Tie Guy Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Originally posted by STTCT I'm all for the cause...but not for the concequences....unless it is proven that the cause outwieghs the concequences. Life is a risky business. You have to take risks to protect your country and ideals. I mean, how serious are you about the cause if you aren't willing to take a risk to obtain it. We aren't certain that the cause will outweigh the consequences, but what in life is completely certain? Bush has done his best to provide the most amount of "proof" but people still reject it and say its not enough. Well, i think its about time we realize that nothing in life comes without sacrifice. Sure, attacking Iraq is a big risk, but isn't the safety of the nation worth it? Risk big, win big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Besides, once you work for the cause, you will never know the consequences. Never. And I trust that you don't/won't want to know them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Originally posted by krkode Actually, it proves nothing. As exagerated as it is it's not statements like that that illustrate morons. Why not? It's statements like "stupid USA" and "why did they bomb a populated area" that illustrate a true moron. Oh, sorry, I forgot that you're a freaking moron if you respect human life [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Why not? Instead of asking why not, why don't you tell me why so. Oh, sorry, I forgot that you're a freaking moron if you respect human life It's great that you respect human life. Try also to respect human opinion and try to understand a human's needs and reasons for doing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Correction: my post is on the "Iraq has chemical weapons" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn Oh, sorry, I forgot that you're a freaking moron if you respect human life [/sarcasm] :| Did you not even see the " " in his post. That means it was a JOKE. Cool off, k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Ahhh! I just love these kinds of debates! The first thing to ask yourself. Does Bush have a good enough reason to attack Irak? Who is the true bad guy? Bush or Saddam? What are Bush's true motives? If he was truly smart the first country he would attack Saudi Arabia, home of who knows how many terrorists. Why Irak then? Is it really preventive? Has any war been "preventive"? None. War comes with an attack. Here it's gonna be the US that attacks. They are gonna start the war, not Saddam. By the way, it was the CIA that pushed Saddam into attacking Koweit during the Gulf War. Why would Saddam be more of a dangerous guy then you or me? If you go with Bush's point of vue, everyone is a potential terrorist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 If you'd actually read the thread these questions havce been answered already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Sorry I just hate to read four pages... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad By the way, it was the CIA that pushed Saddam into attacking Koweit during the Gulf War. Why would Saddam be more of a dangerous guy then you or me? If you go with Bush's point of vue, everyone is a potential terrorist! Wait, let me see if i can get this straight. The CIA pushed Saddam into starting a wat with Kuwait so that the US could go in and stop him. Thats makes a lot of sense! And, the reason Saddam is more dangerous than you or me is that he has billions of dollars, thousands of misled followers willing to fight to the death against America, and, oh yeah, weapons of mass destruction. I don't know about you, but i don't have any of that sittin' around in my back yard, but maybe you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 They go in and get louded as heroes by Kuwait and then they have a new base of operations in the persian gulf. They plan for the future... When maybe YOU have weapons of mass destructions! How can Saddam even transport them from over there to the US?! You have so much security! And does he really have weapons of mass destruction? That is still to be proven. And it doesn't even justifie a war. Why not just send in a bunch of higly trained commandoes and assasinate Saddam without endangering innocent lives? Bush wants something else. It's so obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Why not just send in a bunch of higly trained commandoes and assasinate Saddam without endangering innocent lives? As i said in the other thread, it really isn't that easy. After all, Saddam isn't the only "bad guy" out there and chances of one of his evil sidekicks taking over are pretty high... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Why not kill him and all of his evil sidekicks and then replace him with a good guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Artoo If you'd actually read the thread these questions havce been answered already. Thats odd, I can't recall those questions being answered. Perhaps you could quote it? Why not just send in a bunch of higly trained commandoes and assasinate Saddam without endangering innocent lives? Because it is political murder. Strongly forbidden, as it should be, or else we would have countries assasinating each others leaders all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Well the US tried to kill Fidel Castro more then one time and also tried to assasinate Saddam through spies. I don't understand how is that different... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Well the US tried to kill Fidel Castro more then one time and also tried to assasinate Saddam through spies. I don't understand how is that different... Really? And with what "right" would they do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn Really? And with what "right" would they do that? I dunno Ask them! They're the one who tried to kill fidel and Saddam... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Thats odd, I can't recall those questions being answered. Perhaps you could quote it? Hey, they've already been answered, no skin off my back if you're too lazy to go read it. (or so ignorant that you read over it) Anyway it's obvious that you anti-war people can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag. I try not to get into these things because of a good quote I heard. "Never argue with idiots, they will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." But unfortunately I like standing up for my values. So as to avoid further frustration on my point caused by your ignorance, I'm avoiding this thread. And all other war with iraq/stupid bush threads. *leaves* *pops head back in* However try and twist WWII again, and you'll hear from me. *ducks out* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 steals idea form Zbomber Pokes thread its in the rules :sign: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Some persons never have been through a war or are child of war survivors(like me). I believe some of you don't know the horrors of it and I believe you should think about it first. I lost two uncles during the Viet-Nam war and many other relatives. The rest went on those horrible boat people trying to escape the new government. I don't want those kind of things to happen again and war only makes those things happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Artoo But unfortunately I like standing up for my values. So as to avoid further frustration on my point caused by your ignorance, I'm avoiding this thread. And all other war with iraq/stupid bush threads. I don't see why ypu are so upset... I honestly don't think there's really any danger of the war NOT happening at this point, so any discussion on the matter is purely academic. So what if the president and the administration have less than total support of the American public and world? The invasion of Iraq at this point is a given, despite questions and misgivings some of us might have over the motivations behind the action. And while we may not support the policies that put them there I will ALWAYS support our troops. I want to see each and every one of them make it back unscratched. And you use the phrase "anti-war people" like it's a bad thing. If there are alternative solutions to combat shouldn't we as a civilized nation always explore the options? War is a horror no American citizen (heck, any HUMAN BEING!) should ever have to experience if it can be helped. Sometimes it can't. Some of us are just not totally convinced that this is one of those times. But I think it's too late for that now. I truly believe WE HAVE TO INVADE AT THIS POINT! It's gone too far for us to ever back down. I just hope it's quick and clean, with few casualties on either side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 I lost two uncles during the Viet-Nam war and many other relatives. The rest went on those horrible boat people trying to escape the new government. I don't want those kind of things to happen again and war only makes those things happen! I lost MILLIONS of fellow earthlings in WWII and all the other dreaded wars that ever happened. And so did you. But prevention is better than cure. And some of the wars that have been fought have only made the world a better place. And LukeIamyourdad says this Has any war been "preventive"? None. I think MANY and almost ALL wars have been preventive. The civil war prevented the US from splitting. The American Revolutionary war prevented another possible century of british rule. WWII prevented the whole of Europe being taken over by Germany...and so goes the list. Of course, there are always first provokings, and this may be a war without that...but remember, there's always a first time to things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad Well the US tried to kill Fidel Castro more then one time and also tried to assasinate Saddam through spies. I don't understand how is that different... Oh really? And did you see that in a movie or did you ask President Clinton himself? Next time you make such a claim, you might want to base it on facts you can present. And Saddam could theoretically just ship the bomb to somone in America or put it in a boat, drive it into Manhatten harbor, and destroy the entire city. Buts that's only 7 million casualties, a enormously higher count than if we attacked Iraq now. Remember Desert Storm? It took just over three months of air bombing, about three days of ground fighting, and we hardly lost anything at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 We also kinda attacked from their backdoor and many Iraqis gave up very quickly...but that's beside the point...they are better equiped now and so are we, but Saddam has to have something up his sleve...he can't have expected that he would win. What is it? Korean intervention + Communism = Islamic and Communist alliance to drive back the capitolist invaders? What? BTW- If you were refering to the bay of pigs as an attack on Castro...in a sense you are right, but it wasn't an assasination plot. It was an attempted coup. Fedel would have undoubtedly escaped with his life...poloticians are smart like that. As for assasinating Saddam...havn't heard a thing about it. It may have happened once or twice...but the only thing we did to him was blow up his palaces and bunkers in hopes that he was there...I guess that's kind of an assasination...in the middle of a warzone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 No no no you got it wrong. it wasn't the bay of pigs. I heard it from a documentary(from a very reliable source here in canada) that spies equipped with guns disguized as cameras, tried to kill Castro. I wouldn't be surprise if the NORTH Koreans(to be fair with the south guys) gets into this conflict. krkrode- I guess you didn't get my point. Those war had a provoking first( Afghan war after 9/11, 9/11 being the provocative thing). This time, Saddam didn't provoke no-one. Preventive means to avoid things that WILL happen. We arent even sure if saddam has any weapons of mass destruction. edlib- I know this is kind of pointless. Many journalist made joke about george bush attacking wether or not saddam has weapons of mass destructions. I guess we can't really stop it now. And you're right war is a last option. Even some american generals say that it's a last option and right now it's not the last option(taken from a local newspaper). Tie Guy- Are you saying that american lifes are more important then others? 'cause this can turn into a WWIII which will kill much more then 7 millions! Of course I don't want anyone to die and I just want to avoid war as much as possible. if you can prove me that saddam will use weapons of mass destruction, then I will turn to your side. Heck! North Korea has TWO a-bombs. Why not attacking them??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.