Iraqi war

[Tie Guy]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

I thought we were gonna leave it at that, Qui-Gon, but noooo. Why do you even bother to bring it up? It never would have been anything if you didn't have to point the finger, so just leave it alone.

 

As for your statement, you have a perfectly good reason to make it up, that is, to save your argument, which is being rebutted at every turn. And how can you even say it is true? Do you really know that Bush's IQ is 91? No. And how he looks in some situation can't be anything but your opinion. Plus, everyone supports the death penalty, that is, everyone that supports life imprisonment does. Because if you haven't noticed, the people are in jail until they die. Its just a much slower, much more torturous death. Besides, the people who committ such crime honestly care nothing for life, so why should we care about theirs? Besides, the death pealty only occures in extreme cases. Its not like everyone who steals a donut is killed. And Bush certainly has never encouraged others to kill people, so i don't know where you got that crap from. Neither has the NRA for that matter. The right to have a gun is a fundamental right, just as much as right to free speech is, or freedom of religion.

 

But your right, he does call people "evil" who disagree with them, but only when those people FLY AIRPLANES INTO THE SIDES OF BUILDINGS! He hasn't called the democrats "evil" (even though they are, IMO) and they disagree. He hasn't called France "evil" for not voting for the resolution. No, he only calls people "evil" that actually are, and whose main purpose in life is to kill Americans. That sounds pretty "evil" to me.

 

 

Yeah, so 40,000 people in America get shot, thats doesn't matter at all. The government doesn't do it, crazy people do. And those people are justly punished, so whats your point?

 

 

Now, bring on the flame accusations, but i think everyone here (besides you, it seems) can see why this is so intensely frustrating. Its the main reason i've almost stopped talking to Liberals entirely, especailly about anything that require's thinking. And i'm totally serious about that.

[Artoo]

Thank You TieGuy and Admiral. (and Eagle to an extent)

 

Qui-Gon, I think you're going to be a folk author when you grow up, cause I never heard anyone spin a bigger yarn than that one.

 

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

 

Have you ever... I repeat EVER stepped back and looked at yourself, and thought "you know what, I just might be wrong." cause if you have, you have shown NO conclusive evidence of having done so. We have given you the information with the links to our proof, all you have done is said whatever you have thought to be true, which isn't much, without any links to back up what you say. And next to all of it has been proven wrong by cited sources. CITED SOURCES!!! And all that you do after we prove you wrong is make up more lies!

 

Have you ever thought that maybe what we are saying is true and that it is you who refuses to believe it? Cause I can do better than assure, I can prove. Obviously.

 

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

 

Then you aren't doing a very good job if we have to kep attacking your lies like this.

 

*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.

 

Actually yourt posts are pointless to this thread. This discussion is built on a foundation of truth and cited sources. You however have been proven just to lie. Therefore you contribute nothing to this discussion except aggravation and frustration to all others in this discussion.

 

YOUR FIRST TRUTHFUL STATEMENT!!!

 

but unfortunately that's only if it was taken out of context. See the statement in itself is trtuthful yet the way you apply it it is false.

 

Applying it to this situation: Saddam wants to cause chaos by any means to gain more power, he is addicted to it. Bush wants to go in and remove him of his means to cause chaos (his weapons). Now if you are against Bush going in, and removing the potential of chaos from a dictator who has proved he has no qualms against causing it, then you are against peace, which means you are for war, which in conclusion means:

 

, go bang your head with something hard. Plz.

 

Maybe it'll knock an ounce of sense into ye, or just maybe it will open your eyes to the truth. Either of these would make me very happy.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Yeah, so 40,000 people in America get shot, thats doesn't matter at all. The government doesn't do it, crazy people do. And those people are justly punished, so whats your point?

 

I hate you with all my heart if you don't care about 40,000 people dying a year. The criminals who do it get punished, yes, but does that bring the dead back? Does 9/11 matter to you? It shouldn't, as those behind it are punised.

 

You can't say stuff like you just said just because you have never lost a loved one to cancer or to a gun. Or, just to speak to you so you understand it: That's like me saying that I don't care a crap about when your parents separated.

 

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.

 

The Constitution banned narcotics because it was bad for you although it made people happy, so why can't the state ban tobacco? Simply because tobacco is taxated, which means the government earns millions of dollars a year on it's citizens dying?

 

What do you want? A nation where 30,000 people less contract lung cancer and die each year (which would save the US health industry thousands of dollars a year), or a country which slavishly follows the constitution even though it almost litteraly tells them that they have the right to kill themselves to be happy. How can you pick the last one? Well, people who wants to do drugs still do drugs -are you saying we should legalize drugs?

 

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).

 

For one, they could ban tobacco advertising and commercials, like in Norway (which effectively reduced the number of smokers to almost 1/5).

 

If you think I'm flaming, well, if you lost two grandparents to smoking, you'd flame to. And don't say you're sorry, as I know you're thinking something like "boy, that's sad, but at least the constitution... :mad:"

[Tie Guy]

I totally agree with you...mostly.

 

I definately think something should be done to stop people from smoking. I hateit when people smoke, especially around me. and i hate that so many people ruin parts of their lives because of it. However, i do not think it is the government's job to make a law against it. Personally, i don't think the congress should ban it because it is harmfull. People should not have their personal lives interfered with by Congress espeically.

 

Thats where the FDA comes in. I think that they should declare it an unsafe product and no allow it to be sold. Thats their job, and they've don it to countless otehr drugs and foods. They are the people who need to do, not congress and especially not the courts or some bogus thing like that.

[Admiral Odin]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

War is bad, peace is nice.

 

War is bad, but we really are not talking about it. Everyone agrees peace is superior to war. The question is however is war necessary to create peace. In some situation the answer is yes in others no. This might be one time when war is necessary. It really is up to Saddam.

 

What do you want? A nation where 30,000 people less contract lung cancer and die each year (which would save the US health industry thousands of dollars a year), or a country which slavishly follows the constitution even though it almost litteraly tells them that they have the right to kill themselves to be happy. How can you pick the last one? Well, people who wants to do drugs still do drugs -are you saying we should legalize drugs?

 

I knew you were going to say something along this line. Personally I would love to see smoking banned, but I also know that it won't happen. To ban smoking you would have to amend the US constitution. Otherwise any law banning smoking can be fought by the Tobacco companies, and they would win. States can't do it since the Tobacco companies would go over the state laws and say they conflict with the constitution as such are null.

 

What Tie Guy said would be the best way to stop it. He basically summed up the point I was trying to make. I might add it would follow the constitution nicely as well.

[Jatt13]

ok, i haven't posted here yet, but i've got to say something. there are a few things i need to adress. the following is mostly my opinion, but it's usuall based on fact. if you can refute it AND state or show facts that can be proven, then i will happily change 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.

 

ok, the thing a/b smoking is that most people don't like it. there are laws restricting age and where you smoke, and the government taxes the heck out of it. i personnally think smokers are disgusting people. if anyone here smokes, to bad. i'm sticking to my opinion on this one, no matter what "facts" you might bring against it. also, all cancer isn't caused by smoking. just an fyi. and about guns: even if they were outlawed, people would still get them. and if the people who are going to do harm with them have them, then everyone should have them to protect themselves. the government, including president bush does not encourage or condone the use of guns on another human being. it is just nessicary (sorry a/b the spelling) sometimes. you can't fight a gun-wielding opponent with a stick or you hands. well, you can, but 9 times out of 10 you'll come out on the short end of the stick. that goes for both war and man-to-man violence. the government also has strict age limits and other regulations on guns. my opinions on drinking are basically the same as my opinions on smoking. i think it's stupid, at least to get drunk. i can see the occasional beer, or wine for a special occasion, but drinking so much you lose control of your mind and can't even remember what you did the next day? that's just plain dumb. like someone already said (sorry, don't remember who and don't want to check), it's the freedom of pursuit of happiness. the government can make and enforce laws, and try to control things, but thy can't completely restrict it unless it will harm someone other than the person who does it. and, yes, i know drunk driving and second hand smoke can harm people, but the reason that they're not outlawed is because the government didn't study them soon enough. the reason marajuana is illeagle is because they studied it before it was widely distributed. they didn't do that in time with alcohol and cigarettes, and by the time they found out all the effects it was to late, and if they had tried to do something about it people would have complained about oppression and being denied thier rights. weed is less dangerous to your health than beer and cigs., and doesn't phisically adict, but it was outlawed because of studies made. and about more people being killed from smoking than in 9/11? i don't seem to remember cigarettes crashing planes into buildings, calling us infadels (spelling again), or deliberately (and again ) trying to kill us. nor the companies that make them. 9/11 was a deliberate act of destruction, designed to kill as many people as possible, and cigarettes are just people trying to get rich. note that i DO NOT support them at all.

 

there is a lot more i want to discuss, but i don't have the time. i'll post later. feel free to make arguments about what was stated here, but know i will do my best to refute them.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by 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.

 

Hmph yeah. Blair seems to be Bush's ambasador over here.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Yeah, freedom of pursuing happiness also seems to justify the 50%+ divorce rate in the USA... if it does, I don't think Iraq is the country that needs help..

[Fishflesh]

Originally posted by Admiral

 

War is bad, but we really are not talking about it. Everyone agrees peace is superior to war. The question is however is war necessary to create peace. In some situation the answer is yes in others no. This might be one time when war is necessary. It really is up to Saddam.

 

 

 

I knew you were going to say something along this line. Personally I would love to see smoking banned, but I also know that it won't happen. To ban smoking you would have to amend the US constitution. Otherwise any law banning smoking can be fought by the Tobacco companies, and they would win. States can't do it since the Tobacco companies would go over the state laws and say they conflict with the constitution as such are null.

 

What Tie Guy said would be the best way to stop it. He basically summed up the point I was trying to make. I might add it would follow the constitution nicely as well.

 

 

 

Have you ever been in world war 2?

 

i gess not

[Admiral Odin]

NL_Ackbar what the hell does that mean?

 

I said that Peace was better then war. However War is at times necessary. In World War two war was necessary, to stop Hitler, and the Japanesse.

 

Yeah, freedom of pursuing happiness also seems to justify the 50%+ divorce rate in the USA... if it does, I don't think Iraq is the country that needs help..

 

The government cannot tell people that if they get married that they must live together for the rest of their lives. It's a tradedy that the divorce rate is so high but the government can't change it. People have the right to get divorced.

[Havoc Stryphe]

First, let me concede that it is indisputable wether or not we should look to our own shortcomings/problems/epidemics before concentrating on fixing the rest of the world. Of course we should.

 

However, since a supporter of peace has issued a statement in regards to World War II, I will direct your attention to such a time.

 

What if America had seen it fit to ignore the woes of Europe with Hitler and the Nazi Regime? What if we just sholed up in our own shores and let Japan and Germany have their way with the rest of the world?

 

After all, in 1939-42 America was in the midst of a "great depression". The dollar was worth less the paper it was printed on. Homelessness and Un-employment were at an all-time high among American citizens. Murder, and violent crimes were on the rise. Organized crime was becoming huge. Whole cities were starting to come under the influence of the mafia.

 

It would have been easy to ignore the "evil" spreading throughout the world, by claiming we needed to focus own our own "inner turmoils", both in energy and finances. Last time, we almost waited until it was too late to get actively involved.

 

Now, here and today, we have a man who is "suspect" of either developing weapons of mass destruction, trying to obtain them through other sources, or already posseses them. Who has once before invaded a neighboring country for Financial gain and greater influence and power within the global Oil market. Fired missles into a country's largest city and on it's innocent civilians (Tel Aviv, Israel). Now he won't allow the UN weapons inspectors into the countrey without restrictions. This is VERY SUSPECT, it certainly points to the fact that he has weapons to hide. Just one more strike on the man's character.

 

All we are doing is demanding either weapons inspectors be allowed into his country without restriction, or for the Suddam regime to be removed from power, so that the inspectors be allowed in. If neither happens, we must, on behalf of the entire world, step in and make sure he is held accountable for his weapons.

 

The world can ill afford another Hitler. We would be remiss, to not step in and insure the world, as a whole,can sleep safe at night.

 

PS Truth be told, I believe America should wait for the backing of the UN, but by then, it may be too late. So I will not turn my back on my country if she invades before doing so.

[Admiral Odin]

Well said Havoc.

 

Getting back to Saddam, if he has no weapons of mass distruction then why won't he let the inspectors prove it.

 

Usually innocent people accused of something want to prove their innocense.

 

Also think about what Saddam would gain from proving he didn't have these weapons.

 

1. Bush's trustworthiness would be hurt.

2. The UN might consider removing some of the sanctons

3. Saddam would gain some trust in the world community.

4. The US could be made into a war loving country

 

And there are more. What does he face by not proving that he has a these weapons.

 

1. War with the US, and probably other nations.

2. Being removed from power

3. Death

 

This list also is longer, but you get the idea. It is much more favorable for him to prove his innocense.

 

By not allowing unconditional weapon inspections Saddam is doing one thing proving he has something to hide. Which in all likely hood he is hidding those weapons.

[Breton]

I do not lie.

 

Plz do not accuse me for something I do not do.

 

My personal opinions is just that, even though I do not trust Saddam, I strongly belive that there could be a diplomatic solution to this, and I think that US is going far too fast on this matter. So that is my opinion, so why are you so mad at me anyway? (that's a rethorical question, don't answer it). I hope now that we are done with that matter.

 

Anyway, I really think that smoking would be banned. If tobacco had been something new, it would have been banned a long time ago, just like drugs are banned. And there would defidently less people smoking if it was banned. I guess that the only reason many still smoke, is that they do not know how damaging it is, or it is a person or persons they look up to who smoke, like their parents.

 

 

 

The government cannot tell people that if they get married that they must live together for the rest of their lives. It's a tradedy that the divorce rate is so high but the government can't change it. People have the right to get divorced.

 

...but if a married couple get divorced, they should not have married eachother at all.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Ok, u got that right (altho it's a shame. Think of the children:rolleyes: )

 

 

OK, back onto War With Iraq.

 

Interesting article, Admiral, but I think even u will admit it doesn't prove anything.

 

From what I hear from all news sources, Iraq is going to let inspectors in soon, it's just inspectors feel they are limited. I can see them coming in the near future tho.

[Artoo]

I do not lie. Plz do not accuse me for something I do not do.

 

You may not have been proven to have lied, but you still haven't proven what you've told us is the truth, when you prove it, then you have something to add to this discussion. Cause right now, common sense is telling me that nearly everything you say is a lie.

 

My personal opinions is just that, even though I do not trust Saddam, I strongly belive that there could be a diplomatic solution to this

 

I'm glad that you do not trust Saddam, that's better than how you were. But we tried diplomacy, the only problem is that he does not play by the rules. The U.N. tried to solve this diplomatically, but all he does is keep them from implementing their "diplomatic negotiations", my case in point: Saddam has violated all 19 U.N. sanctions. That is a fact. What we have here is a failure of diplomacy. This should be enough to prove to you that diplomacy by the U.N. isn't working.

 

and I think that US is going far too fast on this matter.

 

What are you going to wait for? A written invitation? The next big terrorist attack that could even take your life? A huge smallpox epidemic from an errant Iraqi missile? This has to be done now before he can do anything to conceal his arsenal or use it.

 

so why are you so mad at me anyway? (that's a rethorical question, don't answer it).

 

To late, you shouldn't have stuck it out there. I'm mad at you cause you are content to sit on your rear end until mutual destruction is assured and coming between the U.S. and Iraq.

 

...but if a married couple get divorced, they should not have married eachother at all.

 

That's really harsh. Some people aren't meant to be together and are, and some people are meant to be together aren't. It's just the way that life works. Think of the children man.

 

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

 

You notice that it's only the people against the war who are trying to change the subject every other post to the U.S.'s problems? Even though this is a thread about the war, and not a thread about U.S. domestic problems?

 

edit: Thank you Havoc! I've been waiting for you to stick your head inhere since I posted.

[Jatt13]

My personal opinions is just that, even though I do not trust Saddam, I strongly belive that there could be a diplomatic solution to this, and I think that US is going far too fast on this matter.

 

like artoo said, we already tried diplomacy. we've asked, we've tried to make him let us in, and it hasn't worked. sure, he let in a few inspectors, but he didn't show them everything. he led them around and showed them what he wanted them to see. and if wait until attacks then even more lives will be lost. the U.S. can't just sit back and watch saddam grow in power without doing anything. he already proved he can't be trusted once, why give him the chance to do it again? at least you don't trust him, so i don't see how you can tell us to trust him either.

 

...but if a married couple get divorced, they should not have married eachother at all.

 

there are many reasons people get divorced, and some of them are legitiment. you can start out loving someone, but that can change over time. to much of some people can really get under your skin. also, one might cheat on the other. in almost all cases, i think a couple should stay together and try to work it out. but in some cases, like a husband or wufe not being faithful to their mate, i think they should get divorced. i do think divorce is a bad thing, though, and that people should think more before getting married, and see if they really shouldn't be together after all. i agree with you a little on that point: some couples just weren't ment ot be married. but not all that get divorced.

 

Cause right now, common sense is telling me that nearly everything you say is a lie.

 

that's a little harsh. just because he can't back it up doesn't mean it's a lie. it should be dissmissed as an argument until proven, but that stil doesn't mean it's a lie.

 

Anyway, I really think that smoking would be banned. If tobacco had been something new, it would have been banned a long time ago, just like drugs are banned. And there would defidently less people smoking if it was banned. I guess that the only reason many still smoke, is that they do not know how damaging it is, or it is a person or persons they look up to who smoke, like their parents.

 

i agree with you on that, that smoking should be banned, but i do want to point out a couple of things. marajuana, crack, and other such harmful drugs are illeagle, but that's not stopping people from getting it. i'm not saying we should make them leagal, just that making it illeagle won't necissarily stop it. it would, though get it out of most public places, and that would be a good thing. oh, and another reason people smoke is that it's addictive.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Note: If you're a kid with separated parents, you may not want to read this

 

The government cannot tell people that if they get married that they must live together for the rest of their lives. It's a tradedy that the divorce rate is so high but the government can't change it. People have the right to get divorced.

 

Children whose parents divorce simply 'because they don't love each others' or something like that -to put it short, who divorce needlessy -are hurt really bad; actually a scientific survey says that for children aged 4-16 it hurts more to have your parents divorce than it hurts to lose a grandparent or your best friend. Also the sheer numbers -50%- is so high that the UN department for childrens' rights have started to speak up. Something has to be done.

 

I didn't say the government ban divorces, as this would also lead to couples having to live together when they really should not -such as in a family with sexual abuse, etc. But what we can do is educate Generation Y on the results of divorces. I know first-hand that US Sex/Health education classes are good at educating students on things like STDs (especially HIV/AIDS), Homosexuality, Teen Pregnancies, and stuff that needs to be talked about. What the government and/or the school board should do is include education on divorces to the school plan. Inform students about the elements of divorces, mainly the terrible impact this has on kids, and the fact that separation is not the solution as it INEVITABLY leads to divorce.

 

In my opinion, parents who are not having/going to have kids, and parents whose kids have moved away from home (and become adults) are free to have a divorce whenever they want to.

 

99% of all relationships, in all countries, eventually either temporarily or permanently flatten out. You will reach a period when it becomes harder to show love towards your spouse (maybe because of carreers or problems at home), maybe a period where you fight a lot, maybe a period where you just grow tired of the other person. This is normal.

 

Does this mean the divorce rate should be 99.99%? Of course not. If you find yourself in a situation like that, sit down and talk and find a solution. There are thousands of websites and companies that are there to provide help for couples who's relationship is getting busy.

 

Oh, and if you have children and are going to break up, never have a separation! First of all, out of all couples who separate, 0% comes back together again. Second of all, your children will have to go trough that emotional hell twice instead of once: First, they're broken all up, then you build this false hope, then you're broken up even worse when you learn you're parents are broken up for good.

 

A 15-year old friend of mine had her parents separate and was 'all down'. The day after the separation she sat in class and cried, and months after it she couldn't sleep at night (which lead to her being all sleepy at day). That, and she was visibly depressed. When her parents divorced, she had no tears left to cry. If a 15-year old is hurt that badly by that, then I don't want to think about how her 10-year old brother and even younger sister coped, poor little things . Children with divorced parents are also more likely to become violent, do drugs, drop out, or become unemployed than kids with united families.

 

I think that if our generation, or the next generation, can be thaught about the negative effects on divorces, then the divorce rate will go down the way the amount of STD cases went down when we started teaching about AIDS and STDs. Instead, we have magazines writing articles like "can there be a happy divorce" etc. practically encouraging people to separate as part of "the American way".

 

Nobody's going to force you to have kids with someone you're tired of. But if you've already got children (and fellow kids and teens, I'm not seeking to imply that you're just someone who's "in the way"), then at least wait until they've moved away from home.

 

And no, living together is not against the constitution. If you want to have a divorce to leave your spouse and kids to "pursue happiness", think about the happiness you're forever taking away from your beloved children -the unwritten right to grow up with a united family.

 

Dagobahn Eagle

[Admiral Odin]

Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3

Interesting article, Admiral, but I think even u will admit it doesn't prove anything.

 

From what I hear from all news sources, Iraq is going to let inspectors in soon, it's just inspectors feel they are limited. I can see them coming in the near future tho.

 

I didn't mean that it proved anything, it is just pertinate to this converstation. It als brings up why weapon inspection is needed.

 

Saddam has said come back inspect, however you can't inspect any presidential palaces. This basically won't accomplish anything because the inspections are still limited and restricted. It wouldn't be so bad if there was only on palace, but he has many (I think maybe around 50, but I really don't know for sure). By placing that restriction on the inspections if he has weapons of mass distruction, that is where they will be hidden.

 

Saddam has to allow unrestricted weapon inspections until he does he won't prove a thing and we will eventually have to invade.

 

As far as diplomacy is going, we are still trying that. Bush has told Saddam to comply with UN sanctions and if he does war will be averted. So far Saddam hasn't.

[darthfergie]

wow. this thread has some of the longest and insane posts since the gun thread!

 

I've been gone for most of this so don't expect me to read all of it.

 

Personally I think we ARE going to war. No choice. Bush is doing this now. I was a bit disapointed though. He made a speech a little ways back. Direct quote here..."He tried to kill my daddy."

 

I'm sorry but that's no reason to escalate to war.

 

I've yet to see any real reason to declare war. No event. Nothing Sadaam has done for a while. I'd also like to see some of his evidence for attacking Afganistan personally. Bush has kept alot away from us and eventually it'll leak out and people will say "Now why didn't he say so earlier? I would have supported him if I knew we had hard evidence of Sadaam having Nukes (etc)"

[Artoo]

I must say, that was very very well put eagle. In fact I'd call it publishing worthy. Something I will not refute, too bad your ideals are republican ones you filthy democrat.

 

Republicans are all about family values. Very traditional conservative folks they are. Totally against gay/lesbian couples, and they are totally against abortion. Yep their all about family values.

 

Things like this make me happy to be one.

[Admiral Odin]

I also have to say that you wrote that nicely Eagle, and I agree with you. (please note that I'm just stating what the government can do or cannot do).

 

I'd also like to see some of his evidence for attacking Afganistan personally.

 

Um, the terrorist bases....the public support of terrorism by the taliban. A lot of intelligence cannot be release as it might comprise the source of where it came from. In time it will be but until then you have to wait.

[darthfergie]

bases yes, but thats no reason to dissolve a government. Find me Ben Laden then make the gov. allow you in to take down the bases. If they hinder you...well...they won't be hindering you for long...but I'm not sure I would have dissolved the government and THEN replaced it with another crappy government. A waste if you ask me.

[Jatt13]

that is one thing i fully agree with you on, eagle. like others said, very well put. i wish i could show that to people who are thinking about getting divorced.

 

 

I'd also like to see some of his evidence for attacking Afganistan personally.

 

the taliban is the only part of afganistan that should be attacked. i'm not talking about bin laden nd al quida (or however you spell it), i do think they should be attacked, but the people of afganistan have done nothing wrong, they're just caught in the middle. it's the central power, the government who support terrorism.

 

ok, for all you who think we shouldn't go to war with iraq, and give saddam a chance, ect., check this article out. it might change your mind.

 

Here's another another article about what happens to women in iraq. here's an exert from it:

 

"The heads of many women have been publicly cut off in the streets under the pretext of being liars, while in fact they mostly belonged to families opposing the Iraqi regime. Women, especially dissident women, have been raped by members of Saddam Hussein's gang ... The wives of dissidents have been either killed or tortured in front of their husbands in order to obtain confessions from their husbands . . . Women have been kidnapped as they walk in the streets by members of the gangs of Uday and Qusay [saddam’s sons] and then raped," Shallal said.

 

sound like saddam's a person to give a lot of extra time and trust to?

[Jatt13]

just found another article that further proves my point.

 

and here's a pro-war site with some very interesting srticles about why we should go to war with iraq.

[darthfergie]

And what has he done to us? Where is our REASON to send troops there to dissolve his government? We shouldn't embark on a large campaign because his polocies are bad. He has done nothing out of the ordinary to prevoke us. The worst part of the thing is...if we go and attack Iraq, then it will LOOK LIKE if not BE a war of vengence. "You made my Daddy look bad!" sorry, but being upset that your dad screwed up doesn't mean that you can go back like nothing has happened and try to correct it after many years. If he can actually supply a decent REASON for war other then "It is likly that they have nukes." or "He killed a lot of people a long time ago."

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm for taking Sadaam down. I just don't want the US becoming the UN through our power hunger.