Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 First of all, he's planning to, as he said it, "punish Germany for their treason" by withdrawing all U.S. military units out of Germany. The only objective of this, he says, "is to damage Germany's economy". Germany earns over a million dollars each year on income from supplying the American units in Germany. Treason? What kind of treason is he talking about? Not wanting to take part in a war? I don't see how Germany shouldn't have the choice of wheter she wants to go to war or not (now, don't make the name all the wars our poor old friends have had to be trough, and the same goes for the rest of Eurasia, both West and East). It's like asking the United States to be hit by four more hijacked airplanes, for crying out loud! Second, the United States just learned that some terrorist group was planning a big attack on the USA that was to take place last Thursday or Friday. The only reason the terrorists didn't carry it out was that terrorism had gotten so much attention (and earned a high alert level), that the terrorists would lose the element of surprise. When asked if the Americans should feel safe, he began this dictator-style speech of "the people can be ensured that they are safe and blah blah blah," as well as "the President has said that...":mad:. Exactly why can we feel safe? Why can't he give us facts instead of this nonsense jargon that only authoritarian rulers are supposed to give? "We're good, they're evil, but our beloved President is taking care of us". I just had to get this off of my chest. If I choose to stay in the States, I'll vote Democratic Party all the way. I've had enough of Bush, Rumsfield, Lott, Thurmond and all those other guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 everything's going to be alright so calm down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Well, i haven't heard anything about this, so i won't say too much, but the US certainly has every right to withdraw troops from Gernmany whenever they please for whatever reason they please. Why do we need troops there anyway? It also seems likely it would be to reinforce regiments near Iraq, not simply to punish Germany. And just for the record, Thurmond used to be a Democrat until relatively recently, and ran on the Dixiecratic (southern Democratic) ticket for President, on segregational policies, i might add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 I do not believe for a second that Rumsfeld is really a moron. He does, however, scare the hell out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by edlib I do not believe for a second that Rumsfeld is really a moron. He does, however, scare the hell out of me. That's a very good point. If all the people in Bush's administration were simply morons, you would simply end up with a second Canada They know what they're doing... and that's not necessarily for the good of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Yeah,.. I just hope that the governments of Iraq and North Korea are half as scared as I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Originally posted by Sherack Nhar They know what they're doing... and that's not necessarily for the good of the people. Oh, and what would be good for the people? To sit back and wait for another terrorist attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherack Nhar Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy Oh, and what would be good for the people? To sit back and wait for another terrorist attack? To concentrate on the real, more dangerous threat, North Korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by Sherack Nhar To concentrate on the real, more dangerous threat, North Korea. I've said it before, i'll say it again. North Korea is less of a threat in declaring their weapons than Iraq is in hiding them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy I've said it before, i'll say it again. North Korea is less of a threat in declaring their weapons than Iraq is in hiding them. Finally, someone who knows why Iraq is the US' first priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Ok... I have a verry good question for all of you, why are you all so scared? it seems that you are just anti bush. At least he is doing what he feels is right unlike clinton. What is so wrong with military action, there have been agressing armies since the beginning of time, and a preemptive strike is not a bad thing. this is simply in the form of defense, not offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy I've said it before, i'll say it again. North Korea is less of a threat in declaring their weapons than Iraq is in hiding them. N. Korea is more of a threat since we know they have nukes, the capability to hit US soil, and a madman in charge crazy enough to do it. Iraq doesn't have nukes. They're not going to use their WOMD's unless provoked (the alternative is national suicide). And pose no threat at all to the US. and a preemptive strike is not a bad thing. Pearl Habour was a pre-emptive strike. I'm sure you thought that quite alright, and that the Japanese were in their full right to do so, since you were threatening them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy Oh, and what would be good for the people? To sit back and wait for another terrorist attack? It is certainly better than to provoke more terrorist attacks. Terrorists cannot be fought with bombs and guns, terrorists are just angry people, and they certainly won't get any less angry if you bomb them. there have been agressing armies since the beginning of time, and a preemptive strike is not a bad thing. But that must mean that Saddam right now has all rights to attack you. And Rumsfield is a moron, since he wish to "punish Germany for their treason". What treason, I ask. To be wanting peace is certainly not treason. If US was invaded by Canada , and Germany, as a member of NATO had refused to help defending, then we might talk a bit about treason. But certainly not now. If anyone has been treasoning here, it's the US goverment, since they don't give a crap about what their "allies" think. Ok... I have a verry good question for all of you, why are you all so scared? ??? 1. Scared of what? 2. Who are you talking to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn It is certainly better than to provoke more terrorist attacks. Terrorists cannot be fought with bombs and guns, terrorists are just angry people, and they certainly won't get any less angry if you bomb them. In fact, this whole "war on terrorism" is as futile as a "war on drugs". You can't win. As for Iraq, I'm mostly interested in the aftereffects of a war down there. Sure, it'll be a pushover (except for Baghdad, which would likely claim many civilian lives), and you'll have Hussein removed in no time - but do you expect democracy to take its righteous place after that? Do you expect that the Arab world is just going to sit there, thinking "well, there went another nation to Americanism" and not do anything? Israel will suffer. Iran is going to hate you for this. If you do anything more hostile than promoting Avril Lavigne down there, the whole middle east is going to erupt in flames and chemical weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joesdomain Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 I am glad he is talking the way he is. Saddem should of taken care of in the Gulf War but we didn't. Now we have a chance to get one more dictator out of government. I support Bush and his administration including rumsfield and powell. Germany and France are gutless. Too afraid to anger their Muslim population by going to war. I figure the day Iraq gets a democracy and North Korea gets their butts kicked their will be peace. There will always be some idiot or terrorist group in the world who doesn't like the U.S. One less dictator means more freedom to it's own country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by joesdomain Germany and France are gutless. Too afraid to anger their Muslim population by going to war. You just don't get it, do you? Ok, let's imagine there's a guy at your school, who usually bully those in your neighbourhood, and has annoyed you a bit in the past. And now you decide to blow his house into pieces with a bomb, to kill this guy. Only problem is, the bomb will also blow away all the nearby houses, killing anyone who lives there. Now, your friends won't help you in this, and tells you that you shouldn't do it. Are they really gutless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn You just don't get it, do you? Ok, let's imagine there's a guy at your school, who usually bully those in your neighbourhood, and has annoyed you a bit in the past. And now you decide to blow his house into pieces with a bomb, to kill this guy. Only problem is, the bomb will also blow away all the nearby houses, killing anyone who lives there. Now, your friends won't help you in this, and tells you that you shouldn't do it. Are they really gutless? No, you obviously don't get it yourself if thats all you can come up with. First of all, this bully of yours at school is harmless. Sure, he pushes people around, but nothing to serious. He's a nuisance, and one that can dealt with without bloodshed or anything violent. Now, imagine this bully was building a bomb to blow up the kids at school, and all his friends and neighbors were helping him. Now suppose youo talk to him about it and he lies, despite evidence prooving otherwise. You know he has the bomb, but your friends aren't sure and decide to trust him. Isn't it you ethical duty to either convince your friends to deal with him, or deal with him yourself? You wouldn't just sit back and let him blow up the school, especially when you would be in it. Even if your friends thought you were wrong, you know you have to stop him and his friends. The second bully is Saddam. If France and Germany want to ignore the threat he poses, then so be it, but we cannot. We have a duty to save ourselves and others from what we know he has. Now, if a few civilians happen to die because the bully has them inside his house to hide behind, its sad, very sad. But is the lives of a small few that could possibly die in an attack worth the lives of all those that could die in the bombing of the school? Its not like we are going to take out the entire "neighborhood," just Saddam and his regime. Its possible a few civilians will die on accident, but that is a risk that sadly must be taken. Everyone accepts that people will die in war, what he won't accept is when people die because we were too afraid to go to war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Also there's a good reason why France is being pig-headed about it. Their economy is tied up in Iraq. You people who call Bush an Oil hungry madmen. What do you think France is? They know if Saddam gets replaced they might not get near the good trade they do with Iraq right now. Heh, France is actually waht people think the U.S. is. Oil-hungry. So at least they aren't just ignoring the facts, they're just being France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 25, 2003 Author Share Posted February 25, 2003 Okay, enough about France. What about China, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Mexico, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Canada, Germany, Latvia, Syria, South Africa, Madagascar, and Brazil? All these countries, and more, oppose the war. Think they've all got selfish reasons for not wanting a war? Or maybe they just know what war in your homeland is like and don't want to force it on the Iraqis (France lost 40 000 in one single battle). You should have the right to oppose a war without having the aggressor come up with conspiracy theories against you . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Or maybe they just know what war in your homeland is like and don't want to force it on the Iraqis (France lost 40 000 in one single battle). You should have the right to oppose a war without having the aggressor come up with conspiracy theories against you . A single battle, huh? How bout Gettysburg, or Antietam? Ever heard of those? Its not the Iraqis were waging war on, BTW, it's Saddam and his regime. We've made it clear that Iraq is not our target, its Saddam and his WMDs. We aren't going to intentionally harm the citizens, we'll be too busy liberating them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy Its possible a few civilians will die on accident, but that is a risk that sadly must be taken. Everyone accepts that people will die in war, what he won't accept is when people die because we were too afraid to go to war. *Off-topic* So by extending your argument, you also agree that when speaking of abortion, a few "civilian casualties" are acceptable, as they're in the way of the greater good - unwanted children, massive overpopulation in Africa and India and preventing teenage girls from having a change of pace they didn't quite expect. *back on topic* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais *Off-topic* So by extending your argument, you also agree that when speaking of abortion, a few "civilian casualties" are acceptable, as they're in the way of the greater good - unwanted children, massive overpopulation in Africa and India and preventing teenage girls from having a change of pace they didn't quite expect. *back on topic* No, don't get me started, but that makes no sense at all. There are other ways to deal with overpopulation, and since when is it ok to not want your child? That's sickening. No, thats not the greater good, it is personal convience. Saddam is a threat to the free peoples of the earth, and we have attempted to deal with him in every other way. War is all that is left, and it must be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy No, you obviously don't get it yourself if thats all you can come up with. I can come up with more - but you won't get my point anyway. First of all, this bully of yours at school is harmless. Sure, he pushes people around, but nothing to serious. He's a nuisance, and one that can dealt with without bloodshed or anything violent. He, as everyone else, isn't harmless. He could get an axe and brutally murder all those he don't like, but he knows he will be put to jail for it, and will get his life ruined, so he won't do that. Now, imagine this bully was building a bomb to blow up the kids at school, and all his friends and neighbors were helping him. Now suppose youo talk to him about it and he lies, despite evidence prooving otherwise. You know he has the bomb, but your friends aren't sure and decide to trust him. Isn't it you ethical duty to either convince your friends to deal with him, or deal with him yourself? You wouldn't just sit back and let him blow up the school, especially when you would be in it. Even if your friends thought you were wrong, you know you have to stop him and his friends. A bomb is not a very good description, a gun would be better, because certain people belives it can be used for defense. So, you know he has had a gun in the past, and don't belive him when he says that he destroyed that gun, because he's not supposed to have a gun. Now, your friends sends people to check if he has guns. They don't find anything. Then, you give them and the rest of the school "evidence" that he has guns, but the weapons inspectors don't want to waste their time on such rubbish, as they call it. Now, you still want to blow up his entire neighbourhood to get rid of him, even though you don't "know" anything, you don't know if he has the gun, you don't know if he wants to use the gun, etc. The second bully is Saddam. If France and Germany want to ignore the threat he poses, then so be it, but we cannot. We have a duty to save ourselves and others from what we know he has. Hmmm. USA has chemical weapons and nuclear weapons, we know that. And they actually seriously consider using them. They have broken UN rules, and are now warmongering against a country who has done nothing agressively for some time. They are a larger threat against peace than any other country. Does this mean that we should attack US? And what about Israel? They have broken loads of UN regulations by occupying parts of Palestine. We know that they have WoMDs. Why shouldn't we attack them? Its not like we are going to take out the entire "neighborhood," just Saddam and his regime. Its possible a few civilians will die on accident, but that is a risk that sadly must be taken. "A few"? The number of civillian casualties are more likely to be a million or two. The US goverment knows this, but are still going to sacrifice loads of other lifes for their own welfare. A single battle, huh? How bout Gettysburg, or Antietam? Ever heard of those? Those battles were not only long ago, they were also much smaller than the most terrifying battles in WW2. Sovjet lost more soliders at the battle of Stalingrad than USA lost through the whole war. Its not the Iraqis were waging war on, BTW, it's Saddam and his regime. We've made it clear that Iraq is not our target, its Saddam and his WMDs. But the civillians are going to be severely harmed, whether you like it or not. Do you really think they want war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy There are other ways to deal with overpopulation, Wars, for instance, have always worked great . The only problem is, you'll have to kill living human beings instead of preventing them from ever excisting. and since when is it ok to not want your child? That's sickening. I totally agree. Honestly, who would not want to give up their entire education and $1.000.000+ and spend most of their time on raising a child that she never ever wanted and would have a crappy adolescence anyway? [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.