Iraqi war

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You really seem to like ignoring facts don't you? You must live in your own little world, cause if anybody can count Bush has started exactly ONE, and it was against this one person, I don't know if you've heard of him, Osama Bin Laden? You know he was the one who only kinda ordered some of his loyal followers to hijack those jumbo jets and crash them into those buildings, oh what were they called? Oh yeah, The World Trade Center perhaps? Maybe "The Pentagon" rings a bell? Here's a site that will help you on this.

 

He sure knows the news, he's just exaggerating (not to flame, but the war in Afghanistan was against the whole regime, not against a single person. I think there were like thousands of them in those caves. I hate to be a smartass, I know I'm being one, but don't be a hypocrite ).

 

Qui-Gon, I'll give you one tiny ounce of credit here. Japan, in all senses, had lost the war, BUT they would not have surrendered. In fact they never actually did surrender to the U.S. they said they would "halt the offensive" and it took the Emporer saying that to get everyone to finally stop. Even after that some islands that we had "hopped" that still had Japanese troops on them, just didn't surrender, and remained hostile. I wish I could link to an article explaining this for you, but this news was before the internet, and is not recorded online to my knowledge. Someone

 

I don't understand the difference between being able to move anywhere and not being hostile, and being hostile, and not being able to move anywhere, but I guess I'm just ignorant.

 

Einstein:

Well, my US History book, as well as World History book, states that Albert was against the nuke. Don't thrust websites, is all I say.

 

About the rev. war, well, I do know about the Revolutionary War, thank you. Point is, Norway was in a union/occupied twice, first by Sweden, then by Denmark. We fought against Sweden, some people died, and we were free. With Denmark, we used Diplomacy, some demonstrations... we simply 'overcame' and did it the Martin Luther way. Off those two, well, I'd say the second one is the best one.

 

Also, isn't Saddam pretty old? When he eventually dies, don't you think the Iraqis will be more welcoming towards the UN when they have not bombed their country half to pieces?

[Tie Guy]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Einstein:

Well, my US History book, as well as World History book, states that Albert was against the nuke. Don't thrust websites, is all I say.

 

Well, it was the History Channel Website, compiled by professional historians and the like. And quite frankly, i don't trust my text book at all. My AP CompSci book hardly ever has the right answers for the questions or how to do some things, and my math book isn't much better. My AP Us History teacher is a has several history degrees, and she told us the book has mistakes.

[Artoo]

OK, to clear up previous statements, Enstein was for the bomb to let the U.S. get it, but he was against the bomb when he saw it's destructive force.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

OK, time to try and start another flame war! *rubs hands together*

 

Well, first of all I don't trust Bush, Saddam, Blair or hell even Putin. Politicians are dodgy in my eyes.

--------------------

Also, yes, Bush doesn't start wars by himself, but he certainly pushes for them.

 

-------------------

Well yes, I don't think anyone has the right to target innocent people. But, as was said erlier, PROVE IT! I may have seen an article on it, but I'm not so sure it was about it, or what was in it for that matter.

[Admiral Odin]

He sure knows the news, he's just exaggerating (not to flame, but the war in Afghanistan was against the whole regime, not against a single person. I think there were like thousands of them in those caves. I hate to be a smartass, I know I'm being one, but don't be a hypocrite ).

 

Yes it was against the Regime that supported Bin Laden. But it is still only 1 war.

 

Einstein:

Well, my US History book, as well as World History book, states that Albert was against the nuke. Don't thrust websites, is all I say.

 

Einstein wanted the US to develop a Nuke, even though it was agaisnt his pacifist nature. He believed it necessary. After the two bombs were dropped He realized what could happen to the world if they were developed further. This is when he warned the US and began opposing nuclear weapons. However by that time it was to late. For the rest of his life Einstein felt he made a grave mistake in getting the US to develope bombs.

 

The point stands that during World War II Einstein supported and convinced the US to develope atomic bombs.

 

If you don't believe me, or the history channel, then look in encyclopedias, ask your teachers. Research Einstein and you will realize that he did want the atomic bomb, but only later was against them. He like so many others changed his mind.

 

As far as websites, you can trust certain ones. The history channel's website I would say is trustworthy.

[Breton]

It is sad, Artoo, when refuses to belive they are wrong, but they have nothing sane to say, and that makes them flame:( . Now, some would say that your flaming would give me the "right" to flame back, but I will NOT do that, simply because I'm a nice guy, and belive that a discussion can be without people flaming. After all, no one here (exept Crazy_dog of course) wishes a flame war, for they are really pointless and silly. Think about this, Artoo, and plz don't flame anymore.

 

 

Bush: Ok, he has only started one war, but he has certainly not done the Israel vs Palestina situation any better, has he?

 

 

About the rev. war, well, I do know about the Revolutionary War, thank you. Point is, Norway was in a union/occupied twice, first by Sweden, then by Denmark. We fought against Sweden, some people died, and we were free. With Denmark, we used Diplomacy, some demonstrations... we simply 'overcame' and did it the Martin Luther way. Off those two, well, I'd say the second one is the best one.

 

Not long after the viking age, Norway, Denmark and Sweden made an union, the "Kalmar Union". But in 1523, the swedes did not want to be in this union, and pulled out. And now there was the Danish who ruled Norway. In the 1700s the swedes made an attack against Norway, but they failed. They made a second attemt, and managed to occupy much of Norway, but this time their king was killed, so they had to back out.

 

In the Napoleon wars, Denmark-Norway (they were neutral) had a large combat fleet. The British feared that the French could steel that fleet, and therefore, they demanded that Denmark-Norway should give the fleet to the British. The danish king refused, of course, but then the british made a huge siege at Copenhagen, and after two days, Denmark-Norway had to surrender the fleet to the British. After that, Denmark-Norway supported Napoleon in the war. But when he lost, Denmark had to give Norway to Sweden. But for 91 years, Norway gave less and less power to the Swedish king, and more and more power to the goverment (wich was chosen by the people). In 1905 Norway declared itself independent, and they did not need to go to war or anything.

 

So you see that it is possible to gain independence without an independence war.

[Admiral Odin]

Bush hasn't done any better with Israel and Palistine then any of the previous presidents. You can't do much when they don't listen to you.

 

And look how long it took Norway to gain independence, and doing it that way is fine as long as the controlling government is willing to let the country go. When the controlling government won't let the colony/occupied nation go, then you are faced with to options. Give up on independence or fight a war.

 

Diplomacy works sometimes, but not every time.

[JEDI_MASTA]

People... iv been over this before and im starting to think that our socialist world *o my i said the dreaded word* is really lying to itself...

 

it appears that all americans are for this and that all other countrys are not... somebody is being lied to...

 

First off... is there some strong push to make bush not succeed... this man has gottent he worst of all times to be presedent... a war... a floundering economy *which i could tie to clinton very convincingly... but im not gunna* he has an oppertunity to take out what he feels is a major threat to his country... what else is he gunna do.

 

 

 

o yeah... heroshima was a terrible thing... but hey... what the hell... your in war lol

[Darth Homer]

ok, Einstein made the bomb possible through his theories, it was Robert Oppenheimer who actually figured out how to get it to work. Al probably wrote some letters urging it's production before Germany could (for good reasons)...I'm sure he knew what kind of destruction such a device could wreak

 

Also, think if we hadn't gotten the bomb first, we'd all probably be posting in German and we'd all be blonde w/ blue eyes, the so-called "Master Race"

 

Another thing to think about, the Russian people sacrificed so much in that war...they were slaughtered at the on set and then battled their way through the rest of the war w/ inferior weapons & equipment (until the closer to the end), but had massive numbers. One Russian General (I forget which one, forgive me) was quoted as saying, "We will choke them with our dead."

 

As far as Iraq goes, we have to be careful...we go in there, guns blazing and we kill Saddam, what do we get? A martyr and a country that is even more solidly against us, plus a few other countires that see us as even more of a threat. What we really need to do is go through the whole diplomacy thing, show that we're making an effort for peace and if that works, great...we get a few more years out of him...if not, THEN the war starts...hey, we tried...now he's not so much of a figurehead. Also, while we're doing the whole peace things with him, do a little negotiating on the side w/ other countries in the area and not just ones that are already linked to us (Saudi Arabia, though they've not been as friendly as of late; Israel)

 

this is all just opinion and my own understandings of things, if you have facts that contradict me, I'll be happy to read 'em and admit I'm wrong.

[Artoo]

Heehee, gotta love the president's speeches.

 

"...the greatest orator of our time." - Hank Hill

 

The president is pushing to go in with the Military to inspect the sites that the U.N. isn't being let into, and wherever there is evidence in general that nukes/biological/chemical weapons are being built or stored.

 

Oh and Qui-Gon I can honestly say you aren't a noob. You took my argument of facts supported by evidence just like a democrat and tried to accuse me of something I'm not doing something that I'm not, namely flaming. (no offense to democrats, it's just that I've noticed a certain trend in some of you're higher ranking members. Some of you are hard-working good honest people, it's just those one or two snakes in the grass that really get to me)

 

Sll I've done is given you the facts. You ignored them every time we give them to you. You ignore our questions, though we answer yours, and you in general try to move the conversation somewhere else when we prove a point.

 

You however have yet to prove one. That is why I was nay forced to use a little bit more colorful language in my rebuttal of your half-truths. Everything I said was fact. None of it was opinion*.

 

I now restate my challenge for you which you utterly failed to accomplish last time. Give one solid piece of evidence that shows that Bush cannot be trusted, we have given several for Saddam.

 

And don't try and ignore my challenge again.

 

* - OK, so the last part was a flame, but take it as a piece of personal advice from me. You need to sit-down and open your eyes to the truth instead of closing them all the time. Actually read and think about what someone is saying before thinking of something to say in aggreance or disagreeance. It's just a little common courtesy that I exercise for you and I wish you'd do the same.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

First off... is there some strong push to make bush not succeed... this man has gottent he worst of all times to be presedent... a war... a floundering economy *which i could tie to clinton very convincingly... but im not gunna* he has an oppertunity to take out what he feels is a major threat to his country... what else is he gunna do.

 

He could try to spend more resources repairing the economy .

 

 

I now restate my challenge for you which you utterly failed to accomplish last time. Give one solid piece of evidence that shows that Bush cannot be trusted, we have given several for Saddam.

 

[tongue-to-cheek]Watergate, Monica Lewinsky, Florida. I'm just saying that there have been 'incidents' troughout the ages [/tongue-to-cheek] Seriously, though, all I'm saying is that I think Bush has reasons for going to war other than spreading Democracy and saving the world.

 

Okay, so that's an opinion only, but it has some sense in it. In the light of both sides' good arguments, I rest my case; I'll sit, watch, and see what happens. ...and hope that when I'm drafted into the Royal Norwegian Navy in a year, I won't end up going down there.

[Breton]

I now restate my challenge for you which you utterly failed to accomplish last time. Give one solid piece of evidence that shows that Bush cannot be trusted, we have given several for Saddam.

 

Apart from being a war lover, Bush also acts like a fool in the Israel vs Palestine conflict. He is holding back money he ows UN, he is refusing international deals, such as kyoto deal and human right thing, and because of this, other countries do the same, and the entire deal is ruined. He is a republican, wich means that he is encouraging people to shoot each other, and he support death penalty. He has an IQ of 91, and still can be president of US. When a country has other opinions that his, he always calls them

"evil". His speeches are WAY too patriothic. His father was a war lover. He obviously missed half of his geography classes.

 

And still you trust him?

 

I do not trust Saddam at all, but you have still not given me any solid piece of evidence that he is not to be trusted. You have said a lot of things, but you have not proven it.

 

 

Btw, just thought that you wanted to know: The entire US military is little compared to the military of all other countries combined.

 

Have you noticed that it is only the people who supports the war that flame?

[Darth Homer]

ok, first off, being Republican doesn't mean he automatically wants to shoot people...sure he's for the Right to Bear Arms, which is a right gauranteed to us by the Bill of Rights, but he doesn't want to go around shooting people...personally, I'm a moderate...I read Artoo's posts and they seem to be grounded and he doesn't make wild claims (IQ of 91...when was his IQ tested and when was it made public? give us solid proof of this, please). Please, try to think out your posts a little better and not just respond with emotion.

 

Also, your little message at the bottom is a polite flame...you disguised it well

 

take some time and think through your posts, make decisions for yourself instead of adhereing to party lines. Also seems to me like your almost TRYING to get a flame war going...

[Fishflesh]

invade invade??????

 

DONT INVADE!!!!!!!!!

 

war is not the sulutoin!

wil there never be peace!

[Admiral Odin]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

Apart from being a war lover, Bush also acts like a fool in the Israel vs Palestine conflict. He is holding back money he ows UN, he is refusing international deals, such as kyoto deal and human right thing, and because of this, other countries do the same, and the entire deal is ruined. He is a republican, wich means that he is encouraging people to shoot each other, and he support death penalty. He has an IQ of 91, and still can be president of US. When a country has other opinions that his, he always calls them

"evil". His speeches are WAY too patriothic. His father was a war lover. He obviously missed half of his geography classes.

 

I'm a republican, and I don't encourage people to shoot each other, neither does Bush (if you say he does please support it) How has he acted like a fool with the Israel and Palestine. We are not their mothers, if they won't listen then there is nothing we can do. Also no president before Bush has been able to settle the conflict. He rejects deals because they don't favor the United States. Your IQ comment is obviously made up. Shouldn't the president be patriotic? (patriotic means loving your country. militristic is different and shouldn't be confused with patriotism). Last time I checked he didn't call France evil and their opinions are at times confliting with the his. How was his father a war lover (His father stopped the Gulf War, as soon as Quwait was liberated).

 

I do not trust Saddam at all, but you have still not given me any solid piece of evidence that he is not to be trusted. You have said a lot of things, but you have not proven it.

 

How would you like us to prove it. We have shown you documentation showing that Saddam has used chemical weapons, that he had (probably still has) biological weapons. He says he doesn't have weapons of mass distraction, but won't let unconditional weapon inspection. A recent meeting between Iraq and weapon inspectors still placed restrictions.

 

Btw, just thought that you wanted to know: The entire US military is little compared to the military of all other countries combined.

 

If you combine the militraies of all other countries then of course the US military is small. In the gulf war the our military took on the fourth largest military in the world, and we destroyed them.

 

Size doesn't always matter, the US military is one of the most advanced and well equiped military in the the world.

 

Please prove what you said about Bush, otherwise it really is just your opinion. What we have said about Saddam can be proven.

------------------------

NL_Ackbar. Sometimes war is the only solution to problems. At the moment we are trying diplomacy. I believe utimatly it will not work.

 

The threat of war is a powerful diplomatic tool, by doing so weapon inspectors are on the verge of going back in.

 

It is foolish to think that there will ever be peace (world peace), human nature will prevant it. Throughout histroy humans have done one consitant thing and that is to wage war.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

I believe diplomacy is the solution.

 

 

Let weapons inspectors in, if they don't find anything, then end of story.

 

EDIT: Now don't traet Bush that harshly Qui- Gon. He may be a fool but he's not that bad.

[Fishflesh]

I live near that countery so maby thay kill me

 

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Please prove what you said about Bush, otherwise it really is just your opinion. What we have said about Saddam can be proven.

 

Okay, let's go facts:

1. Prove that Iraq is planning a large-scale offensive against the rest of the world.

 

The USA has a large army as well, and they keep spying China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba, which are all countries they hate. China has a huge army and there have been 'incidents' between China and Taiwan. Does that prove that China is planning to invade Taiwan, and that the USA is planning to invade China?

 

Remember the Spanish-American war, starting with a mistake about what destroyed USS Maine..

 

2. Prove that Bush can be thrusted. Don't understand the question?

 

Well, Bush has a good deal of things to gain from the war, so you'll just have to prove to us that he's invading Iraq simply, and only, to preserve the safety of the surrounding countries.

 

3. You say that Saddam can be thrusted. Does that make him a bad guy?

 

Well, yes. But can we, as Americans, be thrusted? We refuse to sign all these nuclear treaties to lower our amount of nuclear weapons. We don't give a crap about many of the UN regulations. Does that make the USA evil? Well, I think all countries do this. Does that make the whole world evil? Does that mean we're bound to be planning World War 3 by planning a large-scale offensive against all the communist countries in the world? No.

 

I think that when it comes down to it, we just have to go opinion, unless you can prove the stuff above.

[Tie Guy]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

Apart from being a war lover, Bush also acts like a fool in the Israel vs Palestine conflict. He is holding back money he ows UN, he is refusing international deals, such as kyoto deal and human right thing, and because of this, other countries do the same, and the entire deal is ruined. He is a republican, wich means that he is encouraging people to shoot each other, and he support death penalty. He has an IQ of 91, and still can be president of US. When a country has other opinions that his, he always calls them

"evil". His speeches are WAY too patriothic. His father was a war lover. He obviously missed half of his geography classes.

 

And still you trust him?

 

I do not trust Saddam at all, but you have still not given me any solid piece of evidence that he is not to be trusted. You have said a lot of things, but you have not proven it.

 

Have you noticed that it is only the people who supports the war that flame?

 

 

That was about the most biased statement i have ever read. And none of it is even true, it is all either made up or your opinion.

 

I'm a republican, you know what that means, it means i want less government in people's lives and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, that is all. It does NOT mean i want to shoot other people, i don't even own a gun, and it does NOT mean i'm a war lover. Of course, if all things could be settled peacefully then there wouldn't even be war to begin with, but there is, and this is clearly a last ditch effort.

 

And please stop asking us to "prove it". We already have many times with websites and common knowledge, plus Bush's speech last night outlined it nicely. Or do you think he deliberately lied to the entire nation? I mean, what do you want us to do, take you to Iraq and show you the weapons? Meanwhile, you throw us back unaffirmed information that you can't prove, or even worse, your opinion. And you wonder why the people who support the war are a little frustrated?

 

Plus, as Homer pointed out, you seem to want a flame war with all your accusations. I don't know, maybe it makes you feel all high and mighty and thats fine, just don't do it on these boards. Now, we should be able to end this here, with no further accusations from either side. I'd hate to see what was an interesting debate (with eagle anyways) degenerate.

 

 

 

Eagle, does Iraq need to be on the verge of a massive invasion to warrant action? How many poeple does he have to torture and kill before we do anything about it. He can kill millions of people without and invasion or assault at all, and thats precisely why someone needs to deal with him. As Bush always says, we can't wait for the smoking gun to take action.

 

And whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Bush has been in office for two years and has done nothing to show he isn't trustworthy. So why do you assume he isn't? I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on your side for this one. Meanwhile, i think we can all agree that Saddam has done plenty to prove he isn't trustworthy.

[Raith_Seinar]

I might just have been asleep for a while, but I don't think Saddam Hussein has done anything wrong. I mean hes trodden the line, but Bush can't keep everyone (unlike Blair) on a leash, and also many other countries have comitted the so called atrocities. Correct me if i'm wrong please.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Eagle, does Iraq need to be on the verge of a massive invasion to warrant action? How many poeple does he have to torture and kill before we do anything about it. He can kill millions of people without and invasion or assault at all, and thats precisely why someone needs to deal with him. As Bush always says, we can't wait for the smoking gun to take action.

 

All I am saying is that one of Bush's main arguments -and the main argument of many pro-war people on this and other boards- is that Iraq is planning to invade Iran or some other neighboring country. I'm just saying this has not been proved; I'm not trying to justify it.

 

You've got a good point. Yes, Iraq kills thousands a year.

 

[tongue-to-cheek --again] However, in the USA thousands of people die every year from cancer and other tobacco-caused deceases, from bullet wounds, and from driving drunk. Actually, more people died during 2001 from smoking than the number of people who died at 9/11.

 

Yet, we accept the war on the Taliban and force them to have a complete regime change to avenge the deaths of 3007 people and to make sure that won't happen again, while with tobacco, that killed 30,000+ people we can't do anything because the government is too weak.

 

All I'm saying is that before we go save some people in a country 99% of us has ever been to, maybe we should be less proud of our democracies and constitutions and stop equally innocent people from dying in our countries? Or do Iraqis matter more to you than Americans, Canadians, and Europeans?[/tongue-to-cheek].

 

Just something for you to think about.

[Tie Guy]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

All I'm saying is that before we go save some people in a country 99% of us has ever been to, maybe we should be less proud of our democracies and constitutions and stop equally innocent people from dying in our countries? Or do Iraqis matter more to you than Americans, Canadians, and Europeans?[/tongue-to-cheek].

 

Just something for you to think about.

 

Well, although i agree that smoking should be banned or something, at least those people have a choice, and thats what are nation is built on. Yes, it seems sad that people can even choose to die, buts thats their decision to make, not the government's.

[Rogue15]

if a law comes out that allows me to sue someone for contaminating my lungs with their smoke...god have mercy on their income.

[Admiral Odin]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

All I am saying is that one of Bush's main arguments -and the main argument of many pro-war people on this and other boards- is that Iraq is planning to invade Iran or some other neighboring country. I'm just saying this has not been proved; I'm not trying to justify it.

 

[tongue-to-cheek --again] However, in the USA thousands of people die every year from cancer and other tobacco-caused deceases, from bullet wounds, and from driving drunk. Actually, more people died during 2001 from smoking than the number of people who died at 9/11.

 

Yet, we accept the war on the Taliban and force them to have a complete regime change to avenge the deaths of 3007 people and to make sure that won't happen again, while with tobacco, that killed 30,000+ people we can't do anything because the government is too weak.

 

Bush's main arguement is that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, not that Iraq will invade another country. All the threads concerning this have people who are not against invading Iraq state this is the major concern.

 

As far as Tobacco goes, the government can't ban it because it will be infriging on a person's freedom. The preamble of the constitution states people are free to prusue happiness. If smoking makes you happy then you have ever right to do that. The government then prevants you from smoking in public areas since it infringes on other's freedom. However they can't ban it, even if they did, look at the 18th amendment, it failed because people who want to smoke will. There are also warning labels on packages. There is not much more the government can do. Also I don't want the Federal, State, or local government telling me what I can do (this is part of being a republican).

 

As far as exacting revenge against the Taliban, they were part of slaughtering innocent people, who did not choose to die. People who smoke basically choose a higher risk of cancer, they make the choice. People who died on September 11th were not given a choice. That is partly why we can stand allowing people to smoke, but be outraged at the Taliban.

------------------------------------

 

You have brought up before that Bush has other reason to want to fight Iraq, other then saving the world. This is true His main motive is that it is in our nations best interest to remove Saddam.

 

------------------------------

 

Everyone who says Bush just wants war. In a speech yesterday Bush said that Regime change doesn't mean ousting Saddam, but for Saddam to change. In other words if Saddam begins to follow UN sanctions then war will be averted. Bush is clearly leaving the diplomatic option available. The question now is what will Saddam do.

 

Oh this might interest somepeople.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65061,00.html

[Breton]

That was about the most biased statement i have ever read. And none of it is even true, it is all either made up or your opinion.

 

It is true, I can assure you. Obviously, it is just you who refuses to belive it.

 

And why should I come with false statememnts, wich I don't, anyway?

 

 

Just something to think about: In the US, 40 000 people get shot and killed every year.

 

 

Plus, as Homer pointed out, you seem to want a flame war with all your accusations.

 

I want a flame war??????? Actually that is what I like to evade.

Read Artoo's post, the one with the picture, and xwing guy's post too. And you mean that that is NOT encouraging to flame war????

 

*sigh* This is pointless. At the end, I would like to say:

War is bad, peace is nice. If you do not agree with this, go bang your head with something hard. Plz.