War/Iraq/Bush/Terrorism

[g-boy]

Well, reading the earlier post by netniv on being frustrated that we took this debate into the server, and I thought that this is the most appropriate spot for it.
Ok, we all know the situation. Now we know Bush put his foot down, and Saddam refused the ultimadem, and now war in inevitable. I'll throw my position out there. One, I think that was a very good speech by Bush. It explains very well why we're going to war, and it should quiet down the argument that we didn't try everything before war. We've been waiting 12 years for Saddam to follow the peace accord... he's had increased pressure on him since 9/11... still he does follow the accord (which states he must disarm, destroy weapons, and allow inspections). Finally, he now got a 48-hour warning, where he can choose to leave or not. Can we all agree that we don't want a megalomaniacal mass-murderer with weapons of mass destruction to remain in power? He could leave, his troops could surrender, and war would not happen. He's inviting war, and therefore signing his death warrant. Now what's happening is people are equating it to Vietnam, or saying people are going to die, stuff like that. Well, guess what? People have been dying at Saddam's will for decades. His own people, and people who have died as a result of the terrorists his country harbors and trains. If we ignore it, let the UN sit around and talk, nothing will get done, and he will most definitely use his weapons. It's not as if we're going to some random country to kill people, we're attacking a regime which is a direct threat to the entire Western world. It is nothing like Vietnam, as Vietnam was a dumb war because we were only going in to contain communism in a country that meant nothing to us, posed no threat, and felt too overconfident about. In Iraq, even though there is no direct link to al-Qaeda, they do have the weapons and terrorist cells to cause chaos wherever they wish. They pose a threat to the entire Middle East, Europe, and perhaps US via terrorists in the future. Many want to wait until we get attacked before we attack them... they want a smoking gun. What if the smoke from that gun is in the shape of a mushroom cloud? Shall we wait for a massive terrorist attack? If Saddam or the terrorists he supports attack, they will use weapons of mass destruction... meaning biological, chemical, or nuclear. I don't want that, folks. I believe in killing a few to save many.
I've yet to see one alternative to war. No one has said anything. They yell about war being bad, but what's worse, dealing with an evil on this planet using force, or just letting it stew and concoct? The UN isn't doing anything. France and Germany are against it because of their economic interests, which is fine, but it doesn't answer any problems. We've waited 12 years. Diplomacy has not worked, and it never will in Iraq Time for this to come to an end.
And by the way, Bush is not a moron. How many of you graduated from Yale? Just because he is not a slick speaker like Reagan or Clinton doesn't make him of lesser intellect. He's doing what he feels is best for our country, and I support the actions that are currently in progress.

-BMac

P.S. Let the debating commence.

[[CAKE]rUsh]

Only country to use weapons of mass destruction: USA
Country with the largest stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Most likely USA
Country to threaten using WOMD: Korea
Country threatened to disarm or else: Iraq

I actually disaprove of this war but only for one reason which is the US's reasons for having it. Had they simply said that Sadam should be gotten rid of for crimes against humanity i would of agreed and supported them. Instead we're getting "they're hiding WOMD in there smewhere i swear it" and "12 years ago we said you had to disarm or else and you didn't do it". These really don't seem like reasons to invade a country.

As for them hiding WOMD in there. Well yes they probibly are but they are also disarming and complying fairly well. Also from the begining it has looked like the US was going to attack no matter what happened even if Iraq completely disarmed. If Iraq was really going to use their WOMD if they have them why wouldn't they have done it by now and instead played friendly while the US surounded their boarder.

As for the 12 year thing...It was 12 years ago if something should be done about it it should of been done then not now. it's like someone stole your cookie back in kindergarden and you did nothing. You can't reasonably demand that the person give you the cookie back 12 years later.

Well i've had my say and i'm going to get flamed for it.
So good luck with the war and try to cause WW3.

[g-boy]

No reason to flame, it's a debate, there are opposing sides. I agree, something should have been done back then... we could have finished the job, the coalition said "let's stop" and bush sr. complied. And it's not as if we're getting revenge for something 12 years ago, it's that he hasn't disarmed in 12 years. Don't bring Korea into the picture, that's a different issue. There is no use making comparisons. The United States used nuclear weapons on Japan to end WWII. They shouldn't have been used, Japan was going to surrender anyway, as long as they could keep their emporer (we let them keep the emporer anyway), and probably the reason they were dropped was because Truman was put in office, didn't know the full facts, and just followed the advice of military advisors. So that's a thin argument. Sure we have WOMD, but are we going to use them on innocent people? No.... unless somehow Bush goes insane and decides to nuke the Middle East, but that's not gonna happen. It's a bold statement to say we're trying to start WW3... it's not like we haven't gone to war with Iraq before, and our technology has advanced and their military is weaker. WW3 means nuclear war... we're not going to use nukes, Iraq probably doesn't have the capability yet. The only countries I fear would use nukes are Pakistan and India.
I'm not political analyst, I'm no expert. Just opinions and counter-arguments, no disrespect at all.

[GRITS]

THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM It is a DEBATE
THERE WILL BE NO FLAMING ......I REPEAT NO FLAMING
EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO AN OPINION. STATE YOURS AND MOVE ON
NO ATTACKING INDIVIDUALS WHO POST
NUFF SAID
GRITS

edit....damn g-boy you beat me to the debate vs flaming issue

[[CAKE]rUsh]

No i'm not accusing the US of trying to cause anouther world war it obviously doesn't want that. Unfortunatly it's doing things that may well lead to that. After all if the US does something every one else will claim to have the same right citing the US's actions. And while most countries don't want to see WW3 it wouldn't surprize me in the least if there were some that did. Soon these countries will have the "right" to attack without UN saction to use the slightest suspision of WOMD to invade anouther country.

I don't know about you but i don't like where that could lead.

[CloudFuel]

G-boy....amazing. Ty, you totally hit the "nail on the head" with your post. Everything you said is so true...and I just wish more people could see your point of view...

[jabbahunt]

how to reply without rambling with so many options here.
first I am 100 % behing america in what will happen.
2nd. Prez Bush has said what has to happen and followed thru.(how many of us can do that)
3rd. if you live here, you chose him and need to stand by him(if not u have a chance to change next time)
4th. over 80% did not want to involve the US in wwII until pearl harbor
last. over 90% didn't mind after pearl harbor(we have 9/11 do you need something else, I've had enough family die and not see it coming)

[noxious]

I don't have the time to read all of this but I'll just thorw in my quick opinon on the matter anyway.

We're just throwing our weight around. We have no business opressing them. I choose the world opressing carefully, as that is what we are doing...

[Wha?]

The primary objective of any government heading to war is to make it's people believe that slaughter of people is justified, so don't listen to Bush, Powell, or any other American official without considering an opposing view. Recently televised was a scripted Q&A with Mr. President, which served to 'justify' action in the middle east.

Way back in the Gulf War, Americans were treated to footage of the surgical strikes made against Saddams evil regime. What the Iraqi people were treated to was a rain of artillery, bullets, run-of-the-mill bombs and 100,000 dead (both civillian and military) from all-out ground operations of the standard variety. News media were strictly controled to keep people from turning on the war mid way through.

Have you heard of Augusto Pinochet? If not, he was a ruthless dictator of Chile, murdering and torturing dissidents. Just like Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and any other 'bad guy' from American history books. The only difference was that he was not only supported by the United States, but was installed in by the angelic CIA. (see: declassified documents) An organization which in order to kill soviets, happily--no exageration--provided funding, training and arms to the Afghan jihad. Included in this program was everybody's favourite religious extremist; Osama bin Laden. (see: Jihad Unspun)

Governments manufacture consent for actions that would otherwise be opposed, that's not anything new. Neither is having a publicly known organization that does covert operations on foreign soil. While Pinochet was going about his regime, merry 'ol Saddam was a hitman for the Baas party that he now rules. The CIA handed him a list of Iraqi communists to "neutralize". He was later sent to assassinate the leader of Iraq and failed, being wounded in the process. Saddam fled to Egypt, where Baas was regrouped and strengthened. After becomming the new Iraqi leader, he was given money and arms by the US of A to aid in the conflict with Iran (Iran was also given the same). Ralph Nader is even on film shaking hands with Saddam and proclaiming him a great friend and ally of the US. And it's not like they didn't know he was massacring the Kurds, that fact was being actively covered up. It wasn't until local news media showed entire Kurd villages (ie. civillians) dead from gas that the US government supplied.

Somewhere along the way, somebody found out that each country in Bush's "Coalition of the Willing" had been promised billions of US dollars to participate, and aptly nicknamed it "The Coalition of the Billing".

In the setup for the Gulf War, the Shi'ites and the Kurds (both were being massacred by Saddam for being heretics) were told that if they were to rebel, they would be protected by the US military and would come to no harm. After the war ended, the Kurds and Shi'ites were completely abandoned. Troops were ordered not to interfere, and aircraft were leaving while Iraqi helecopters gunned down lines of civilians in plain sight. This fact was also actively covered up.

Twelve years later, one of many attacks agaisnt the opression of Islam turned to pearl in the targetted nation. Since that brisk september morning, the declared "war on terror" has been carefully altered to point back at Iraq, with no shortage of lies along the way. Frontline (see: Frontline) uncovered the fact that the "war on terror" was just an excuse to turn eyes to Iraq.

As it stands, literally not one shred of substantial evidence was provided to justify action agaisnt Iraq. Tony Blair recently reveiled an "MI-5 document" outlining Saddam's aresenal. It was soon discovered to be a blatent fraud by a California proffessor, who recieved that exact paper from a student as an assignment several months earlier. Colin Powell submitted ambiguous and grainy aerial photographs and even presented drawings as evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The photos were of rebuilt structures on the sites of old nuclear facilities, weapons factories, etc. They were, however, not given to UN Weapons Inspectors for reasons of classification. Some aluminum tubes were found, and declared to be part of a uranium separating centrifuge, a theory which was denounced by experts of gas centrifuge at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore. (see:www.mindfully.org) The argument that Iraq has ties to terrorist cells is weak, seeing as Baghdad's having cells inside it would mean any country in which memebers reside is actively supporting terrorism. Like that slum outside of Buffalo. Oh, and the states where the suicide pilots lived. As for commanding them, that would mean any government led organization dedicated to "wet" work outside of it's native soil would be a terrorist cell. Especially if that organization would happen to train and arm terrorists in other countries. *cough*CIA*coughcough*.

(Iraq) has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these (unmanned aerial vehicles) for missions targeting the United States.

Many experts believe such remarks are highly exaggerated. Because Iraqi airspace is closely monitored by U.S. and British planes and radar systems experts say the slow-moving unmanned aerial vehicles would likely be shot down as soon as they crossed Iraq's borders. It's also unclear how the vehicles would reach the U.S. mainland -- the nearest point is Maine, almost 5, 500 miles away -- without being intercepted.

Iraq's present holdings of delivery systems and chemical and biological weapons seem most likely to be so limited in technology and operational lethality that they do not constrain U.S. freedom of action or do much to intimidate Iraq's neighbors

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
::PostScript::

how to reply without rambling with so many options here.
first I am 100 % behing america in what will happen.
2nd. Prez Bush has said what has to happen and followed thru.(how many of us can do that)
3rd. if you live here, you chose him and need to stand by him(if not u have a chance to change next time)
4th. over 80% did not want to involve the US in wwII until pearl harbor
last. over 90% didn't mind after pearl harbor(we have 9/11 do you need something else, I've had enough family die and not see it coming)

Your third point sickens me to my core. For a "free country" there seems to be a lot of apathy when it comes to exercising your right to speak out and have an opinion.
As for World War II, the States were pro-fascist until the Nazis sank a few oceanliners. In fact, they even traded openly with the Nazis. Pearl Harbour was identical to the World Trade Center attack. It was forseen, and let happen to stir the masses into one large frenzied mob to eliminate opposition to action.

And by the way, Bush is not a moron. How many of you graduated from Yale? Just because he is not a slick speaker like Reagan or Clinton doesn't make him of lesser intellect. He's doing what he feels is best for our country, and I support the actions that are currently in progress.

So I haven't graduated from Yale because my parents are wealthy and ex-White House inhabitants. But I did graduate grade 9 knowing where Afghanistan was on the map, and didn't have to fly people in to teach me geography after my inauguration. I also knew that the taliban was not a musical group, nor did I routinely make self contradictory statements. And if I were holding a scripted TV Q&A, I wouldn't screw up and say it was scripted on live television. Can't forget the complete lack of intelligence in gathering the second Coalition of the Billing. Seeing as individual people who didn't attend Yale, let alone take politics in school, can come up with better plans of gaining consent than him, the term "moron" isn't quite so loose after all.

[g-boy]

A. If the United States wanted to slaughter people, how hard do you really think it would be? Unfortunately civilians do take casualties in war, but they are not specific targets.
B. Nox, how are we oppressing them? How in any way could we oppress them any more than Saddam himself is?
C. Do not continually bring up the past, it is a weak argument. Yes, the CIA supported the rebellian against the USSR in Afghanistan. Osama was already rich. He didn't need funding. But does that mean they caused the subsequent terrorist attacks? Hell no, evil caused that. Unfortunately, a mistake was made in trusting those people too much. Same with Saddam. Yeah, before the Gulf War we supplied his country with weapons and training to defend against Iran. Once again, a mistake to trust that he wouldn't use those weapons against others. What does any of that have to do with Bush right now? Because the CIA and previous administrations made mistakes, that means the current one shouldn't clean it up, we should allow evil to just sit around?

What does Chile have to do with anything? I'll say this right now. The current subject is Iraq. Not Korea, not Chile. To bring up other things around the world, is not viable in a debate.

The United States DOES NOT mass murder innocent human beings, the United States DOES NOT support terrorism. Who do you think is worse? Bush and the US or Saddam and Iraq? I'd rather see that regime just taken out. Of course the US has made mistakes. Of course there are occasional power trips. Doesn't make this a bad country, and it doesn't make Saddam and his regime any better.

Shall we leave Saddam and his regime in power? I don't want to see what might happen if he remains unopposed.

[[CAKE]rUsh]

Shall we leave Saddam and his regime in power? I don't want to see what might happen if he is attacked.

Generally i hear two reasons as to why the US is planing to attack Iraq other than for oil which i'll leave out of the picture. the reasons being: 1) To end Sadam's reign of terror in his own country. 2) To prevent future attacks on the USA.

1) Yes Sadam should be gotten rid of ..but what happens after he is gone? Do you just walk out to let anouther tyrant take his place? Do you enforce Democracy there so that one can be elected? Do you instate a US citizen as leader to confirm to the rest of the world that you had alterior motifs all along? None of these ideas seem all that good to me i hope your leaders can do better.

2) Well if you want to prevent attacks on the US this isn't the way to do it. Jabba qouted that 80% of americans didn't want to join WW2 before pearl harbor which is alright since a country generally should follow the will of it's people. The difference today is that the majority of the people of the World disaproves of the actions of the US and the number of disidents are getting larger every day. Currently the only countries in which the majority of the people back the US are: the USA and Isreal. When the majority of the world objects to what you're doing maybe you should wait a couple of weeks and get authorization to attack. The US is alienating itself and soon will have no allies as all the world leaders that support you will be gone after the next set of elections.

The next problem is that you are pissing off the Islams. If their terrorist and fundamentalist groups weren't planning to attack the US before ...well lets just say that they've probibly changed their minds and i doubt all their attacks can be stopped. And invading every country that poses a possible threat just isn't an option as the number that do is rising and your allies are dwindling. If you persue that course soon other countries will be forced to say that world domination is the goal and try to stop you.

This is why i disaprove of the war.
This is why i say the US may be inadvertantly creating WW3
So good luck in the war and i hope you know what you're doing.

[Wha?]

Chile has everything to do with this. It was a regime just as "evil" as Saddam's, and was supported by the US. Just like Saddam. As far as those being "mistakes", the same lenience has not been granted to identical descisions on the part of other groups.

The infamous bin Laden is after the US because they opress muslims, not directly, instead by arming and supporting the regimes that do. Right now Bush is trying to eliminate terrorism, just like Saddam is eliminating the heretics of his religion. Both see it as justified killing, and both have no value placed on the lives of the targets.

C. Do not continually bring up the past, it is a weak argument.

Reminds me of the line "History is bunk." from Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley (see: www.huxley.net). To deny the past as a viable argument is no different than covering your ears and screaming "LALALA" over and over. Every accusation made so far by the US government has been committed by them, and now they try to come off as clean and righteous.

[noxious]

B.  Nox, how are we oppressing them?  How in any way could we oppress them any more than Saddam himself is?

We're not just opressing them. We oppress the whole world. This foriegn policy and attitude which developed sometime after WWII is retarded. We're in everyone else's business and I think it's bullshit.

Like rUsh said when the number of people against your actions number far greater than those for them, perhaps it's time to rethink your motives.

[jabbahunt]

wha, didn't mean to make you sick. but if you haven't figured out that we are a world at war, you might look around. The nations that are enjoying the most economically, either have the muscle to flex or the money to buy it.
Reality is that Japan did strike first, it doesn't matter that they were allowed. (i've allowed plenty to throw first punch, they didn't have to). Personally if I was on the uss Omaha I probably would have wished we did.
Sadaam did strike first, and was allowed plenty of chance to make up. He hasn't
If you think I believe all the salemanship to obtain our goals, No.
I am a realist, but on the other hand, your ability to debate this issue amazes me ,and when I go against the IRS, I will be calling you. :upto:


add in: you can't make em all happy(otherwise we would still be in teepees)

[RuNnInG_wIth_ScISsOrS]

I'd go to the extent to type out a long and drawn out arguement, but right now I don't have that kind of time or patience. There is one issue I want to address about us oppressing the rest of the world. This policy was first developed during the Russian Civil War, when France, Britain and the US decided to help the Whites in their fight for power. Unfortunately they sent just enough support to piss the Red's off, but not enough to help the White's win the war. Thus we pissed off the leaders and made a completely useless attempt in aid for the supporters of democracy. So now we say "Go all they way, or don't go at all." There is no middle ground for this policy. Unfortunately, we over involve ourselves in the rest of the world's issues. It's either our way or the highway. We take no care in the choosing of the battles we fight. A more cautious stance should be taken instead of throwing ourselves into the midst of the fight. Saddam should be taken care of, but not in this manner. Why not take care of our own problems before fixing the world's.
G-boy, there is such a thing as an "Educated Idiot". A nazi could graduate college, but that doesn't justify his actions and feelings. With this said, I don't think Bush is an idiot/moron/whatever. I just think he lacks social skills :D.

We have declared war, it is truly a sad time.

Cattle die and kindred die. We also die.
But I know one thing that never dies,
Judgment on each one dead.
-Anonymous, Elder Edda

[Gwarsbane]

Countries that have used WMDs is more then just the US. I think you are only thinking that Nukes are WMDs. They are not the only ones...

Germany with mustard gas in WW1 out on the battlefield. (actually a few countries in WW1 but can't remember which ones except for germany)
Iraq with nerve and mustard gas on the kerds 15 years ago this week
US with 2 nukes on 2 Japanese cities.

Now which of those countries actually warned people before they used those weapons? The US did. For 3 days before they dropped the bomb, they warned the 2 cities with leaflets to get out of the citys as they would be destroying them. Could they have uses it on an unpopulated area, sure, but the effect would not have been the same.

**********

Country with the largest stockpile of WMDs.. I'd have to say Russia and the US are tied in this. Chalk it up to the cold war. Both sides are disarming a good number of them, the UN from my understanding has been watching this.

**********

Country that threatens using WMDs, North Korea, India, Pakistan (the last 2 against each other) and a few others.

**********

Country threatened to disarm or else: Iraq, North Korea (thou to a lesser extent)

**********

Whos sons are well known for killing people: Saddam's sons are. It has been documented that they have killed many people. For what reasons I don't know. One of them is also very well known for having his way with women, wheather they want to or not.

**********

Countries that have attacked other nations with no warning and for no reason but to take them over: Iraq, North Korea and many others.



I was 14 when Iraq tried to take over Kuwait. I remember seeing all the news reports of what was happening there. The Iraq Military, after basically loosing the war to Iran (or at least it being a tie) turned around and attacked Kuwait. Why? They only reason was because they were much smaller then Iraq and had just about as much oil wealth.

And what did they do when they took over Kuwait... raped women and children and looted. Sounds like they had a real good cause didn't they.

I don't think that they thought the US would have done anything as it was the US that supplied them with most of their weapons to fight Iran, thou it was all back door trading from my understanding.


Those are all facts you can go look them up in books or on the net. I'm sure I have a few details wrong, but most are right.



Now for my personal view of what is going on...


I would have liked the UN to have backed the US/UK/ AU going in as it would have shown that they have the backbone to back their own resolutions that they themselves passed many years ago that basically said disarm or else.

Well over the years Iraq (Saddam) has kept feeding little bits of stuff here and there to keep the UN satisfied. (No we have no gas bombs... well ok we had gas bombs but we destroyed them... well ok we didn't destroy all of them but most of them.... well ok we didn't destroy most of them but some of them..) and thats how it was going year after year. Not just gas bombs, but missles that can go further then 150km and amany other things.

Look at what happened when the UN had a back bone for a bit and said give us all those papers within so many days or else we'll sick the US on you. With in the given time Iraq produced the papers.


They should not have stopped when they did the first time. They should have gone in and removed Saddam and his sons the first time around.


Do I feel bad for the people of Iraq, heck ya. I wish we could just go in and remove Saddam and his sons without anyone else getting killed.



I hate saying this, but I hope Saddam attackes with gas and stuff just so that Bush can say "I told you so" to everyone that does not believe him.

I think we will also see him blow up the oil stuff. What good will that do but maybe slow down the US a little and let his peoples money flow into the desert.


And yes people take it easy in here. This section was created specifically with debates in mind, after all just look at the warning **(Just remember you enter this section at your own risk as debates can get VERY heated)**, but remember that kids read these too. No one needs to do any sort of personal attacks or swearing. Just state you opionion. What I did above was to clearify some facts.

[kermit]

i just wish i knew what we are "pre-empting" w/ this war. if our way of life was in danger, then i would support a pre-emptive strike, but i'm not sure. even israel doesn't think iraq has the technology to launch an effective attack against them...do you think they could hit us?
i agree that it's way past due for saddam's reign to end...but i think we should have let weapon inspectors stay longer. if he did anything during that time, he knows we would have gotten much more support for military action. initially, i was exited about the possibility of a UN occupation of Iraq (suggested by some european nations)...i thought that may be a better alternative.
anyways, we're here now so i'm going to try and bury my head in the sand and sing "LA LA LA" (because i have the freedom to be apethetic :P). btw, even though i have doubts about this war, i support our troops and pray for their safe return home.

[Wha?]

Here's a good point of view.
Ed the Sock
Kudos to the writer.

[kermit]

i agree, that is an excellent editorial. it's given by a sock puppet, but none-the-less, i encourage everyone to read it.

this is my favorite line:

"A world that is simply without war is not necessarily an idyllic paradise." - ed the sock ^_^

[Wha?]

I recieved the link for Ed the Sock from a friend in an email, that had been forwarded to all of their friends. One wrote this in response. I have to blank out letters from "The F-Word" to keep the forum from changing it to "I'm Stupid", please understand that this is to keep it truer to the original wording.

I would just like to tell everyone that I have lost all respect for Ed
the Sock. I completely disagree with almost everything he said in that
"editorial". It's a load of shit.

If Bush is so concerned about ridding people of "a nasty oppressor" he
should kick himself out on his ass! Here's a little tidbit for you -
American television stations are not allowed to badmouth/question
George
Herbert Walker Bush Jr.'s decision to go to war or any of his
"STRATEGIES" without having someone either there in person or on the
phone (from the White House) to defend him. Freedom of speech? HARDLY!!

Here's a quote from his daddy "I will never apologize for the United
States of America - I don't care what the facts are." Said after
'Vincennes' shot down an Iranian Airliner.

yeah, do some research... start here
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/vince.html
also, read about how the US supplied both Iran and Iraq with weapons
and
reason to attack eachother over a few kilometers of land, covertly of
course
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

All America is looking out for is their own best interests. They have
great oil reserves, but they aren't being used, do you know WHY?!
Because it is much cheaper to exploit mid-eastern and African countries
for their cheap oil, knowing that they (third world countries) need
their (americans') measly dollars to stay alive. They are going to bomb
Iraq down, install their own government and sell tickets to countries
to
come and "REBUILD" the land, and all of this is going to be paid for by
the oil in Iraq. The US will then have THREE bases in Asia - Israel,
Afghanistan, Iraq.

Ask yourself, do we really need more American states in the world?!

F_CK THE WAR
F_CK BUSH

One shot to the head of Bush (Jr. and Sr. both, hopefully with ONE
bullet, cause they just aren't worth a bullet each) and bullet to the
head of Saddam Hussein, that f_cking mongrel.

F_CK CNN
F_CK ED THE SOCK

good day

This was another friends response.

I may not be an old smelly sock or a slightly deranged
conspiracy-theorist ( he was in the first plane, right *name*) but I too have a view on
all this.

The United States of America, and its limited supporters, try to
depict themselves as liberator of the oppressed and the great hero of
humanity. Saddam's tyranny, and Iraqis' misery is unequivocal, but Iraq
is not, as many pundits would want you to believe, the nexus of human
suffering.

Africa is the continent that can't. The African states have been
engulfed in an ever lasting bloodshed; fighting civil wars, and wars with
their neighbors. African governments are replaced by one militant
regime after another. These wealthy despots enslave their citizens into
desolate existence (ever herd of Apartheid ?) The Africans also have to
endure devastating draughts, perilous malnutrition, cycles of ominous
famines, and a proliferating AIDS/HIV epidemic (in South Africa alone
120,000 people die annually because of AIDS/HIV, and 20% of the population
is infected). The only sign of America's aid are the Coca-Cola
billboards.

America's supposed concern for the human rights of foreign is
unorthodox for them; the USA allocates only 1 % of its Gross Domestic Profit
to foreign aid, the smallest percentage amongst Industrialized Western
nations (yes, that 1 % may actually equal to more money than other
industrialized nations are giving, but the minute percentage is a testament
to America's indifference to the well being of others), and continues
to pursue relations with such frequent violators of human rights as
China.

America's solo attack on Iraq ( oh sorry, I forgot, Britain, an
American colony, is in it too) is a result of the UN's inability to
enforce their own sanctions, so the pro-war argument goes. Yet these
sanctions were the outcome of America's lobbying, both France and Russia
were greatly opposed to them, and not too long ago UN was considering
lifting the sanctions. More so, when UN's weapons inspectors did find
illegal warheads, Iraq did begin destroying them; in fact, as the
inspections went on, Iraq was becoming more compliant, and Hans Blix, head of
the weapons inspections, sad that while Iraq wasn't too enthusiastic,
it was, nevertheless, complying. However, this was not satisfactory to
Bush Jr., he kept saying that Iraq does have weapons of mass
destructions and has had them for over 12 years, and America's safety is in
jeopardy. But if this is this is the case, how come Iraq has never used
these weapons in 12 years? They could have used them on September 11,
when USA was in its most vulnerable.

I could go on and on speculating the real reason why US is trying to
kill Saddam, but Mr. Bush has already put it so eloquently, "He is the
guy that tried to kill my father."



PS: *name*, Afghanistan is not another heisted US country. The Talibans
were sadistic-psychopathic-monsters, and the US is finishing a job they
left off 20 years ago when the quickly vanished after preventing Soviet
Union from invading Afghanistan.
PPS: The extra oil supply that USA has is in Alaska's Wildlife
Refuge, the extraction of that oil would mean the complete annihilation of an
ecosystem and its inhabitants. Besides oil is a depleting resource and
the US can't just stubbornly depend on it.
PPPS: If anyone deserves to be shot are those people that drive  SUVs.
There's no way in hell you need an off-road Hummer to drive you kid
to soccer practice and back in Toronto!

[fritoman]

The American Military Man

The average age of the military man is 19 years.

He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy.

Not yet dry behind the ears, not old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country.

He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than wash his father's; but he has never collected unemployment either.

He's a recent High School graduate; he was probably an average student, pursued some form of sport activities, drives a ten year old jalopy, and has a steady girlfriend that either broke up with him when he left, or swears to be waiting when he returns from half a world away.

He listens to rock and roll or hip-hop or rap or jazz or swing and 155mm Howitzers.

He is 10 or 15 pounds lighter now than when he was at home because he is working or fighting from before dawn to well after dusk.

He has trouble spelling, thus letter writing is a pain for him, but he can field strip a rifle in 30 seconds and reassemble it in less time in the dark.

He can recite to you the nomenclature of a machine gun or grenade launcher and use either one effectively if he must.

He digs foxholes and latrines and can apply first aid like a
professional.

He can march until he is told to stop or stop until he is told to march.

He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation, but he is not without spirit or individual dignity.

He is self-sufficient. He has two sets of fatigues: he washes one and wears the other. He keeps his canteens full and his feet dry.

He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth, but never to clean his rifle.

He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes, and fix his own hurts.

If you're thirsty, he'll share his water with you; if you are hungry,
his food.

He'll even split his ammunition with you in the midst of battle when you run low.

He has learned to use his hands like weapons and weapons like they were his hands. He can save your life - or take it, because that is his job.

He will often do twice the work of a civilian, draw half the pay and still find ironic humor in it all. He has seen more suffering and death then he should have in his short lifetime.

He has stood atop mountains of dead bodies, and helped to create them.

He has wept in public and in private, for friends who have fallen in combat and is unashamed.

He feels every note of the National Anthem vibrate through his body while rigid attention, while tempering the burning desire to 'square-away' those around him who haven't bothered to stand, remove their hat, or even stop talking. In an odd twist, day in and day out, far from home, he defends their right to be disrespectful.

Just as did his Father, Grandfather, and Great-grandfather, he is paying the price for our freedom.

Beardless or not, he is not a boy.

He is the American Fighting Man that has kept this country free for over 200 years.

He has asked nothing in return, except our friendship and understanding.

Remember him, always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his blood.

For our Military




"Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us. Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen."

[jabbahunt]

I luv you frito(you know as in a guy thing, partriotic and all)ahem,, aaa yea

[PIX]

Bush approval rating up to 71%.
:thumb:

[Wha?]

In the US though.

[jabbahunt]

and in US is where it matters., I know that sounds elitist to other countries, but that it is US being affected the most, besides iraq, and vote probably isn't in our favor there. and I don't want to see another attack on us like 9/11, if u were there i sympathize and empathize and respect any opinion. If you were not, you have no idea. These countries(iraq, syria, afghanistan, and others are known harborers and or supporters of terrorist. And i'm sorry that it has to be like this but I will support this in any way to discourage any countries from promoting or even lack of enforcement. Iraq is a known dictatorship that oppresses its people(debate that), known to have recently used chemical weapons(debate that), known to contribute to palestinean terrorist and families of(debate that). If there was not a good reason to take out this regime, not the people, then there are plenty of others.

[PIX]

I know I don't lose any sleep knowing that Greece, Russia, China, Mexico,
Germany, Sryia, San Francisco (yes, that's another country to me), Indonesia and
that sorry ass France, disapprove of what my president is doing. That's been our
problem for the last century in the United States...we've always gave a shit what
EVERYONE else would think... and we kissed all their little unwashed asses and
gave them food and money and weapons to stay alive. I would love to see Germans
goosestepping across Paris right now but that won't happen because of all the brave
men who died to liberate that le ###### country 50 years ago. Most of the people protesting
on television are the same one's who cheered when those 2 towers came crashing down
. I think alot of people have forgotten how our 'power hungry' country changed gears in 2001
because of the acts of peaceful, loving, devoted Muslums with a pilot's license. Everyone needs
to do a wee bit of thinking about how great the United States of America is and it's role in
this world as a giver, supplier, feeder, protector and referee. We tried to get support from
the Useless Nations on the Iraq situation and no one but the British and a handfull of 40
brave nations who know the good we do. In conclusion, this is OUR problem and we will
solve it alone. Isolationism means little to the supplier of everything that this jealous world
desires. :thumb:

[[CAKE]rUsh]

Please tell me when the US gave a shit about anyone other than themselves.
in both world wars they stayed out and profited by selling weapons to both sides until they were attacked.
The cold war...who thought it would be a good idea to have two countries stockpiling nuclear weapons aimed at each other?
lots of wars against communism.
You did however form the UN. To try and stop anouther war from happening again. Oh well so much for that now.

Jabba war effects everyone whether they like it or not and a lot of people these days don't like it.

PIX no man is an island were the US truely alone it would crash and burn. Economic isolation would destroy any country no one to buy food from no cheap 3rd world labour or manufacturing no imports at all.

wonder if we have any history majors here. We have an assassination of a minor noble, a spreading plague, the US being attacked once, and a country being invaided with much disaproval. might not be the right order but then history never repeats exactly.

Don't know how everything will be repaired this time. But then we're probibly only in the first ACT.

[Wha?]

Firstly, the US hasn't cared what anybody thought for it's entire existance. Not even that of it's own people. Politicians routinely told white lies to gain popularity. The only difference now is the wool of primetime news fear-tactics is so thick over the eyes of the people that it has become the new office of minitrue. Hail the glorious dystopia of modern 'drive-thru' pop culture, the only legal way in the 'free' world to enslave minds and destroy intelect. American democracy has become a twisted monstrosity of it's hypothetical glory, being the only first world dictatorship. People don't want politics, they want cheap beer, lots of sex, rap and any easy way to do things of $90 value for only three easy payments of $16.99. With marketers catering to the desire to become like the images they themselves perpetuate, society at large has fallen victim to a vicious cycle of consumption addiction. Poverty and the problems people associate with it are still just as bad, if not worse, but they haven't been on the front page of any newspaper. Obesity hasn't caused fast food to lose business. Even worse, the very fabric of the political structure depends on the public making decisions has lost its strength. The cheap here and now generation has puked a 40 of tequilla on democracy and passed out on the couch. I haven't heard people saying Bush Jr. is the best president ever because he is taking action agaisnt our internal problems, and is making us better people. Nothing seems to be emanating from the stately White House but pro-war rhetoric. It's not even like Saddam meant a thing in the big picture except some selfish need from the worlds largest consumer. A single digit percentile of the global population uses over a third of it's resources and produces over half it's waste. Not enough of that is being diverted to develop third world nations, or help the impoverished to claim a "caring" disposition. If you have money it's all good, but it seems the less money you have, the shorter your end of the stick is. Though America has done a lot of helpful things in it's time, like helping Iraq in no small amount during it's war with Iran, who was winning, and a balance of power was desired to keep either one from gaining power and threatening the west. This is when the WMDs we all love to hate were sold to both sides, along with intelligence on the respective enemies positions. No thought of civillian cost, just how to preserve US interests. Like any country which has had the CIA prevent leaders from getting in to power who might hinder cheap labour, or oil flow. Credit must be given to the US for halting most of its WMD research to keep war so expensive that only they could wage it.

As for changing gears in 2001, nothing has changed except a dramatic increase in public outrage. No peaceful Muslims ever attacked the US. Peaceful people don't do that. Devoted religious extremists did, and were justly hated, though unjustly called "unprovoked". Nothing drastic is ever done without cause. The US has its secret, dirty reasons for invading that the public may never know. So did al Qaeda in those attacks, it was even explicitly stated: stop messing with Islam. A sad truth of life is that a concept can only sink in if there is enough depth for it to submerge. Everybody should understand that this was one of countless stabs at an immanent threat to the Islamic faith. Whether you see it like that or not, that's the way they did. Foreign policy remains unaltered in 20 years, foreign extortion continues at it's same old pace. So far, the definition of parasite fits quite well; consuming and supporting ones self, while causing deterioration in the host organism. As far as being a referee, hopefully this wonder sport with referees who start fights, break up teams and silently execute Tanya Harding style tactics will reach my TV soon.

Here's a cold toilet seat in the morning: without the UN, US troops would find themselves being gassed and infected by weapons of American origin. I guess the "Useless" Nations loses something in the translation from what went on in the organization to the non-existance on american televisions. The weapons inspectors were extremely successful in their duties, but that doesn't make for good ratings when the prez says war. Fortunately, the Geneva Convention hasn't been violated too many times on the part of the good guys. Iraqi prisoners have only been shown on tv. Unlike those dirty Iraqis who do the same thing. Alright, that racial interment camp Guantanimo Bay doesn't technically violate human rights, because they aren't the ones doing it. Nice little loophople there, eh? Send your POWs to some hellhole totalitarian nation to get the information tortured out, then have them sent back. Like a dry cleaner really. Only no risk of shrinking fabric from chemical exposure. Well, one hopes not.

Blame the lazy society that started the downward spiral, not the people who occasionally grace it's headlines.

[smartass]

Ok first of all Paris may be referenced to as "Le ###### Paris" in the non-homophobit sence but that does not give you the right to insult those that are homosexual by using it as a derogeratory term. Now that that is out of the way i would like to make a point of how this is the first time the U.S. has started a war, lets hope the trend does not continue, and i think that it wont be the last with the way many of the country's inhabitants vomit insults and derogeratory comments on those that don't want to kill things. I don't understand why people irrationally insult countrys that are thousands of miles away. BUT when your neighbors to the north decide they don't want to join an oil hungry ( I want to make a note of how the gas prices in Canada dropped more then 10 cents when the oil reserves were secured) megolomaniac in his search for massive amounts of blood nothing is said. NOTHING. Can someone please tell me why Paris, Russia, Germany and etc... are beeing flamed and Canada sits in it's little corner (I know that a sphear does not have corners) of the world haveing nothing directed its way. Oh, hold on a second could this resentment come from past wars that the U.S. jumped into after it was half over and decided to takeover and make HUGE amounts of targets for future bombs, I think so!

Heh forgot to introduce myself.
Well hi all :D

[kermit]

[edited by me]

nm...i don't want to get into it.