jediduo Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Oh man, Eagle. I just have two questions for you.... 1) How old are you? (Can I even ask that here?) 2) Do you believe everything your dear grandparents say? I am in favor of war, and I concur with Artoo when he says "about time". For all you people who are protesting the war, put down your signs and shut up. The biggest thing we need here is to support our troops, regardless of our viewpoint. It makes me really mad that people are flinging obscenities at our armed forces, who are risking their lives to save the ungrateful butts of the skeptics back home. Is this war going to last long? NO. This may come as a shocker to some, but many Iraqi soldiers don't want any part of this. I heard on the news today that U.S. forces on the Kuwait side of the Kuwait/Iraq border were running military drills this morning. They were live-fire exercises, and two divisions of the Iraqi army heard them. GET THIS: The Iraqis immediately threw down their weapons and ran across the border to surrender to our boys in uniform. BEFORE THE FRICKING WAR STARTED!! Go get 'em, Dubya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by jediduo Is this war going to last long? NO. This may come as a shocker to some, but many Iraqi soldiers don't want any part of this. I heard on the news today that U.S. forces on the Kuwait side of the Kuwait/Iraq border were running military drills this morning. They were live-fire exercises, and two divisions of the Iraqi army heard them. GET THIS: The Iraqis immediately threw down their weapons and ran across the border to surrender to our boys in uniform. BEFORE THE FRICKING WAR STARTED!! That's basically the same thing that happened 10 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by Admiral Bush tonight will give Saddam an Ultimatum. Shortly thereafter a war will begin. A war in which under 1341 we have every right to wage. An ultimatum Bush knows Saddam won't agree with. He is basically declaring war. And you have no right to go to war. The SC is against it, wich is enough to say that by going to war, you are doing a crime. There will be civilian causulties however they will be relativly few. Nothing like Vietnam. The United States doesn't target civilians nor do we want to kill them. Saddam will try to use them as human shields and their deaths will be on his head. Most the civillian casualties aren't going to come from bombs. But a war will cause serious problems in Iraq, wich will cause the death of a lot of civillians, 2 million is a realistic number. Or perhaps you belive you know better than experts on the area. I have listened to others saying Saddam should be given more time. I believe 12 years is more than enough. He has failed to disarm, the UN has failed to enforce the resolutions. So now the US and her allies will do it for them. He is disarming. Spent 12 years to make him to, and now you're going to throw it all away? First of all, i want to know who said this war would kill 2 million people? And second of all, what was he trippin' on? We certainly aren't going to lose that many, we didn't lose 10% of that in all of WWI, and i doubt Iraq even has that many soldiers. Some civilians will be killed on accident by us, more probably killed Saddam himself, but 2 million?!? Heck no. Maybe absolute worst case with nukes and what not, but that's not going to happen. If you belive you know better than UN experts, then that's your problem. Oh, but i heard a report the other day that says 6000 children are killed in Iraq every month because of the UN's policies and inaction. We're saving A LOT more than 3000 people here. But it was the US that made those sanctions happen. You aren't saving 6000 children each month by going to war, you are killing 6000 children each month right now. Qui-Gon, why is going against the Security Council a crime? Because it's against the rules. A war shall only be declared if the SC agrees with it. Goin to war when the SC says no is a much worser crime than hiding some rockets. So right now, Bush is a much larger criminal than Saddam. Well they haven't, we still haven't seen everything or interviewed all those we need to. If Saddam has broken 1441 or not can be discussed. But US wouldn't want to do that. Iraq has made a few minor concessions, and now everyone saying he is disarming. What the heck? You think that destroying a few missle at the rate of one a day is disarming? Blix said himself that it was dangerous weapons that had been destroyed, not just some "few missiles". He could just detonate them in the desert all at once, causing no harm and no time, but he doesn't. Nope, he takes weeks to disarm, which buys time while still making everyone think that he is disarming. Since you and I have very little knowledge about weapon disarming, I think neither should say how easy it is to do it. Look 1441 promised "serious consequences", and it was UNANIMOUSLY passed, by France and every other nation. Now, it is clear that he has not fully complied, As I said before, whether or not they have broken it can be discussed. France and the others are turning their backs on themselves, afraid to carry out the sentence they gave. Afraid? Hehe. People here in Europe does not fear Saddam. A lot of them do, however, fear Bush. So it's pretty brave to oppose him. And you know, i doubt it has anything to do with French investment in Iraqi oil refineries or mines. The French are just nice and benevolant people who simply want peace and happiness for everyone worldwide, and at no cost to anyone. Precisely. The crime here, is NOT stopping this mass murderer. The crime here is killing Iraq's innocent people and ruining the country for decades to come. And i've just about enough of your USA and particurally Bush bashing. At least, that must be what you're doing if you think we are going to bomb Iraqi houses and families, because it certainly doesn't make any sense otherwise. We aren't going to attack civilians. There might be some innocent lives lost, and that's tragic, but it's brought on not by us, it's brought on by Iraq's corrupt and despotic leadership. Right... Please open your eyes a bit. Civillians die even if you don't target them. They will be badly affected by the war, and in such a country where the living conditions are already pretty bad, a war will kill them. Either Bush knows this, wich makes him a really horrible man, or he doesn't, wich makes him dumb. Oh yeah, and i just want you to tell me that the 6000 or so people who died in Iraq last month because of starvation from Saddam's policies and spending didn't want him removed? You'd rather thousands of people die every month than for the US to "warmonger." Better them than you, i guess, huh? Do you really belive no civillians will die of a war? Those 6000 aren't killed by Saddam, but by your own, good self. and 2 million? 2 million what? ants in the sand? No. 2 million people. You heard that? People. ...oh, sorry, I forgot they don't matter much as long as their not American I could go on and on quoting people, but since you all say practically the same, I won't bother. But I just wonders something: How come you trust 100% every single bit that comes out of GW's mouth? We here talk about a man who doesn't give a damn about his own people, doesn't give a damn about the Iraqi people, doesn't give a damn about other countries' opinions, betraying his allies by not giving a damn about what they say. A man who bribes and threatens other countries into agreeing with him. A man with the intelligence level of an average ostrich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 How come you trust 100% every single bit that comes out of GW's mouth? We here talk about a man who doesn't give a damn about his own people, doesn't give a damn about the Iraqi people, doesn't give a damn about other countries' opinions, betraying his allies by not giving a damn about what they say. A man who bribes and threatens other countries into agreeing with him. A man with the intelligence level of an average ostrich. What!? Don't tell me you had one on one intelligence tests with him. The guy's from Yale, which may not say much but we can safely say he's not dumb. Dumb guys don't get to be president of the USA. And just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he's dumb. It means you disagree with him. And why should people not trust their president elect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 krkode- Trust no-one, Mr Mulder JM Qui-Gon Jinn- I agree with u on the whole anti-war thing, but as a soveriegn country USA has the right to go to war with, heck, Canada, or anyone else. I am not liking the reasons for it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn No. 2 million people. You heard that? People. ...oh, sorry, I forgot they don't matter much as long as their not American That was a fairly... well... you look like an a-hole when you say that quite frankly. I said it before, we won't go in attacking innocent civilians. Add the fact that their army will surrended faster than you can blink an eye... I'm gonna hold you to that 2 million quote tough guy... it will not be forgotten and you can appologize for the accusation later. I'm not going to get into a quality of life debate with you since you're pretty far off the mark here... I still can't believe you said that second comment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc Stryphe Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3 krkode- JM Qui-Gon Jinn- I agree with u on the whole anti-war thing, but as a soveriegn country USA has the right to go to war with, heck, Canada, or anyone else. I am not liking the reasons for it though. Actually, according to international law, geneva conventions, A nation cannot declare war against another nation without a U.N approved resolution, unless it is in retaliation for a attack made against the nation. Bush is acting under UN resolution 1441, which was issued in November 2001 which stated that Iraq was in material breach of UN sanctions and if it did not immediatley comply with the UN it would suffer "serious consequences". It is those words that Bush says justifies our decleration of war, and therefor we are not in violation of international law. That is why the US pulled the newest proposed UN resolution that they, britain, and spain worked so hard on, before it went to a vote, because it was going to be Veto'd by either France or Russia on the security council, and therefor the war would be in violation of international law. It is, instead, the ambiguity of the original resolution that Bush is using in his favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 let's face it, the UN is pretty much a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by Havoc Stryphe Bush is acting under UN resolution 1441, which was issued in November 2001 which stated that Iraq was in material breach of UN sanctions and if it did not immediatley comply with the UN it would suffer "serious consequences". It is those words that Bush says justifies our decleration of war, and therefor we are not in violation of international law. That is why the US pulled the newest proposed UN resolution that they, britain, and spain worked so hard on, before it went to a vote, because it was going to be Veto'd by either France or Russia on the security council, and therefor the war would be in violation of international law. It is, instead, the ambiguity of the original resolution that Bush is using in his favor. Resolution 1441 contained 'no hidden triggers' and that is the only reason it received uninimity in the council. Personally I am pro war, but I fail to see why France is not justified in doing what they have done. It was clear from the beginning that the US and UK would go to war regardless of the UN, so it is no wonder that France threatened to veto anything leading to war through the UN. All of this talk of blaming all on France is ludicrous. It is simply a machivellian ploy to deflect blame away from Bush and Blair for defying international law. (for once I actually feel sympathy for Chirac!) The reality of the situation is that the US pulled the diplomatic plug because they knew they would not receive the backing of the UN, the longer it goes on, the more embarrasing it appears for the worlds sole superpower, and the harsher the conditions for the US & UK soldiers fighting in the deserts of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 18, 2003 Author Share Posted March 18, 2003 Dumb guys don't get to be president of the USA. And just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he's dumb. It means you disagree with him. He's extremely ignorant, which is, in most societies, a sign of stupidity. And why should people not trust their president elect? What about a president who got elected with a minority of the votes;)? Oh man, Eagle. I just have two questions for you.... 1) How old are you? (Can I even ask that here?) 2) Do you believe everything your dear grandparents say? No, I'll thrust you, who never has seen a battle in real life, before I thrust actual witnesses to WW II. I know you probably know a lot more about invasions, battles, results of war, and consequences in general . Do you believe everything your dear president say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Qui-Gon, 2 million people is ludicrous. You realize that if both armies were entirely decimated to the last person, less than a million would be killed. You realize that if we liberate Iraq then the people will actually get money to buy food from the oil they sell. You realize that the 6000 people dying every month is of starvation because Saddam takes all oil money and aid money for himself and his military. You make it sound like I myself kill them with a pistol or something. If anyone is responsible it's Saddam, if not him, it's everyone in the UN, and that woul be you too. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but i've heard my own experts, and quite frankly a large number of them, that say this war probably won't last over a fortnight and that a very small number of people will die. After Iraq is free, it's people will be free, and thats not going to cause unrest or death, it's going to cause relief and aid that saves lives. Aid it needs now, but Saddam takes it all for himself. Face it, this war will save countless Iraqi lives, and theres just not a way around it unless we lose. And certainly he is "disarming." I mean, he has these incredibly "dangerous weapons" that he isn't supposed to have and that you believed he never had. He destroys them at an incredibly slow pace so as to buy time, and meanwhile he brings forth no new wepaons for destruction. You blind yourself with illusions of peace when all hope, unfortunately, is lost. Why are you so willing to trust Saddam? You wouldn't believe that Bush was telling the truth if he told you his middle name, but you believe and trust a crazed madman that we know know has "dangerous weapons" and hasn't told us?!? And fo the last time, we are NOT going to kill innocents. I've heard countless people say that Saddam might try to kill his own people, or ruin his own economy, but no one has said that we will kill civilians. We won't, we'll save them. Some may die accidentally, but no more than Saddam kills every month because the UN hasn't done anything. Don't try to make us out like mass murderers, because all it is or seems to be is an empty accusation coming from an inflamed mind who is desperately ignorant and trying to hide it. You are free to disagree, but it is just plain wrong to accuse us falsely of things like this. As for Bush, he WAS elected by a majority. Popular votes don't count in this country, only electoral votes, which are a direct reflection of the people. Besides, do you really want to argue with me over a few hundred or what not votes. I'm sure if i looked i could make up the difference in dead people that voted for Gore, and i completely serious. Oh, and i don't agree with everything out of Bush's mouth, but i certainly trust it. What, you think he's just lying? This isn't Clinton, we can trust Bush. Sure, you may not a agree, and that's understandable, but you certainly have absolutely no grounds to discredit him. And please don't he's stupid, because i don't see you in the white house, or in the equivalent office in your own country. I don't think you've made millions in business or run a sucessful organization much less government. Besides, I don't insult Chirac or France or anyone else, though I certainly could. I don't insult ya'll for your opinions, and you don't want me to. Then you can at least try to be non-hypocritic and not insult others on this board or in our nation. Your free to say his policies are stupid, but it's completely uneccessary to say he himself is stupid when you clearly have basis to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Tieguy, your arguements are clear. Although I do not agree you make some credibale statements. You can trust Bush as much as you like to. Just as the Third Reich could be trusted by Germans in WW2. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to compare Bush to Hitler in any sense. That just would be ludacris. What Im trying to say is that American History has proved over and over that Propaganda is a tool of power. Remember watergate? Or how about the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Before both of those events the Presidents were very well respected for the most part but those two events changed everything. I guess what I am trying to say is that thinking for yourself is much more helpful to you then anything a President can ever say. It's not what your country can do for you. Its what you can do for your country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy I'm not claiming to be an expert, but i've heard my own experts, and quite frankly a large number of them, that say this war probably won't last over a fortnight and that a very small number of people will die. After Iraq is free, it's people will be free, and thats not going to cause unrest or death, it's going to cause relief and aid that saves lives. Aid it needs now, but Saddam takes it all for himself. Face it, this war will save countless Iraqi lives, and theres just not a way around it unless we lose. Don't blind yourself with illusions that it's just going in there, kill a couple of bad guys, and going out again without anyone hurt. It matters 0 if you want to kill civillians or not, war affects the civillians so badly that they will die. You do not know enough about war to say that nearly no civillians will die. You wouldn't believe that Bush was telling the truth if he told you his middle name, but you believe and trust a crazed madman that we know know has "dangerous weapons" and hasn't told us?!? Firstly, I don't trust Saddam. I do, however, trust the weapon inspectors. So should you. And fo the last time, we are NOT going to kill innocents. It's not like you are going to point a gun at them and shoot them. But that does not matter, civillians will die. And most likely, lots of them. Oh, and i don't agree with everything out of Bush's mouth, but i certainly trust it. What, you think he's just lying? This isn't Clinton, we can trust Bush. Sure, you may not a agree, and that's understandable, but you certainly have absolutely no grounds to discredit him. Bush has lied. To his own people. He said that Iraq aren't disarming, yet we know they are, the weapon inspectors said so themselves. And I honestly doubt Bush knows better than the weapon inspectors if Iraq is disarming or not. So he has lied. And you still haven't explained how you can trust him when he uses bribes and threats to get votes in the SC. Besides, I don't insult Chirac and say he's in bed with Saddam, though he is. That statement shows that you don't know half of France's opinions, and you don't tolerate them disagreeing with you. Honestly, don't you think the US boycotting of France is a bit...childish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn Don't blind yourself with illusions that it's just going in there, kill a couple of bad guys, and going out again without anyone hurt. It matters 0 if you want to kill civillians or not, war affects the civillians so badly that they will die. You do not know enough about war to say that nearly no civillians will die. I admitted some will die, did i not? I know there will be unwanted casualties, and thats tragic. But what pisses me off is when you say we kill them and make it sound like its all our fault, not putting any blame on the man responsible, Saddam, and not thinking for a second how many people can be saved by the death of a few. I know people will die if we attack, but the fact is that more people are dying because we don't attack. It's an important distinction you obviously aren't making. Firstly, I don't trust Saddam. I do, however, trust the weapon inspectors. So should you. Oh yeah, 12 years and only now, when pressured by the massive might of the US and UK militaries do they find any shred of evidence of the weapons we now see they had all along. I trust the inspectors to tell the truth, but i have absolutely no trust in them to find what Iraq has, and with good reason too. It's not like you are going to point a gun at them and shoot them. But that does not matter, civillians will die. And most likely, lots of them. "Most likely"? I'm not the war expert, but apparently now you are? Please. Every real expert i've heard says we will save lives and do this quickly with relatively few civilian casualties. That is, unless Saddam decides to blow up or gas his own cities (which is unfortunately entirely possible). Bush has lied. To his own people. He said that Iraq aren't disarming, yet we know they are, the weapon inspectors said so themselves. And I honestly doubt Bush knows better than the weapon inspectors if Iraq is disarming or not. So he has lied. And you still haven't explained how you can trust him when he uses bribes and threats to get votes in the SC. No. No. No. I wish for once you would actually read what i type. Saddam has NOT completely disarmed by any stretch on the word. Unless you think a hundred missles and a drone is all he has? He's given up what we've revealed because if he didn't the entire world, instead of just half of it, would be going to war with him. He still has other weapons he is hiding, and he has brought for no weapons for us to destroy. He's the one that's supposed to the showing us the weapons, not us trying to find them. Yet he's done nothing. He hasn't showed us any weapons to destroy, nr has he showed us any proof he destroyed them himself? So how can you possibly say he is disarming?!? That statement shows that you don't know half of France's opinions, and you don't tolerate them disagreeing with you. Honestly, don't you think the US boycotting of France is a bit...childish? Sure, but i certainly don't do that, and it's no less "childish" than France saying they will disagree with absolutely everything and every compromise the US proposes. And you know, i don't know of France's opinions. But what i do know is that they are supposedly our allies yet they won't even agree to listen to compromises or resolutions. It's them or no one, that's what it looks like to me. They wouldn't support us, according to Chirac, even if all the other members did. That's their only opinion i need to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy I admitted some will die, did i not? I know there will be unwanted casualties, and thats tragic. But what pisses me off is when you say we kill them and make it sound like its all our fault, not putting any blame on the man responsible, Saddam, and not thinking for a second how many people can be saved by the death of a few. I know people will die if we attack, but the fact is that more people are dying because we don't attack. It's an important distinction you obviously aren't making. Who is warmongering? Saddam or Bush? Bush. He is responsible for this war. And BTW, now he's even saying he'll occupy Iraq even if Saddam does leave the country. Great man, eh? "If you leave the country, we shall not attack you - oh, and BTW, we'll invade you anyway." Oh yeah, 12 years and only now, when pressured by the massive might of the US and UK militaries do they find any shred of evidence of the weapons we now see they had all along. I trust the inspectors to tell the truth, but i have absolutely no trust in them to find what Iraq has, and with good reason too. But the weapon inspectors hasn't been there all the time. And if they're there for 12 years and doesn't find anything, that would mean that we should be pretty sure they don't have very much, eh? About the rockets, they does not break any resolution directly. You see, their range was actually less than the permitted UN range, but they could be modified to get larger range. No. No. No. I wish for once you would actually read what i type. Saddam has NOT completely disarmed by any stretch on the word. Unless you think a hundred missles and a drone is all he has? He's given up what we've revealed because if he didn't the entire world, instead of just half of it, would be going to war with him. He still has other weapons he is hiding, and he has brought for no weapons for us to destroy. He's the one that's supposed to the showing us the weapons, not us trying to find them. Yet he's done nothing. He hasn't showed us any weapons to destroy, nr has he showed us any proof he destroyed them himself? So how can you possibly say he is disarming?!? I though destroying illegal weapons=disarming. Obviously, I was wrong. Sure, but i certainly don't do that, and it's no less "childish" than France saying they will disagree with absolutely everything and every compromise the US proposes. But they haven't said that. And they aren't going to do that anyway. And you know, i don't know of France's opinions. But what i do know is that they are supposedly our allies yet they won't even agree to listen to compromises or resolutions. Of course, they listen to them. But they disagree with them. Don't you think they have a right to disagree with something that they think is wrong? They wouldn't support us, according to Chirac, even if all the other members did. That's their only opinion i need to hear. But that is not because they hate the USA (wich they don't anyway). It's because they think it's wrong. When did it become childish to disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn Who is warmongering? Saddam or Bush? Bush. He is responsible for this war. And BTW, now he's even saying he'll occupy Iraq even if Saddam does leave the country. Great man, eh? "If you leave the country, we shall not attack you - oh, and BTW, we'll invade you anyway." Bush is starting the war, that's clear, but what does that have to do with anything. Its not warmongering, it's identifying a threat to America (terrorist training camps, terrorist funding, anthraw, anyone?) and dealing with. We went through the UN, they agreed that if Iraq didn't disarm we had to impose "serious consequences. And let me tell you, I garuntee you no one on the board at the time thought "serious consequences" meant more inspecters. And if they're there for 12 years and doesn't find anything, that would mean that we should be pretty sure they don't have very much, eh? No, because we've now seen that he has had weapons that could cause serious damage, they were always there, the inspecters just never found them. Some help they are. I though destroying illegal weapons=disarming. Obviously, I was wrong. That's like saying that when your mom says "eat your beans" and you eat one you've done it. He's destroyed a very small percentage of missles because he had to. He still isn't giving up his weapons and he still isn't complying. He's not disarming fully, there's no way around it. But they haven't said that. And they aren't going to do that anyway. I can't remember the exact quote, but i've heard and read Chirac's statement saying that they would veto any use of force on Iraq no matter what the conditions were. Care to say they aren't going to do that now? Of course, they listen to them. But they disagree with them. Don't you think they have a right to disagree with something that they think is wrong? They listen, sure, for appearances, but they give it no thought, which is all that matters. Read above. But that is not because they hate the USA (wich they don't anyway). It's because they think it's wrong. When did it become childish to disagree? I'm not saying they do. They are, however, trying (or at least giving us the impression that they are trying) to screw us over on our goal. Even if we accomplished all other benchmarks and evidence or ultimatums, they said they would veto the use of force they themselves approve. What does that possibly gain them expect that it hurts us and our image? Oh, besides protecting their oil ivestments and loans outstanding in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 18, 2003 Author Share Posted March 18, 2003 Just to insert something: Don't say "so-called Allies". The NATO Treaty demands that when a member country gets attacked, the other countries must protect it. It does not say they have to take part in pre-emptive attacks, so France is not a "so-called ally". The USA is trying to make the NATO alliance sound like an alliance of aggression (such as in this case with Iraq), but really, it's a defensive alliance. We can join you in pre-emptive strikes, but we don't have to. End of story. Oh, and calm it a bit, TG: The 2 000 000 number was given by experts who said that the invasion and consequences of war would kill a lot of people in addition to those Saddam kills. I also said "up to": The true number is 400 000 to 2 000 000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn And you have no right to go to war. The SC is against it, wich is enough to say that by going to war, you are doing a crime. JM... id quote the whole thing cuz i could shoot it all down, but I would like to talk about this point specivically. when clinton attacked Iraq durring his presidency he never had the support of the security council, and there was not a wimper out of the UN. Now, to say bush dosent care about his own people is a total outrage, the majority of americans believe we should go to war, therefore he is going WITH the opinion of his people. Saying he is as intellegent as an ostrich is completely low and made without backing, he may not be a genious but he is certainly thus far seemed intellegent enought to run a country. I am watching daschile (senate minority leader and the leader of the democratic party) and he is saying that he is ashamed that the president has failed so miserably at diplomacy that we have to go to war, but durring operation Desert Fox (clintons war) he gave an impassioned speach about how we should go to war, it is all partisan politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 19, 2003 Author Share Posted March 19, 2003 Darth: I said it before, we won't go in attacking innocent civilians. Add the fact that their army will surrended faster than you can blink an eye... I'm gonna hold you to that 2 million quote tough guy... it will not be forgotten and you can appologize for the accusation later. That was a fairly... well... you look like an a-hole when you say that quite frankly. We didn't "go in attacking civilians" in Afghanistan either, yet 30 000 died when we invaded.. Iraq is already a hell to live in. Bagdad is the third worst city in the world. US intervention will make it worse for so long (US has estimated that reparations will cost $100 billions. You think they really believe they're not gonna do any damage when they estimate that they'll have to pay $100 billion in reparations costs?). Yes, I think they'll do a lot of damage. Of course it's not the USA's intention to kill civilians. But if Bush really didn't want to kill civilians, he would have left Iraq alone. Question: Why would he apologize? We've got freedom of speech. And he's quoting me, and I'm quoting experts. Neither of us should apologize. And about their army surrendering: We don't know that. They will be fighting for their homeland this time. About thinkning they're "just Iraqis": A lot of pro-war activists thinks this. They are a small minority in the US population, but they are there. JM on Bush Fact of the Day: The majority of the American people are against the war. About caring about the people: - There are 40 millions without Health Insurance in the States. - 400 000+ people die every year from smoking (Bush could do something like increase the age restriction to 21. Why not? Tobacco is way more dangerous than alcohol and alcohol's restriction is 21). - 11 000 dead a year from firearms. Shouldn't someone do something about the crime rate? - Why isn't the "Family Value" Conservatives doing something with the 60% divorce rate? Something like making people take a class on family life in HS.. - Freedom of media/speech are at a decline. Bush is not exactly addressing these problems too much, is he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Fact of the Day: The majority of the American people are against the war. What? Were did you here that? I've seen several polls and in every one those who support it are above 51%. Here's a poll from a respected organization: http://www.gallup.com If you add it up, 65%, almost two-thirds of the american people, support President Bush. 30% disaprove. That's hardly a majority disaproving. 44% agree it's the right thing to do, and another 21% support the President but are unsure of wether it is right. Right, so when did 30% become a majority? - There are 40 millions without Health Insurance in the States. There are many more who can't afford it but the government gives it to them. It's called medicare, maybe you've heard of it? - 400 000+ people die every year from smoking (Bush could do something like increase the age restriction to 21. Why not? Tobacco is way more dangerous than alcohol and alcohol's restriction is 21). Well, seeing as how Prohibition worked so well, why don't we just ban it? It's been shown time and time again that the government can't stop people from smoking or drinking or doing drugs and what not. I know a great deal of kids under 18 who smoke. Oh, and the age limit is 21 at least in most states already. - 11 000 dead a year from firearms. Shouldn't someone do something about the crime rate? We are doing something, but even so, that's an incredibly small percentage of our people. It's tragic, but crime just can't be stopped by throwing money at it or snapping our fingers. What do you want us to do, there will always be evil people in the world, and a large number of people who kill with guns obtain them ilegally and without licenses. - Why isn't the "Family Value" Conservatives doing something with the 60% divorce rate? Something like making people take a class on family life in HS.. What do you want us to do? Outlaw divorce? We can't change people's morals. I think divorce is terrible, but it's a problem to be solved individually, among friends and family, not by the government. Bush is not exactly addressing these problems too much, is he? Even if he were, you wouldn't know because the war overshaddows everthing, especially from overseas. We are making attempts to fix problems at home, you just don't hear about them with a war in the mix, and i hope you can see why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 19, 2003 Author Share Posted March 19, 2003 Fine, what about stuff like, what to call them, war extremists? Just wanted to bring this up: Two people walk into a mall with T-shirts saying "give peace a chance", and get arrested for trespassing. What happened to freedom of speech? There was this concert where a couple of people didn't stand during the anthem, and people pouring beer on them. What if they were not even Americans, and thus shouldn't stand up in the first place? Then what about the firefighter statue? Shouldn't people have the right to disagree about such a thing as going to war? This whole thing reminds me of a one-party regime.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Fine, what about stuff like, what to call them, war extremists? Just wanted to bring this up: Two people walk into a mall with T-shirts saying "give peace a chance", and get arrested for trespassing. What happened to freedom of speech? There was this concert where a couple of people didn't stand during the anthem, and people pouring beer on them. What if they were not even Americans, and thus shouldn't stand up in the first place? Then what about the firefighter statue? Shouldn't people have the right to disagree about such a thing as going to war? This whole thing reminds me of a one-party regime.. Alright, so you give examples of what, five, six, maybe ten people. Don't judge America by them, because I certainly am not like that, and the vast majority of others are not. I know your party wouldn't want to be judged by your most extreme members, and that goes for every party, especially Democrats. Besides, for the T-shirt thing, they saw it as causing a disturbance. It's private property so they can kick anyone off that they want to for any reason they want to. Should they have? Probably not, but is it really such a big deal? And you now say this reminds you of a one-party regime? Weren't you just saying a little while ago that half of America disagreed with the war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 Then what about the firefighter statue? What about the firefighter statue? People had their rights abused there by a liberal artist. I hated what they did, but I don't see how it relates to anything being said. You gotta explain your beef about the firefighter statue before I get mad about that again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 eagle... sorry, but you're simply wrong all over the place. i'd like to know where you come up with some of your so called "facts." throwing out numbers like you do is nice and all but they hold no ground unless you provide a source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jediduo Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 Someone please fill me in on the seemingly irrelevant "fireman statue" that Eagle brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.