given, I don't really know a whole lot about the situation......

I think war on Iraq is something that had to be done eventually and I'm glad Bush is finally stepping up to do it. I mean, for the past several years, we've always been kinda dicking around with Iraq, but never really stepping up to the plate. Even Clinton dropped a few bombs over there during his time. It's my understanding that this war is more about disarming Iraq... the weapons checks just weren't working 'cuz they were basically TELLING us where to look and everything was under THEIR control. It was so controlled that they probably coulda been moving shit around under our noses the whole time. If we declare war on them, we can fucken check whatever we want.

I think it's unreasonable for people to be so scared. There's no way Iraq is going to come out on top. There's NO way. I mean, they can't even drop bombs or shoot missiles at our troops without getting them shot out of the sky... how the FUCK are they gonna shoot stuff over to the states? Given, yes, there will be casualties in our troops... but isn't that their job?

Or am I completely off here...?

[kitty]

I don't think people are genuinely concerned about Iraq getting a missile here, although people are frightened that there could be a biological attack or something (think anthrax). But I feel those are unreasonable fears. The real concern is if Sadam retaliates against an ally of U.S. in the area.

I personally don't feel this is a necessary war, but I've made my feelings known on this board and won't dive into another long post about it... :P Needless to say, I think we've painted ourselves into a corner in which this war was the only possible outcome, and I'm more than disappointed that the American public is supporting this.

[Danny]

this statement sums up what this war is about.... if you can disgree with this statement, then you have serious issues

"We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities."

George Bush, last night....

though our president is a total tool... he at least understands that the greater good is at stake here.

[kitty]

I was still never convinced that two months from now, Sadam would be standing on our coast with a gun at george bush's head.... I don't think he ever posed that kind of a threat.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 20 2003, 01:10 PM
"We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities."

George Bush, last night....

though our president is a total tool... he at least understands that the greater good is at stake here.
there's a word for that statement: propaganda

[Danny]

okay, tell that to the people who lost family in NYC... I am sure that you could take on 5000 angry New Yorkers....

[SunWuKong]

bin laden doesn't even like saddam
he wants to see bush invade iraq
if bush really means what he said in that statement, he'd be spending his efforts in finding bin laden instead

[angel nympho]

We've ALWAYS been fighting Iraq. Always. For YEARS. And NOW people are getting upset about it?

[angel nympho]

Given, I think being at war sucks. But I think, in this case, maybe it WAS necessary. I'm sure there's more information out there than I know and I'm sure there's more information out there that the American public knows. I know we're gonna come out on top. Is the big deal that troops will die for this cause? Or.... I'm confused. What's the major complaint?

[Danny]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Mar 20 2003, 01:23 PM
bin laden doesn't even like saddam
he wants to see bush invade iraq
if bush really means what he said in that statement, he'd be spending his efforts in finding bin laden instead
the enemy of my enemy is my friend... have you heard this before?

perfect example... one of the reason we are in this mess right now... Iraq, we helped Iraq during the Iran Iraq war, why? Not becuase we liked Iraq, but Iraq was Iran's enemy....

Saddam can sell off whatever armerment he wants to.. who is watching him... who cares if you don't liek the person, money talks.....

if you honestly can sit there and say that Saddam would not do that... look at history... that scuzzbag gassed 60,000 of his own people... why would he not sell off a biological weapon to someone if he knew that it was going to come over to the United States to be used to kill innocents....

Do you want a repeat of 9/11 because everyone that has been whining about waiting and waiting and waiting seems to forget that this country is not that difficult to get into, items get smuggled into the country via Canada and Mexico all of the time...

You can whine and moan about this war for the rest of your lives, because nothing is going to happen because Saddam did it, because Saddam is being removed right now.

He is also looing for Bin Laden, 1000 troops went into Afghan towns and the mountains today to answer credible threats of Al Qaeda activity. Do you know they were probably a few minutes away from where bin Laden was just a few weeks ago? It is not like he can snap his fingers and he will appear in front of Bush.

[syc]

this statement sums up what this war is about.... if you can disgree with this statement, then you have serious issues

How about this?: "all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people."

Im not saying that this war is all about oil, but its one of the reasons Bush was so eager to invade Iraq. And what kind of message is this to give to people before you invade their country? Bush could at least have tried to be a little more subtle or used a little more tact.

[Danny]

they are trying to effect a regime change... the only source of economic stability Iraq has is the oil... destroying the oil is like stabbing yourself in the eye with a sharp pencil... it also probably helped with a lot of the medical conditions that the Gulf war soldiers suffered from after DStorm... it may partially be about the oil and economics, but it also has alot to do with the infrastructure of the country and also a health risk....

[kitty]

Originally posted by syc@Mar 20 2003, 06:38 PM

How about this?: "all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people."

Im not saying that this war is all about oil, but its one of the reasons Bush was so eager to invade Iraq. And what kind of message is this to give to people before you invade their country? Bush could at least have tried to be a little more subtle or used a little more tact.
he said that? wow, he's not even TRYING to hide his intentions anymore, is he? It's all about money, folks, 'specially with bush and his cronies.

[kitty]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 20 2003, 06:42 PM
they are trying to effect a regime change... the only source of economic stability Iraq has is the oil... destroying the oil is like stabbing yourself in the eye with a sharp pencil... it also probably helped with a lot of the medical conditions that the Gulf war soldiers suffered from after DStorm... it may partially be about the oil and economics, but it also has alot to do with the infrastructure of the country and also a health risk....
Who're we kidding? Bush doesn't have the interests of the Iraqi people at heart... it's like in Dune, he who controls the oil controls the world. (wow, nerd alert).

Anyways, yeah, it sounds like basically that the one glitch in his plan is if the Iraqi destroy the oil before Bush can get an American contingent in and take over.

[Danny]

Originally posted by kittygirl@Mar 20 2003, 01:45 PM
Who're we kidding? Bush doesn't have the interests of the Iraqi people at heart... it's like in Dune, he who controls the oil controls the world. (wow, nerd alert).

Anyways, yeah, it sounds like basically that the one glitch in his plan is if the Iraqi destroy the oil before Bush can get an American contingent in and take over.
I am not saying that his interests are good... I am a realist, but there are a lot of other factors involved than just blowing oil... it can be repaired... it was last time... alot of medical personnel believe that a great majority of the problems with the troops from DS was becuase of the oil wells being on fire... this is an issue more so than just Bush's lust for oil which everyone seems it is ONLY about...

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Mar 20 2003, 12:28 PM
Is the big deal that troops will die for this cause? Or.... I'm confused. What's the major complaint?
it's not for fear of our troops dying.

the humanitarians don't want iraqi civilians to die. they believe it will number in the thousands. but i think w/ our current tech, civ casualties will be relatively low compared to other large scale wars.

internationalists don't want to see the US strike w/o a UN mandate b/c they believe that matters of this nature should be signed off on by other countries in the world. i'm mostly in this camp. i think france did the world a disfavor however by basically promising to veto anything that authorized force. now the US prolly won't bother w/ using the UN and it will become useless. there will be less opportunity to tie US interests down. i believe they need to be tied down or else the US is well on its way to becoming the world hegemon. and as the saying goes, power corrupts and total power corrupts totally.

others believe we should focus on terrorism and since bush himself has said there are no links between 9/11 and iraq, this whole war is a just a distraction.

these are just a couple of reasons. there are more, but those go into reasons bush wants the war.

[SunWuKong]

you do realise about 4 million people have died from the sanctions that are placed in the middle east and afghanistan. how's that for body count?

and why do they hate us? because we go in there with our guns and do whatever we feel like. i wouldn't argue that saddam is ruthless, but if you think this war will make things better, you are sorely mistaken. and besides, there are more dangerous regimes out there. north korea, anyone? we'd definitely secure a great source of oil though.

as for liberating people in iraq - my stomach turned when i heard bush say that on tv. typical american self-righteousness.

[syc]

the humanitarians don't want iraqi civilians to die. they believe it will number in the thousands. but i think w/ our current tech, civ casualties will be relatively low compared to other large scale wars.

the US has the most advanced weaponry without a doubt. But there are still gong to be alot of innocent people killed. remember the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? And those bombings were on a much smaller scale than whats about to hit Bagdad

[Danny]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Mar 20 2003, 01:48 PM
you do realise about 4 million people have died from the sanctions that are placed in the middle east and afghanistan. how's that for body count?

and why do they hate us? because we go in there with our guns and do whatever we feel like. i wouldn't argue that saddam is ruthless, but if you think this war will make things better, you are sorely mistaken. we'd definitely secure a great source of oil though.

as for liberating people in iraq - my stomach turned when i heard bush say that on tv. typical american self-righteousness.
okay... why were their sanctions in the first place? How many of those 4 million were killed by the regime in power?

A prowestern government in the middle east is going to be more of a benefit than anything.

This country was built on war, the people made this country so that you can express your opinions freely.... other countries around the world have similiar rights and views... be instituting change, which will happen, there is no fooling anyone on it and that you are mistaken, is good... an ulterior motive? Everything has an ulterior motive.

Conflict is an inevitable part of human nature. When you one side that is willing to not dealve into physical contact and another that will not budge until that threat is pushed up against them and still not doing anything, then the only choice is to kick the living snot out of the other.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 20 2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Mar 20 2003, 01:48 PM
you do realise about 4 million people have died from the sanctions that are placed in the middle east and afghanistan. &nbsp;how's that for body count? &nbsp;

and why do they hate us? &nbsp;because we go in there with our guns and do whatever we feel like. &nbsp;i wouldn't argue that saddam is ruthless, but if you think this war will make things better, you are sorely mistaken. &nbsp;we'd definitely secure a great source of oil though.

as for liberating people in iraq - my stomach turned when i heard bush say that on tv. &nbsp;typical american self-righteousness.
okay... why were their sanctions in the first place? How many of those 4 million were killed by the regime in power?

A prowestern government in the middle east is going to be more of a benefit than anything.

This country was built on war, the people made this country so that you can express your opinions freely.... other countries around the world have similiar rights and views... be instituting change, which will happen, there is no fooling anyone on it and that you are mistaken, is good... an ulterior motive? Everything has an ulterior motive.

Conflict is an inevitable part of human nature. When you one side that is willing to not dealve into physical contact and another that will not budge until that threat is pushed up against them and still not doing anything, then the only choice is to kick the living snot out of the other.
the UN estimates about 4 million have died from starvation. and despite the fact that they've decided that the sanctions have the averse effect of the desired effect, the US continues with the sanctions.

sure, conflict is inevitable. i just don't think it was time for it yet. but the bush administration sure did a good job fanning up pro-war propaganda to gain support. however, it still failed miserably to gain populist support outside of the US.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 20 2003, 12:37 PM
if you honestly can sit there and say that Saddam would not do that... look at history... that scuzzbag gassed 60,000 of his own people... why would he not sell off a biological weapon to someone if he knew that it was going to come over to the United States to be used to kill innocents....
he did that as punishment for the village helping iranians in the war. it was used to inspire fear and as a warning to other villages that might rebel. but saddam knows that if any wmd that is used in the US is traced back to him, his dictatorship is over. he above all wants to stay in power so he's not going to do that unless he's got nothing to lose. he didn't use those weapons back in the last gulf war for this exact fear.

there's also the loss of control involved in giving a wmd to a third party. once the weapon leaves his hands, he will have zero control over how, where, and when it will be used. again, the chances are close to nil that he'd be willing to do that.

but having said, that i believe bush had the right idea. iraq really should have a leader that isn't a monster. it's just that bush is such a dumbass at foreign policy that he's lost a worldwide popularity contest to saddam. i find that to be pretty pathetic.

[Danny]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Mar 20 2003, 02:00 PM
the UN estimates about 4 million have died from starvation. and despite the fact that they've decided that the sanctions have the averse effect of the desired effect, the US continues with the sanctions.

sure, conflict is inevitable. i just don't think it was time for it yet. but the bush administration sure did a good job fanning up pro-war propaganda to gain support. however, it still failed miserably to gain populist support outside of the US.
again, how many of those 4 million are dead becuase of the regimes that were in power at the time? There was food aid sent, but the military took control of it and used it for themselves... not to disperse it to the people....

Look at the countries that support the United States in this effort, Bulgaria, Poland, and a great majority of the former Eastern Bloc.... why do these countries support us versus the countries of France, Germany, and China. These countries are supporting us for the fac thtat they have been under regimes that were totalitarian and oppressive. France and Germany have never been under a regime like that in known time (last fifty years). China, China does not support us becuase they are a totalitarian nation currently. Of course they don't want the United States to change the regime in Iraq.

I am not saying that we are going in there with happy happy flowers child that Bush wants everyone to believe, but this is going to be a positive for the United States even beyond the oil that everyone keeps bringing up.

[syc]

I know this has come up before, but there are alot of "monsters" in control of alot of countries right now. In fact, the US has even supported alot of them in the past, remember Pinochet in Chile? There are countless other times where the US has supported tyrannical dictators or rebels who inflict violence on their own people.

Are we to judge which dictatorship is "legitimate" and deserves to stay in power solely by American judgement? After all the US did support Iraq against Iran. Now their the enemy. Who else is going to be singled out by the US for invasian because they dont "agree" with their regime?

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 20 2003, 01:07 PM
Look at the countries that support the United States in this effort, Bulgaria, Poland, and a great majority of the former Eastern Bloc.... why do these countries support us versus the countries of France, Germany, and China.
there is no eastern european country that has a population in favor of the war. their numbers are similar to the rest of europe. most likely their leaders support the US b/c they are expressing thanks for nato's invitation and want to get more aid from the US.

[Danny]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Mar 20 2003, 02:14 PM
there is no eastern european country that has a population in favor of the war. their numbers are similar to the rest of europe. most likely their leaders support the US b/c they are expressing thanks for nato's invitation and want to get more aid from the US.
they would gain more by joining the EU than NATO.... why alienate the French then?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 20 2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Mar 20 2003, 02:00 PM
the UN estimates about 4 million have died from starvation. and despite the fact that they've decided that the sanctions have the averse effect of the desired effect, the US continues with the sanctions.

sure, conflict is inevitable. i just don't think it was time for it yet. but the bush administration sure did a good job fanning up pro-war propaganda to gain support. however, it still failed miserably to gain populist support outside of the US.
again, how many of those 4 million are dead becuase of the regimes that were in power at the time? There was food aid sent, but the military took control of it and used it for themselves... not to disperse it to the people....

Look at the countries that support the United States in this effort, Bulgaria, Poland, and a great majority of the former Eastern Bloc.... why do these countries support us versus the countries of France, Germany, and China. These countries are supporting us for the fac thtat they have been under regimes that were totalitarian and oppressive. France and Germany have never been under a regime like that in known time (last fifty years). China, China does not support us becuase they are a totalitarian nation currently. Of course they don't want the United States to change the regime in Iraq.

I am not saying that we are going in there with happy happy flowers child that Bush wants everyone to believe, but this is going to be a positive for the United States even beyond the oil that everyone keeps bringing up.
or better yet, how about we just had stopped the sanctions years ago so people wouldn't starve? let me repeat that it was already decided that the sanctions have the averse effect from what was desired. sure, the sanctions helped to choke off countries the US don't like. but again, how's that for a body count? "these countries are evil and their rulers kill their people, so we will cut them off from their trading - so that a whole lot more people die from starvation while affecting no change whatsoever except for getting them to hate us even more." yeah i see the logic there... :confused:

i don't know the exact list of countries that support the war, or are against the war. but you've got to make a distinction between government support and populist support for the war. for example, the japanese government supports the war, but the japanese people are overwhelmingly against the war. why? the japanese government wants US help in dealing with north korea. it's politics. same thing with china. china does not support the war not because it's a totalitarian nation. it's because it has been employing a non-involvement, laissez-faire policy when it comes to international conflict.

all i can say now is that since bush has finally decided to go into action, he better gets this over with quickly.

[syc]

first it was all about the weapons of mass destruction, now its about regime change. I know its a combination of both, but it seems as if the US pushed the weapons issue to justify an attack, and now they push regime change to cover their ass if nothing is found.

[Danny]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Mar 20 2003, 02:21 PM
or better yet, how about we just had stopped the sanctions years ago so people wouldn't starve? let me repeat that it was already decided that the sanctions have the averse effect from what was desired. sure, the sanctions helped to choke off countries the US don't like. but again, how's that for a body count? "these countries are evil and their rulers kill their people, so we will cut them off from their trading - so that a whole lot more people die from starvation while affecting no change whatsoever except for getting them to hate us even more." yeah i see the logic there... :confused:

i don't know the exact list of countries that support the war, or are against the war. but you've got to make a distinction between government support and populist support for the war. for example, the japanese government supports the war, but the japanese people are overwhelmingly against the war. why? the japanese government wants US help in dealing with north korea. it's politics. same thing with china. china does not support the war not because it's a totalitarian nation. it's because it has been employing a non-involvement, laissez-faire policy when it comes to international conflict.

all i can say now is that since bush has finally decided to go into action, he better gets this over with quickly.
so after DS, we should not have had sanctions against Iraq, who would have used the oil that they pumped from Kuwait and got a whole shit load of money, which would not have gone to its people, rather it would have gone to restocking his military and possibly get even more weaponry that they would have hid. So that they could have unleashed them on others.... yeah, the logic is there....

Sanctions if done properly work... if aid is available and properly dispersed from agency's not affiliated with the government being sanctioned and the governments sanctioing, they would have worked. But you blame Saddam for those deaths... not the United States... that is the regimes in power that must answer for those atrocities.

In regards to the countries that support and not support, popular opinion may not be in favor of it, but these people have not had two major icons of their largest city plummet to the ground, nor had 3000 people die in a fiery pit in one day. If they had to go through that, believe me, the overwhelming majoirty would support what is going on, right now they see the US as a bully. They do not see that this is to protect the Unitesd States in the long term. yes, some countries are on board because they want something, but I would not say all. Yes, we are going to have a few more people dislike us, hell, if we did nothing people would dislike us. It is a double edged sword.

[Danny]

Originally posted by syc@Mar 20 2003, 02:33 PM
first it was all about the weapons of mass destruction, now its about regime change. I know its a combination of both, but it seems as if the US pushed the weapons issue to justify an attack, and now they push regime change to cover their ass if nothing is found.
Iraq is already using weapons they have stated they did not have... All SCUDS were suppose to have been destroyed... what was fired into Kuwait and taken out by the patriot missiles? SCUDS.

[syc]

[QUOTE]In regards to the countries that support and not support, popular opinion may not be in favor of it, but these people have not had two major icons of their largest city plummet to the ground, nor had 3000 people die in a fiery pit in one day. If they had to go through that, believe me, the overwhelming majoirty would support what is going on, right now they see the US as a bully. [QUOTE]

No, alot of those countries have actually had REAL wars on their own territory and people know what its like to have family killed and homes invaded.

[Danny]

Originally posted by syc@Mar 20 2003, 02:42 PM
[QUOTE]In regards to the countries that support and not support, popular opinion may not be in favor of it, but these people have not had two major icons of their largest city plummet to the ground, nor had 3000 people die in a fiery pit in one day. If they had to go through that, believe me, the overwhelming majoirty would support what is going on, right now they see the US as a bully. [QUOTE]

No, alot of those countries have actually had REAL wars on their own territory and people know what its like to have family killed and homes invaded.
wars are one thing.... planes flying into buildings that are basically the icons of the city is another....

terrorism and war are two totally different things

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 20 2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Mar 20 2003, 02:21 PM
or better yet, how about we just had stopped the sanctions years ago so people wouldn't starve? &nbsp;let me repeat that it was already decided that the sanctions have the averse effect from what was desired. &nbsp;sure, the sanctions helped to choke off countries the US don't like. &nbsp;but again, how's that for a body count? &nbsp;"these countries are evil and their rulers kill their people, so we will cut them off from their trading - so that a whole lot more people die from starvation while affecting no change whatsoever except for getting them to hate us even more." &nbsp;yeah i see the logic there... &nbsp; :confused:

i don't know the exact list of countries that support the war, or are against the war. &nbsp;but you've got to make a distinction between government support and populist support for the war. &nbsp;for example, the japanese government supports the war, but the japanese people are overwhelmingly against the war. &nbsp;why? &nbsp;the japanese government wants US help in dealing with north korea. &nbsp;it's politics. &nbsp;same thing with china. &nbsp;china does not support the war not because it's a totalitarian nation. &nbsp;it's because it has been employing a non-involvement, laissez-faire policy when it comes to international conflict.

all i can say now is that since bush has finally decided to go into action, he better gets this over with quickly.
so after DS, we should not have had sanctions against Iraq, who would have used the oil that they pumped from Kuwait and got a whole shit load of money, which would not have gone to its people, rather it would have gone to restocking his military and possibly get even more weaponry that they would have hid. So that they could have unleashed them on others.... yeah, the logic is there....

Sanctions if done properly work... if aid is available and properly dispersed from agency's not affiliated with the government being sanctioned and the governments sanctioing, they would have worked. But you blame Saddam for those deaths... not the United States... that is the regimes in power that must answer for those atrocities.

In regards to the countries that support and not support, popular opinion may not be in favor of it, but these people have not had two major icons of their largest city plummet to the ground, nor had 3000 people die in a fiery pit in one day. If they had to go through that, believe me, the overwhelming majoirty would support what is going on, right now they see the US as a bully. They do not see that this is to protect the Unitesd States in the long term. yes, some countries are on board because they want something, but I would not say all. Yes, we are going to have a few more people dislike us, hell, if we did nothing people would dislike us. It is a double edged sword.
hey, if it's a choice between an armed iraq or 4 million people starving to death, i personally will always rather have an armed iraq. and the only country that has "unleashed" its weaponry in recent years is, well, the US. saddam "unleashing" his weaponry on others would just give complete international support for his own ass-kicking. i'm not convinced that he would have done that.

sure, sanctions would have worked if done properly. but you know what, it's been over a decade and it hasn't been done properly. yet we continue the sanctions. so who's really responsible for the mass starvation? the line gets incredibly blurred if you ask me. we know not all the food aid is going to the people (and even if it does, is it enough? well not for north korea.), and we know that the sanctions are building more anti-american resentment instead of regime or policy change. so what the hell's the point of the sanctions?

using 9/11 to justify populist support is a double-edged sword if you ask me. americans, especially NYers, have personal experience of the attack. but then again, i have no doubt that many support the war because of the anger they feel. in other words, many americans' judgement is probably clouded because of 9/11.

and if 9/11 is truly the administration's concern, bush would be talking about getting bin laden right now instead of saddam hussein.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 20 2003, 02:45 PM
[QUOTE]In regards to the countries that support and not support, popular opinion may not be in favor of it, but these people have not had two major icons of their largest city plummet to the ground, nor had 3000 people die in a fiery pit in one day. If they had to go through that, believe me, the overwhelming majoirty would support what is going on, right now they see the US as a bully. [QUOTE]

No, alot of those countries have actually had REAL wars on their own territory and people know what its like to have family killed and homes invaded.
wars are one thing.... planes flying into buildings that are basically the icons of the city is another....

terrorism and war are two totally different things
how about atomic bombs then? survivors of hiroshima and nagasaki are definitely anti-war.
i think it's funny that many, if not most, people outside the US who have experienced these types of tragedy actually call for peace, while americans who have experienced these types of tragedy call for war.

[Danny]

actually the age breakdown for people for war with iraq and against is pretty odd.... TIME did a great article on it and I am not 100% on the numbers but it seemed that the older generation people 55+ were more infavor of the war, by 3 to 1 outside of the United Staets. people from 18-35 were in favor of not having a war 2 to 1. In the United states the numbers were almost identical broken down by age group. Which shocked me, 70% of people 18-35 were in favor of war while 75% of people over 55 were also in favor...

so saying that people that lived through hiroshima are against the war may be a little false... after all if TIME wrote that old people were in favor of it, they must be right.... :)

[SunWuKong]

bah. Time is notoriously biased. even worse than CNN.
oh well. i just hope the war is over with quickly.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Mar 20 2003, 06:48 PM
and why do they hate us? because we go in there with our guns and do whatever we feel like.
Here's a big reason why people hate us. The USA is like... a 3 year old with a machine gun. We don't KNOW shit, but we like to blow shit up.

Example from my psych class. My teacher asks "How many of you know about sanctions going on in Iraq that are killing innocent people?" About 1/4 of the class raises their hand. "How many of you know that Pamela Anderson took out her breast implants?" Everybody raises their hand. (Sorry this is outdated, it was like... obviously a long time ago)

America is disgustingly misinformed, don't you think? A lot of it has to do with the media, sure, but a lot of it also has to do with Americans not really giving a shit. We're basically, as a society, oblivious to it. The rest of the world knows it. That's why people hate us.

[Danny]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Mar 20 2003, 07:36 PM
America is disgustingly misinformed, don't you think? A lot of it has to do with the media, sure, but a lot of it also has to do with Americans not really giving a shit. We're basically, as a society, oblivious to it. The rest of the world knows it. That's why people hate us.
i agree with you that Americans are incredibly misinformed on many aspects of world issues.... this is the redneck philosophy... if it is red white and blue it must be right.... I don't care if you are pro war, or anti war, as long as you can defend the position you take with facts (like some of you have) and show at least a little bit of ability to critically think about an issue, that is all that really matters....

dumbass rednecks that think bombing iraq because the President says that we need to get rid of him are totally ridiculous... just like anti war protestors that sit there and say war is bad but have no clue about the resolutions that have gone on before hand, or know anything about what has been happening for the last twelve years.... Know what you are backing.

The sad fact is that most Americans are ASS lazy and watch the television to get their opinion on things... Clinton is against it, so I must be against it... Rush is for it, I must be for it.... hardly anyone does research anymore. This has become an entertainment based society... that is why we know more about our entertainers than we do about our policies around the world. It is sad that MTV asks singers what they think about the war. Honestly.... who the fuck cares what Fred Durst has to say.... the only reason people pay attention to him is becuase of his music, not because he is antiwar.... but the sad fact is that some jerkoff little teenie bopper is basing his opinion on this dipshit.

[golden_buns]

I don't know how many you, who support this war, have stopped to think about the consequences. Sure in the short run we'll have cheap oil in most countries, there'll be a possible economic recovery in U.S and those countries that depend on U.S economy, and a ruthless dictador will be taken care of. But in the long run, things don't look so bright at all; for one thing Bush made a fool of himself by showing bogus proof about possible terrorism from Iraq to the UN counsil. Rumsfield called France and Germany "Old europe" and damaged diplomatic relations with these 2 powers. China and Russia's suggestion of not going to war until inspectors finished their jobs were not listened. And Bush pretty much ignored procedures from the UN counsil, therefore giving most of the countries the idea that U.S will invade any country whenever they please without giving the world nor the security counsil a good reason for it.
This is basically Imperialism, and called me pessimistic, but I think the seeds for a third world war have been planted here. Why? For one thing, Bush has created strains in diplomatic relationship with allies (some of them world powers) which in turn might focus heavily on weaponry, economic, and diplomatic expansion due to mistrust to the States. Also in many countries the idea that America isn't their friend but rather a possible treat has overwhelmingly grown, which creates the possiblity of an anti-US coalition. Once this happens it shouldn't take long to create great tensions among U.S and its allies and those opposed to U.S which could explode on a war at any time.

[rakovlam]

I'll let the news handle this debate.

Note: Should this poll be closed by now?

[Danny]

Originally posted by golden_buns@Mar 20 2003, 10:36 PM
I don't know how many you, who support this war, have stopped to think about the consequences. Sure in the short run we'll have cheap oil in most countries, there'll be a possible economic recovery in U.S and those countries that depend on U.S economy, and a ruthless dictador will be taken care of. But in the long run, things don't look so bright at all; for one thing Bush made a fool of himself by showing bogus proof about possible terrorism from Iraq to the UN counsil. Rumsfield called France and Germany "Old europe" and damaged diplomatic relations with these 2 powers. China and Russia's suggestion of not going to war until inspectors finished their jobs were not listened. And Bush pretty much ignored procedures from the UN counsil, therefore giving most of the countries the idea that U.S will invade any country whenever they please without giving the world nor the security counsil a good reason for it.
This is basically Imperialism, and called me pessimistic, but I think the seeds for a third world war have been planted here. Why? For one thing, Bush has created strains in diplomatic relationship with allies (some of them world powers) which in turn might focus heavily on weaponry, economic, and diplomatic expansion due to mistrust to the States. Also in many countries the idea that America isn't their friend but rather a possible treat has overwhelmingly grown, which creates the possiblity of an anti-US coalition. Once this happens it shouldn't take long to create great tensions among U.S and its allies and those opposed to U.S which could explode on a war at any time.
you are forgetting one thing... even though America is seen as a bully... people still want the $$$, they will look the other way in regards to everything else if money is coming there way.... I think the items you brought up will be noticable for a small period of time afterwards... but there is egg on a few peoples faces right now like Russia, like China, like France.... thanks to Iraq, who said they did not have any SCUDS, but what did they fire the other day into Kuwait?

I also fear that at some time during this battle, especially as they get closer to baghdad that the biological and chemical weapons will come out.... once this stuff is exposed, how will all of those other countries feel... They had 8 years of weapons inspections, and on top of that had an additional 6 more months of heavy inspections and did not find anything but if this comes to light, believe me there will be people looking like total fools out there.

Granted Bush's foriegn policy group is just horrible. I am pro war, but I would not elect this fool back into office again.

Like Bush Sr. the economy is going to be his downfall.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Mar 20 2003, 04:36 PM
"How many of you know that Pamela Anderson took out her breast implants?" Everybody raises their hand. (Sorry this is outdated, it was like... obviously a long time ago)
she did :confused:

[Danny]

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Mar 20 2003, 10:53 PM
she did :confused:
someone obviously been living under a rock.... :lol:

[golden_buns]

Danny,

times change; the democratic world doesn't have a common enemy (communism). Also, as countries powers get richer and bigger they also want to expand their economical and diplomatic interest around the world which are colliding with US interests. And finally, the fact that Bush pretty much gave the finger to United Nations WILL in turn have serious consequences. I just hope that the next president is capable of recovering the diplomatic ties that the Clinton era were able to build.

[Commando_turned_MD]

of course.............

[Danny]

Originally posted by golden_buns@Mar 20 2003, 11:10 PM
Danny,

times change; the democratic world doesn't have a common enemy (communism). Also, as countries powers get richer and bigger they also want to expand their economical and diplomatic interest around the world which are colliding with US interests. And finally, the fact that Bush pretty much gave the finger to United Nations WILL in turn have serious consequences. I just hope that the next president is capable of recovering the diplomatic ties that the Clinton era were able to build.
what serious repercussions are you talking about in regards othe UN.... Libya is in charge of the human rights coalition... and Iraq was due to become the head of the disarmerment committee.... the UN is a joke and the US has exposed it for what it was... they have already shown that the weapons inspectors could not find with the SCUDS and the other items will eventually come to light in regards othe biological and chemical weapons also... how can you sit there and give creedance to a body like the UN when they are putting nations that are highly suspect in charge of issues that they themselves are notoriously guilty of.... come on now....

Money is always the thing that will balance anyone out... friend or foe, the all mighty currency is what people want and that is what they get when the deal with the United States.... I doubt any long lasting issues will linger from this... especially since the United States has already found what 8 years and 6 months of worthless weapons inspections didn't...

I liked Clinton... but it seems that all of his foriegn policy gains have basically blown up in his face in the last few years... he helped Iraq get to this point by not pushing the issue of why they were not disarming... North korea is on the verge of having or already have nuclear weapons... Clinton was a good speaker, he told people what they wanted to hear, but what foriegn policy initiatives did he have that actually succeeded? I mean the he sold the Lincoln room to the Chinese for DNC campaign donations, so the Chinese liked him. He helped feed the people of North Korea during a major famine for closing down their nuclear program, which came back in full force, even while he was in office... He knew the threat bin laden posed but only tried once to eliminate him and failed. Do you wanta guy in office that actually is going to protect your interests and your safety, or a guy that makes you feel comfortable, but actually does nothing but put you in harms way?

[golden_buns]

The conflict with N Korea started because once dumb-fuck Bush took over the presidency the first thing he states was that NK was part of the axis of evil (which took down all previous diplomatic efforts), he then claimed that NK broke the treaty of no nuclear weapons and suspended oil shipment last october, and as far as I know he hasn't shown proof of it yet.

And talk about jokes. A big joke was the evidence that Collin Powell showed to the world about Iraq having ties with terrorist groups and holding weapons that were banned for them. They were nothing but fake unrealiable documents. Now that's a joke.

[Danny]

Originally posted by golden_buns@Mar 20 2003, 11:36 PM
The conflict with N Korea started because once dumb-fuck Bush took over the presidency the first thing he states was that NK was part of the axis of evil (which took down all previous diplomatic efforts), he then claimed that NK broke the treaty of no nuclear weapons and suspended oil shipment last october, and as far as I know he hasn't shown proof of it yet.

And talk about jokes. A big joke was the evidence that Collin Powell showed to the world about Iraq having ties with terrorist groups and holding weapons that were banned for them. They were nothing but fake unrealiable documents. Now that's a joke.
he suspended oil shipments after the North Koreans freaking said that they have been working on their nuclear plan since 1996... that was during the Clinton presidency, not the Bush era..... what recourse did he have? What about the Chinese incident, what about Clinton not using the UN properly during the 16 resolutions that Saddam defied during his 8 years in office. What about bin Laden? Don't fgive me this crap about Clinton... Clinton was a car saleman, he made people feel good, but he didn't do jack shit. Almost everything that Clinton did Bush is having to clean up. North Korea (yes, even I feel the axis of evil was a little out of hand, but it was appropriate especially after finding that Kim hadn't been doing what he promised), bin Laden (3000 dead), Saddam.... Clinton for 8 years looked great, the economy was on fire becuase of the dotcom fire. Everyone saw that Clinton was attempting to do things (I give him credit, he actually tried to do things on the foriegn policy front, but he failed and we found out abou tthem during Bush's presidency) and people were happy. Now it is time to bite the bullet and pay for a lot of stuff Clinton created. If Bush had Clintons ability speak and his charm people would be happier about what is going on. But Bush comes off as a stupid southerner as opposed to the good old boy southerner that Clinton did.

Evidence that Powell showed that Iraq had banned weapons... you do know that the SCUDS were banned weapons right? You do know that Aziz stated to the UN that there were NO MORE SCUDS in Iraq, right? You know what the Iraqi's fired into Kuwait yesterday were don't you? They were banned weapons that they said did not exist. Maybe some of Powells stuff was a reach, but that for damn sure wasn't.

[golden_buns]

Yeah, where the hell is bin laden's head? What about the 3000 lives that were lost? What happenned to the mail anthrax case? And where's the evidence that links Sadam to this?

And as far as I know, if you read from AP Reuters about NK, it says that US says that NK addmitted that. There were inspectors there, and they didn't ring the alarms on that, it was Bush.
Don't get me wrong, I also believe that Kim Jong Il is a fucked up nutcase, but NK is already collapsing; they can't filter information about the rest of the world anymore, that's why there's rumors of protests, and that's why many N Koreans escape with the hopes of making it to SK. They know they have to open their doors to recover from the collapsing economy, and they were following the footsteps of china during the Clinton era, but after this political stand off from the Bush administration, it has all gone down the drain, Bravo Bush, Bravo!!!

The downfall of the economy thanks to the dotcoms isn't Clinton's fault. The financial institutions got over confident that this new trendy wave of technology was prfitable, therefore they resorted to give money to useless "myunderwear.com" start ups. Also most companies didn't know how to organize groups with qualified people and started hire anyone who claimed to know little about programming, which in turn gave out products that didn't work that well. When all companies started to figure out how unprofitable this was, this is when the bubble burst came up.

P.S What do you think would be the reasons for the UN to lie to US about the weapons? About the banned weaponry used; don't you think it'd be easy for the US to claim those were used just to make the UN counsil look like jackasses?


Time out!! gotta go to bed now

[Danny]

Originally posted by golden_buns@Mar 21 2003, 12:12 AM
Yeah, where the hell is bin laden's head? What about the 3000 lives that were lost? What happenned to the mail anthrax case? And where's the evidence that links Sadam to this?

And as far as I know, if you read from AP Reuters about NK, it says that US says that NK addmitted that. There were inspectors there, and they didn't ring the alarms on that, it was Bush.
Don't get me wrong, I also believe that Kim Jong Il is a fucked up nutcase, but NK is already collapsing; they can't filter information about the rest of the world anymore, that's why there's rumors of protests, and that's why many N Koreans escape with the hopes of making it to SK. They know they have to open their doors to recover from the collapsing economy, and they were following the footsteps of china during the Clinton era, but after this political stand off from the Bush administration, it has all gone down the drain, Bravo Bush, Bravo!!!

The downfall of the economy thanks to the dotcoms isn't Clinton's fault. The financial institutions got over confident that this new trendy wave of technology was prfitable, therefore they resorted to give money to useless "myunderwear.com" start ups. Also most companies didn't know how to organize groups with qualified people and started hire anyone who claimed to know little about programming, which in turn gave out products that didn't work that well. When all companies started to figure out how unprofitable this was, this is when the bubble burst came up.
bin ladens head may not be around, but bin ladens associates have been rounded up, something Clinton did not do.... if bin Laden were dealt with when he was supposed to have been dealt with then 3000 people would still be alive and there would not have been anthrax laced letters floating around...

I never blamed Clinton for dotbomb, but Clinton also should not be given credit for the economy during that period of time either.

Obviously Bush knew something was going on in North Korea, I doubt that he would arbitrarily pick a country just to have a trio. Plus we have all seen how well inspectors have done so using them as an example is fairly bad.

The link to saddam, if you have read through the 9 pages of this thread is more a future threat than anything. This madman will sell his weapons to someone that he knows will use it on America. He has been trying to get his hands on nuclear weapons since 1980. Thanks to the French they had a nuclear reactor (why would an oil rich country need a nuclear energy reactor?) Luckily that has been dismantled. It is a preventative measure. Instead of dealing with something once it happens, kill it before it does happen.

You give far too much credit to a man that lasted 8 years on a good demeanor and a slick way of talking, now you have to deal with an inbred retard that has to clean up his mess. Bush has stepped on a few toes, but most of this mess is from Clinton. Some of his foriegn policy stuff stinks to high heaven, but if Clinton had done what he was suppose to do, then Bush would not have to fix everything that Clinton screwed up and he would go down as the President that was an idiot, much like his father. History will prove and sort of already has in regards to Clinton that he really did nothing, but history will prove that this war will help solidify the middle east.

[angel nympho]

Wha??? :confused:

This war's got nothing to DO with oil!!! ...Right...? The way I see it, it's just an easy way to legally assassinate Saddam. I don't know... *sigh*

[Danny]

In regards to oil... The UN has come out and stated that they are in fact going to be taking control of the oil fields once the fires are under control and once the "war" is considered stable enough for them to go in. This was from the head of the UN yesterday. The US IS NOT going to be running the oil show, the US is NOT going to be setting up this government that is going to be in Iraq alone as the UN is doing that also. There is NOT going to be many things that the US is going to benefit from that other countries, including the dirty fucking French, will also.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 21 2003, 06:30 AM
In regards to oil... The UN has come out and stated that they are in fact going to be taking control of the oil fields once the fires are under control and once the "war" is considered stable enough for them to go in. This was from the head of the UN yesterday. The US IS NOT going to be running the oil show, the US is NOT going to be setting up this government that is going to be in Iraq alone as the UN is doing that also. There is NOT going to be many things that the US is going to benefit from that other countries, including the dirty fucking French, will also.
heh, thats interesting. i wonder if bush is gonna let them do that.

[Danny]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Mar 21 2003, 09:01 AM
heh, thats interesting. i wonder if bush is gonna let them do that.
Bush is not going to just allow them to do it, he has already been in talks about setting up a transition squad with the UN... muhc like how they did in Afghanistan....

Kinda mades those dumbass protestors with the no blood for oil signs look really stupid now....

[golden_buns]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 21 2003, 06:38 AM
Kinda mades those dumbass protestors with the no blood for oil signs look really stupid now....
hahahahahahahaha!!!! You're a funny guy

Allright freedom-boy, why don't you show us DUMBASSES evidence of Iraq being an immideate threat to the US or the world, rather than coming up with rabdom especulations. Go on, cuz I'm dying to see that.

[Elizabeth A.]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 21 2003, 09:38 AM
Kinda mades those dumbass protestors with the no blood for oil signs look really stupid now....
[moderator hat ON] Some of those "dumbass protestors" are on these boards so this may be interpreted as a personal attack. Consider yourself warned.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by Mr Z@Mar 21 2003, 09:30 AM
Anti-war protesters are just misguided idealistic foolish utopians in my book. Why can't they live in the real world?
the world is what we make it. if u want to be the guy that sits on his ass accepting everything, so be it.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adopt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Rita Mae Brown

[Danny]

Originally posted by Mr Z@Mar 21 2003, 10:30 AM
Anti-war protesters are just misguided idealistic foolish utopians in my book. Why can't they live in the real world?
they have the freedom to protest, but I doubt most of them have any idea what they are protesting other than the concept of war... they come up with these conspiracy theories that the government is out just create bad in the world. They associate the Middle East with oil, thus becuase we are in the middle east, it must be becuase we want the oil. They sit there and I doubt highly know any of the facts from the previous 12 years and the previous administration. They sit there and they are in a country that allows the most possible freedom that it can without total anarchy and they sit there and actually think that they are making this country a better place by locking up traffic for hours on end, yelling and screaming at people that are a bit more damn educated than most of them and know a whole hell of a lot more about the situation on hand, but may not be able to divulge information becuase it is of a sensitive material.

Most of these guys that are sending troops to war have been in the military, they know what being in firefights and being in battles is like, do they honestly think that they are going to sacrafice American lives for their own personal gain? These antiwar people make me ill, they are antiamericans from my point of view. You have a right to voice your opinion, but by continuing this charade of idiocy across the country, they are not making more people want to be part of their demonstrations.

Granted, most of the anti war protestors are of the younger generation, as a youth your mentality is more liberally oriented, but usually you grow out of that after you start looking around and doing research. As you get older the whole idea that everything is a conspiracy kind of dwindles and you become a realist.

[golden_buns]

is not about conspiracy theory; it's about economical interests.
Gentlemen, we're talking about a war here, there will be significant loss of lives. That's why the UN and many protestors are asking for proof of Iraq being an immediate threat before they go on to kill people. Wars can't be started because of mere paranoia and suspicion, there has to be a GOOD justification for it, something that Bush failed to do.

Now THIS is THE REAL WORLD. Show me proof of Iraq being a immediate threat

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 21 2003, 09:41 AM
Most of these guys that are sending troops to war have been in the military, they know what being in firefights and being in battles is like, do they honestly think that they are going to sacrafice American lives for their own personal gain?
whoo boy... u're wrong there. the only guy that has seen combat is powell. bush (who was accused of desertion of his national guard unit in tx) has never seen battle, not even vietnam in which he is of the age to have served. the rest, including rumsfeld and cheney and wolfowitz also have not seen battle b/c of some kind of special deal. thats why the whole "chickenhawk" moniker is thrown about. and powell was the last guy to come onto this thing.

"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148)

Granted, most of the anti war protestors are of the younger generation, as a youth your mentality is more liberally oriented, but usually you grow out of that after you start looking around and doing research. As you get older the whole idea that everything is a conspiracy kind of dwindles and you become a realist.
possibly and possibly not. i used to be republican. until bush jr came into office. now i'm independent strictly b/c of his policies. i'm much more liberal in some ways than i was in college now.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by tazadar@Mar 21 2003, 10:54 AM
I think Paul Wolfowitz and Washington hawks share your thoughts. I caught the tail end of Frontline: "The Long Road to War" or something. In it, the show talks about the Bush Doctrine which reflects policy written by Paul Wolfowitz - calling for preemption even if the US has to act alone for self-defense (strategic interest) of this nation.

The Reagan administration helped Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraqi war which ended in a stalemate in hoping a democratic Iraq (favorable regime towards the U.S.) would emerge, but that didn't happen. The Washington hawks failed. They tried again with Bush Sr., but Bush Sr. and many of his cabinet members were moderates and the policies outlined by Paul Wolfowitz and other Washington foreign-policy hawks were too aggressive. Then the 9/11 terrorist attacks renewed Wolfowitz's camp policy.

Iraq is the first that they want a regime change. They call for the entire Middle East to be basically "under U.S. control."
well, i suppose thats true. it just depends on what your pov is.

my point was that world is what ppl make of it, so those ppl who mr z derided as not living in the real world were just trying to make their wishes reality.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by Mr Z@Mar 21 2003, 03:30 PM
Anti-war protesters are just misguided idealistic foolish utopians in my book. Why can't they live in the real world?
I don't mind that people want to protest, I just think that now that the war has started and our troops are over there... it's more important to support the troops than it is to be upset about what they're doing. They went because if they HAD to go. If they didn't go, they would be in JAIL. They're my friends, they're some peoples' children, they're some people's brothers and sisters, they're some peoples' neighbors... they're real Americans. And I'm sure the LAST thing they want to see when they're out there is a bunch of people who hate them for what they're being FORCED to do. It's okay to be anti-war... but it's just not a top priority for me right now. I'd rather spend my time holding up a sign that says "support our troops."

[Danny]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Mar 21 2003, 01:15 PM
I don't mind that people want to protest, I just think that now that the war has started and our troops are over there... it's more important to support the troops than it is to be upset about what they're doing. They went because if they HAD to go. If they didn't go, they would be in JAIL. They're my friends, they're some peoples' children, they're some people's brothers and sisters, they're some peoples' neighbors... they're real Americans. And I'm sure the LAST thing they want to see when they're out there is a bunch of people who hate them for what they're being FORCED to do. It's okay to be anti-war... but it's just not a top priority for me right now. I'd rather spend my time holding up a sign that says "support our troops."
exactly... when the troops came back from Vietnam they said the worst thing that they saw was the that were not supported at home. This is exactly what the troops are seeing now... Luckily technologically and theory of this war is going well... 5 Americans dead in three days of battling is pretty damn good, 4 of which were in a chaopper accident....

it is sad that these guys are fighting for people intheir own country to hate them.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 21 2003, 02:58 PM
it is sad that these guys are fighting for people intheir own country to hate them.
mtv interviewed some rap group called "dead prez." it was interesting to see their take on the war. they said that they weren't really concerned about US soldiers. it was the inner city soldiers (and they went on to name some ppl i didn't recognize) that were in prison that they cared about. they said the only time they saw gov't involvment in their lives was when cops were beating and harassing them.

and while i think that is a misrepresentation of the truth, the fact that they (and i presume some other inner city folks) feel this way prolly means the gov't failed them in some way.

[Shuriken]

I wanted to put in my two cents — just to get this off my chest. As desirable as it is to see Saddam Hussein removed from power, the Bush Administration has not convinced me yet that the Iraqi dictator poses an imminent threat to the U.S. or that he had any direct, personal involvement in 9/11. In this war, we, the United States, are the aggressors — we are violating a deeply held international principle, just as Hussein himself did when he invaded Kuwait in 1990. And if we are going to do that, we need much stronger evidence that Hussein poses a clear and present danger to us than Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council. If Powell's evidence had been more persuasive, I'm sure that a clear majority of U.N. countries would have allied themselves with Bush and that there would be no veto threats from France or Russia. Some conservative critics say that France and Russia and other countries unmoved by the Bush Administration's case are being intransigent merely for its own sake. But this is a specious argument. The French and the Germans have laid out their reasons; let's hear an honest debate about those reasons and not any personal attacks.

I'm also tired of hearing from the Bush White House how Hussein needs to be forcibly removed from power because he "used weapons of mass destruction" (i.e., poison gas) against his own people in 1988. But if this was so bad back then, why did Bush's father give Hussein financial aid not long afterwards? If Hussein needs to be removed because of something that he did back in 1988, why didn't we take him out back then? Furthermore, many of the people who are making this argument, such as U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte and National Security advisor Elliot Abrahams, helped to create and finance the contras' terrorist war against the people of Nicaragua in the 1980s. So, this strikes me as an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

But the majority of Americans say that they support the war effort because they trust Bush. There lies the rub: I don't trust the guy. Given how Machiavellian his administration has been all along — beginning with his dubious entry into the White House — going to war with Hussein looks conspicuously like Bush is settling his father's old score, acting on the vested interests of the oil companies, and distracting the public from the flagging economy all at the same time. And all of those admonitions from the political right that "we must not criticize our president during a time of war" look increasingly like a convenient way to vilify criticizing a president who is ripe for criticism.

Now, unlike a lot of conservatives, I am willing to admit that I might be wrong. I am willing to believe that Hussein does indeed pose an immediate risk to this country and that he did have some kind of a hand in 9/11. And I'm willing to believe that the evidence is so unpersuasive to me because I'm not the best analyst of military intelligence. But it seems to me that if the case were stronger, the evidence would have been stronger, too. The United States is now breaking a major international trust by invading a sovreign country for the purpose of overthrowing its government — and this will certainly have long-term consequences. We are opening a Pandora's box, and we're doing so in a way that makes us look like we're arrogantly throwing our weight around. After the glow of victory fades from our likely defeat of Hussein, I hope that we can all live with the consequences.

[golden_buns]

Shuriken, that's exactly same thoughts I have.
The war started anyways, so I guess some posters are right when they say they should cheer up for the soldiers, there's nothing we can do anymore.
What worries me are the consequences after the war. I think the idea that this war gives to other countries around the world is that the US WILL attack whenever they find it convinient, which gives a lot of uneasiness.

I think it's time for the US (especailly republicans) to re-think the foreign policy. I think it was justifiable to show the US weaponry might and intervene in foreign affairs a decade ago when the communist bloc was still around. But nowdays things have changed, and interventions of these type are the seeds for anti-americanism. 9/11 would have never happenned if US hadn't been involved in the Israel/Palestina conflict, or if their armed forces wouldn't have been stationed in Saudi Arabia (sacred land for muslims).

[kimpossible]

Golden Buns> I don't think there's been any foreign policy to re-think. Other countries should get the idea that the US will attack whenever they find it convenient. Our elected leaders know a war with Iraq was unwanted by the majority of Americans and the world at wide but they still did it. By the time this war is over, and my bet is on it's going to be on for quite a while, the US is going to lose a _lot_ but will most likely come away learning some incredibly dirty tactics to win a war. The US already has formidable weaponry, I can't imagine what kind of enemy we would become if we also become adept at guerrila warfare and lose the notion that we have to look Knights in Shining Armour while fighting a war. I'm scared that the government is going to turn on us after in order to 'protect' us using national identity cards and facial recognition software.

I wasn't sure if you were in the US or South America. Forgive me if I have it wrong but I'd be interested in hearing some of the opinions outside the US and Europe.

Anyone else feel like this is another Crusade? With oil rights thrown in to boot?

[golden_buns]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Mar 23 2003, 03:42 PM
Other countries should &nbsp;get the idea that the US will attack whenever they find it convenient.
Don't you think this could possibly trigger another arms race?

[kimpossible]

I don't think it will be so much another arms race. Only because I think the fighting is going to be more hit and run in an effort to weaken the US because we're pitting ourselves against too many foes at one time. So, less big weaponry for minimal deterrance and more up and in your face fighting. Metaphorically, less gunslinging and more knife fighting.

[Danny]

Originally posted by Shuriken@Mar 23 2003, 01:41 PM
I wanted to put in my two cents — just to get this off my chest. As desirable as it is to see Saddam Hussein removed from power, the Bush Administration has not convinced me yet that the Iraqi dictator poses an imminent threat to the U.S. or that he had any direct, personal involvement in 9/11.
what should they have waited till Saddam actually sold a WMD to Al Qaeda and it was used on our soil? Would that justify this action? After countless lives are lost again?

Hey look what they found int he middle of the freaking desert, 90 miles south of Bahgdad, what is that, a chemical weapons manufacturing plant? No, it couldn't be (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81935,00.html), I mean the weapons inspectors were there for the last 8 months.... I mean they obviously could have located this place....

i agree that the United States is the aggressor, butyou know what, sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

So far from the reports, civilian casualties have been minimal, hell, we are killing ourselves more than the enemy is killing us.

Sometimes you have to go in and eliminate a threat before it gets to a point that the threat is going to come in a hurt you.

This is not like Yemen, or North Korea, the threat with Iraq was real. Saddam hated America, Al Qaeda hated America, it was going to be very easily for them to push aside their beliefs to come together and attack the "great evil". Well now the greater evil is going to be deleted from existence, or hopefully already has.

[Danny]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Mar 23 2003, 10:33 PM
I don't think it will be so much another arms race. Only because I think the fighting is going to be more hit and run in an effort to weaken the US because we're pitting ourselves against too many foes at one time. So, less big weaponry for minimal deterrance and more up and in your face fighting. Metaphorically, less gunslinging and more knife fighting.
what foes are you talking about?

After Iraq I am sure that our sites will be set on Iran, but what foes (plural) are you speaking of?

[ChinaLama]

maybe north korea? or maybe cuba ;)

[Danny]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Mar 23 2003, 11:03 PM
maybe north korea? or maybe cuba ;)
cuba... now way in the world will that be an issue ever again... fidel is practically dead as it is and American business is already going on in Cuba.

North korea is going to fold like a stack of cards, everyone knows that all they want is economic aid... they will get it... The news in South Korea is not taking most of what Kim says as really threatening. North korea is the 4 year old that cries wolf, all they want is attnetion and money

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 20 2003, 01:10 PM
this statement sums up what this war is about.... if you can disgree with this statement, then you have serious issues

"We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities."

George Bush, last night....

though our president is a total tool... he at least understands that the greater good is at stake here.
unless those that are opposed to the war can give me an unconditional guarantee that saddam will not be a threat to us and hit us like how we got hit on 9/11 (either directly or indirectly), then i will be against this war. till then, my position on this war stands along with the few minority pro-war members on this board.

i am grateful and will forever show much respect for our armed forces for what they are doing over in iraq so that what bush said and what danny quoted will not happen. you think i wanna go down to a site that's been hit and relive 9/11 all over again in a triage not sleeping for three days? you think i wanna treat burn victims all over again in the burn units in the weeks after 9/11?

the whole scene and smell of ground zero is forever etched in my mind. the months after, i tried to get rid of it, but i couldn't. i couldn't sleep, i couldn't eat. my food started to smell like ground zero. you think i want to see a lot of the emt's that i talked to, suddenly disappear, again? i had dreams on whether or not my best friend jumped out of the trade towers. i had recurring images in my dreams on how he perished in the towers. i kept wondering if he want quickly and painlessly.

even if there is no substantial proof that saddam is a threat, i believe in the back of my mind that given the window of opportunity (no matter how small) he will use biological and chemical agents or any other means on cities such as ny. that's a risk, i'm not about to take. unless someone can quell this, i'm gonna remain pro-war.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 23 2003, 07:42 PM
what foes are you talking about?

After Iraq I am sure that our sites will be set on Iran, but what foes (plural) are you speaking of?
Military presence and engagement in Afghanistan.

Military presence and engagement in Iraq.

Mounting tensions with North Korea.

[Danny]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Mar 24 2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Danny@Mar 23 2003, 07:42 PM
what foes are you talking about?

After Iraq I am sure that our sites will be set on Iran, but what foes (plural) are you speaking of?
Military presence and engagement in Afghanistan.

Military presence and engagement in Iraq.

Mounting tensions with North Korea.
I may have misunderstood you from the first initial comment that I made and I am sorry for that.

Military presence in Afghanistan... if we left, then people would be bitching that we left a country that is already in ruins without trying to help them... but now of course since we are there people are bitching that we are there.. wonderful.

North korea is not even an issue. North Korea wants economic aid and the only thing they can do is saber rattle with the threat of nuclear war... hell the south koreans are not even taking him seriously any longer.... The US has countlessly ignored Kim and his threats. If anything Kim has been trying to fight us, not the other way around.

The US has already launched a major offensive within Afghanistan, during the GWII. You believe that we are stretching our resources thin?

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 24 2003, 07:36 AM
The US has already launched a major offensive within Afghanistan, during the GWII. You believe that we are stretching our resources thin?
Depends on a couple things. And sorry this is an abbreviated answer, I gotta take off for work in a few minutes.

We may end up fighting an increasing amount of proxy wars where the enemy (and I use the term mainly to designate who we engage in combat) is privately backed by another country by virtue of access to supplies, or more direct aid. We would underestimate the resources backing an enemy and continue to fight in lands our military is unfamiliar with at a great cost to us because we must operate remotely. That is one strategy that could stretch us thin.

Our decision to attack will polarize the world politically. It's a pretty serious thing and it's very visual. Big machinery, bombs, lots of troops. Without a doubt we're making a show of force. There's a good chance that it may have made a lot of nations and leaders who were previously political fencesitters change their minds and form alliances with other likeminded leaders or nations in general anti-US sentiment.

There are some very fundamental elements of military strategy that are not in the US's favor. Piling on more could definitely wear even the most powerful military down.

[Danny]

Originally posted by tazadar@Mar 24 2003, 11:03 AM
Danny,

what should they have waited till Saddam actually sold a WMD to Al Qaeda and it was used on our soil? Would that justify this action?

It was music to the Wolfowitz's camp to hear when Dubya said, we make no distinction of states aiding terrorist. You can make that argument to virtually any nations unfavorable to the U.S.; Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Sudan, etc.

Saddam hated America...

There are good reasons why Saddam hates the U.S. government. Saddam found out that the Reagan administration helped Iraq with enough intel and military support to only ensure a stalemate. The instance with the secret arms sales to Iran during the Iran-Contra really pissed him off. Then, there's the back-handed slap during the Iraq-Kuwaiti dispute. Ambassador April Glaspie to Iraq, "The president personally wants to deepen the relationship with Iraq." The US knows about the Iraqi troops built-up on the Kuwaiti border and knows that diplomactic talks Iraq andKuwait is not working that an attack on Kuwait is imminent, but she says, "We don't have much to say about Arab-Arab differences, like your border differences with Kuwait. ... All we hope is you solve these matters quickly." The State Department makes it clear the U.S. will not intervene in the dispute. After the invasion, President Bush (Sr.) declares, "This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait."
North Korea, even with Nuclear weaponry, would find it incredibly difficult to sell a nuclear war head to someone.

Pakistan is a country that has been at least less hostile inregards to its people and actually backed the US attack on Afghanistan. Sudan (I may be wrong as I do not know) I doubt has WMD, but if they did, I am sure that things are in the works for them also.

The most CREDIBLE threat was Iraq.

In regards to your second point. Does it really matter why Saddam hates America? If it were not for the United States he would not have been in power so long. And now, if it were not for the United States his ass would not be blazing on fire also. He should have stepped down and gotten the hell outta dodge.

[sandra]

Originally posted by Danny@Mar 24 2003, 08:10 AM
The most CREDIBLE threat was Iraq.
again, why?

[VV o n g B a]

senior administration officials are now saying instead of weeks, the war could last months. gods. what a nightmare. i wonder if anyone outside of iraq suspected this at all...

[Shuriken]

Why The Anti-War Movement Was Right

by Arianna Huffington


The Bible tells us that pride goeth before the fall. In Iraq, it cameth right after it. From the moment that statue of Saddam hit the ground, the mood around the Rumsfeld campfire has been all high-fives, I-told-you-sos, and endless smug prattling about how the speedy fall of Baghdad is proof positive that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq were dead wrong.

What utter nonsense. In fact, the speedy fall of Baghdad proves the anti-war movement was dead right.

The whole pretext for our unilateral charge into Iraq was that the American people were in imminent danger from Saddam and his mighty war machine. The threat was so clear and present that we couldn't even give inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction -- hey, remember those? -- another 30 days, as France had wanted.

Well, it turns out that, far from being on the verge of destroying Western civilization, Saddam and his 21st century Gestapo couldn't even muster a half-hearted defense of their own capital. The hawks' cakewalk disproves their own dire warnings. They can't have it both ways. The invasion has proved wildly successful in one other regard: It has unified most of the world -- especially the Arab world -- against us.

Back in 1991, more than half-a-dozen Arab nations were part of our Desert Storm coalition. Operation Iraqi Freedom's "coalition of the willing" had zero. Not even the polygamous potentates of Kuwait -- whose butts we saved last time out and who were most threatened by whatever threat Iraq still presented -- would join us. And, I'm sorry, but substituting Bulgaria and the island of Tonga for Egypt and Oman is just not going to cut it when it comes to winning hearts and minds on the Arab street.

In fact, almost everything about the invasion -- from the go-it-alone build-up to the mayhem the fall of Saddam has unleashed -- has played right into the hands of those intent on demonizing our country. Islamic extremists must be having a field day signing up recruits for the holy war they're preparing to wage against us. Instead of Uncle Sam wants you, their recruiting posters feature a different kind of patriotic image: an American soldier ill-advisedly draping the American flag over Saddam's face.

The anti-war movement did not oppose the war out of fear that America was going to lose. It was the Bush administration's pathological and frantic obsession with an immediate, damn-the-consequences invasion that fueled the protests.

And please don't point to jubilant Iraqis dancing in the streets to validate the case for "pre-emptive liberation." You'd be doing the Baghdad Bugaloo too if the murderous tyrant who'd been eating off golden plates while your family starved finally got what was coming to him. It in no way proves that running roughshod over international law and pouring Iraqi oil -- now brought to you by the good folks at Halliburton -- onto the flames of anti-American hatred was a good idea. It wasn't before the war, and it still isn't now. The unintended consequences have barely begun to unfold.

And the idea that our slamdunk of Saddam actually proves the White House was right is particularly dangerous because it encourages the Wolfowitzes and the Perles and the Cheneys to argue that we should be invading Syria or Iran or North Korea or Cuba as soon as we catch our breath. They've tasted blood.

It's important to remember that the Arab world has seen a very different war than we have. They are seeing babies with limbs blown off, children wailing beside their dead mothers, Arab journalists killed by American tanks and bombers, holy men hacked to death and dragged through the streets. They are seeing American forces leaving behind a wake of destruction, looting, hunger, humiliation, and chaos.

Who's been handling our war PR, Osama bin Laden? The language and imagery are all wrong. Having Tom DeLay gush about our "army of virtue" at the same time we're blowing up mosques is definitely not sending the right message to a Muslim world already suspicious that we're waging a war on Islam.

Neither is Ari Fleischer's claim that the administration can't do anything to keep Christian missionaries -- including those who have described the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a "demon-possessed pedophile" and a "terrorist" -- from going on a holy crusade to Baghdad. You think the Arab world might take that the wrong way? If there is one thing that could bring Sunnis and Shiites together, it's the common hatred of evangelical zealots who denigrate their prophet.

And it doesn't help to have the American media referring to Jay Garner, the retired general Don Rumsfeld picked to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq, as "viceroy." It reeks of colonial imperialism. Why not just call him "Head Bwana?" Or "Garner of Arabia?" I didn't realize the Supreme Court had handed Bush a scepter to go along with the Florida recount.

The powerful role that shame and humiliation have played in shaping world history is considerable, but something the Bush team seems utterly clueless about. Which is why the anti-war movement must be stalwart in its refusal to be silenced or browbeaten by the gloating "I told you so" chorus on the right. On the contrary, it needs to make sure that the doctrine of preemptive invasion is forever buried in the sands of Iraq.

Especially as the administration, high on the heady fumes of Saddam's ouster, turns its covetous eyes on Syria. I give it less than a week before someone starts making the case that President Assad is the next, next Hitler.

[seoyeanluvhoi]

i think we need to think over again about the reason for this war...
is it for peace? well i would just like to say that bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity...
for power? if we keep bombing countries that we feel are a threat, then what will happen when we are not super powere anymore....?