Want us to go to war?...yes or no [Archive]

FiveB247

02-17-2003, 08:21 AM

I think war should be the last possible step in solutions. So my answer is No. But obviously in the US case, we have been building up troops in the Middle East as we "try for peace". Many people share the notions of let's attack so a threat is destroyed as if to say, then the world will be safe? Sadam is one minor threat to this nation...and not directly to our nation ...not on our soil. (9-11 has nothing to do with this coming invasion). Many believe we should blow up the world to make it safe...which isn't a particularly rational thought. Causing war creates instability and unrest, not peace and stability, like we wish to achieve. The US will get Sadam and Iraq..but there is another threat on the grow as we speak. Blowing up one country (at a time) will not bring peace to the world or this nation. But I will tell you one thing, the minute the US starts bombing and invading...you will see more terrorism, bombings and such acts in and around the US. In fact, I believe al Quada is waiting for such actions to attempt another attack and such.

Meatball

02-17-2003, 09:33 AM

YES -
No one wants war - but somtimes you cant have peace without war. How naive to assume ignoring husseins war machine will work. The very fact that our govt - thousands of professionals who represent us believe we have to do this should tell you something. ARe you an expert on middle east affairs? international diplomacy? These people are. I trust Colin Powell. Did you hear his speech? IS it in their best interest to create a war we dont need? of course not! they know the cost in human lives, money, resources, world opinion and approval rating right here in the US - yet they believe strongly enough to do this anyway. THEy have access to the classified materials you and i DO NOT.
Back up your govt when they need you most..get off your liberal soapboxes with "alternatives" that have been tried for 10 yrs, and failed.
We can either go to war now..or wait 5 more years and have to do it when Husseins regime is stronger.

Your choice.

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/philex/meatball1.jpg">

ChrisTheCop

02-17-2003, 09:39 AM

I cant understand why the UN is dragging its feet on this one. It was THEIR resolution that failed the 1st time. Own up to it and correct it. You already have the most powerful nation backing you. Now, if the US goes against the UN and invades anyway...that may be trouble. I say, if the UN wakes up: YES! But if not: NO (on war)...but theres nothing wrong with a little CIA coup. Something must be done over there. And for those of you who dont see a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam, here it is: They both hate us and will do anything in their power to destroy us. Our job--limit that power.

<img src="http://rfcop.50megs.com/images/karmazinknows.gif">INFINITY BLOWS

FiveB247

02-17-2003, 11:10 AM

Our experts? Yes, many of them want invasion and war. But many have also said otherwise. Look at Stormin' Norman...he was virtually denounced for saying we shouldn't attack....and he led the last war. And the utter disregard of the UN opinions, experts, as well as other nations which are closer to the conflict (especially in target range) should be some sort of sign for US intentions and interests. Why is it people all of sudden believe and trust politicians when they are told of a threat and a fear? Every other minute of a citizens life, it is understood and well accepted that these people have other intentions, interests and such. But the minute, something comes up, they are the great leaders we want them to be? Does anyone not remember Enron and how the government had involvement in creating a "power shortage" in California? (when in fact it was a lie to boost profits and transfer of funds). It is a huge misnomer and distortion by citizens, and they are the ones who pay for it.

On another note...it maybe naive to think not initiating war will help solve stability....but it is just as naive to think you can blow up one nation at a time to create stability. They are polar ideas on the same spectrum. And it's trying to accomplish the same objective, stability and peace...but neither the higher or the ladder will or can ever be completely achieved.

And as for supporting the government...which do you think our government valued more or held more regard for? The 2,000 or so people that died in the WTC or the economic results it has burdened our nation? If you honestly believe it is the people...you are the one who is naive. Our nation is economically and material driven, that is obvious. You can simply ignore such notions and believe all the rhetoric politicians put out. But simply cause our nations chooses to go to war, doesn't mean I have to agree with it, nor does it mean I should be thirsting blood and patriotism with empty threats like that garbage that is spewed out by most unknowing citizens.

And you simply saying to support such ideas as war and ignoring social issues, liberal notions and such....it's just a way of pushing notions of "kill before be killed" and "attack to defend". Such beliefs are backwards and lack the intention of what they really mean. It is nothing more then a play on words...and you can buy into it if you please...but I choose to ignore such BS and rhetoric.

Ps..Chris the Cop...here's a news flash..the whole world hates the US..Should we blow up the entire world?!

LiquidCourage

02-17-2003, 11:18 AM

I'm 21 and not in the military.
I'm not gonna cheer it on if I'm not out there helping.

The Jays

02-17-2003, 11:19 AM

Yes

Way to follow directions, guys....

 Fuck what you heard.
 That cab has a dent in it. [center]
[center]http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/jays777/die.jpg

FiveB247

02-17-2003, 11:21 AM

I've said before I respect anyone in the military. It is a very noble act. That doesn't mean I have to like their objectives, nor does it mean I wish them harm. I would never do or believe such things.

I hold the decision makers responsible for their actions.

LiquidCourage

02-17-2003, 11:29 AM

Five, Norman's on board now.
After Powell's presentation he was steered to the "pro war" side.

Tazz

02-17-2003, 06:48 PM

Yes

<img src=http://tazz1376.homestead.com/files/homersig.gif>

Heavy

02-17-2003, 06:57 PM

Way to follow directions, guys....

no shit huh

Mad props to Fluff for the sig and C.O.soup for hosting!
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/jwaddsig.gif">
<A HREF="http://www.onaarmy.cjb.net">Join The O&A Army!!</A> Please, help us save Black Earl.
Yes, he is hung like a horse. One female porn star describes having sex with Johneewadd as like giving birth.

canofsoup15

02-17-2003, 07:02 PM

Yes, its BOUND to happen sometime, just finish the job already. I dont REALLY want to go to war, but if hes so damn obsessed LETS GO ALREADY. I want to see a reporter standing in fr4ont of green lights in the distance with flashes and shit going on around him/her. Stop stalling George.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/final.gif>

Shit, if it's going to be that kind of a party
I'm gonna stick my dick in the mashed potatoes

ChrisTheCop

02-17-2003, 07:03 PM

Five, Norman's on board now.
After Powell's presentation he was steered to the "pro war" side.

You forgot to use a condescending "NEWS FLASH" that he likes to use.

<img src="http://rfcop.50megs.com/images/karmazinknows.gif">INFINITY BLOWS

McNabbShouldDie

02-17-2003, 07:16 PM

yes

<IMG SRC=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/mcnabbshoulddie/myhomepage/rfnetmcnabbshoulddie.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US>
Man, Im a funny guy.

Alice S. Fuzzybutt

02-17-2003, 07:22 PM

Yes.

<IMG SRC="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/alicesig.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
thank you dcpete!

I'm a big wheel down at the cracker factory.

ShortRound

02-17-2003, 07:33 PM

Bergalad

02-17-2003, 07:33 PM

No, I do not want war.

That being said, what I really want is the UN to enforce 1441 and Saddam to willingly disarm. It is somewhat strange that everyone calls for the Inspectors to get more time, yet the Resolution isn't about inspections. The Resolution is about disarmament and compliance, two things Iraq has failed to. The UN gave Saddam 30 days, it has now been 90. With or without UN backing, it will be the United States bearing the majority of the burden militarily of attacking Iraq, let's not forget that. The UN can pass all the Resolutions it likes, but the bottom line is that it will always require the US to enact them if they call for force. Don't see how that is right. For another thread, I know...

CaptClown

02-17-2003, 07:34 PM

No, we should not go to war without allowing the UN proper time to do their inspections and offer some lip service threats.

If memory serves me correctly the UN inspectors had 7 years of Saddam Hussein leading them around by the nose and then kicking them out after he had his fun.

there are other countries that are just as dangerous, i.e. north korea.

North Korea wants food and oil shipments because their economy is way worse than ours. They can be brought to heel by sanctions and time.

But obviously in the US case, we have been building up troops in the Middle East as we "try for peace".

Talking gently and trying to see things from their point of view has been tried and failed. The only thing they understand is the use of proper and pverwhelming force. That is the only thing they seem to get right off, the first time. If you really want to get a dog's attention the first time, swat him on the nose and he will be all ears after that.

(9-11 has nothing to do with this coming invasion).

And whom or what exactly does it have to do with? Oil? France has made $3.5 billion dollar going around UN sanctions.

Causing war creates instability and unrest, not peace and stability, like we wish to achieve.

In some cases, not all. In some cases it provides innovation in thought and technology.

Blowing up one country (at a time) will not bring peace to the world or this nation.

Probably not but it will make those that wish to try something stupid give pause before trying it without looking at he ramifications of their actions.

But I will tell you one thing, the minute the US starts bombing and invading...you will see more terrorism, bombings and such acts in and around the US.

And what exactly was the US doing on 9/11 to deserve that? Religious extremists don't really need a reason for all the nonsense that they commit in the name of God.

In fact, I believe al Quada is waiting for such actions to attempt another attack and such.

Since the US and our Afghani allies drove Al Quaeda and the Taliban they would look for any excuse they can find.

Does anyone not remember Enron and how the government had involvement in creating a "power shortage" in California? (when in fact it was a lie to boost profits and transfer of funds).

I seem to remember California in trying to regulate deregulation ended up screwing the pooch on that and Enron taking advantage of the rules set down by the short-sighted Cali Legislature. As devious and under-handed as that is the only people they have to blame is themselves.

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

This message was edited by CaptClown on 2-17-03 @ 11:36 PM

Lummox

02-17-2003, 07:45 PM

FiveB247 has never been in a fistfight

The only thing I do know, is that I don't know....

FiveB247

02-17-2003, 09:59 PM

Some of you bring up some very absurd logic and points.

Have I ever been in a fist fight? That doesn't even need a response.

As for some of the others...the idea that we should blow up every enemy cause we don't know how to deal with any other means is crazy. After Iraq, Bin Laden (if we ever get him)..and others...there's always something or someone else. And to simplify such items as per if we get Sadam and Iraq...it will somehow resolve items elsewhere? It will just pour gasoline on a fire.

And as for North Korea...they are a nation in which threats will not fall...cause they realize they can cause serious damage. The threats and rhetoric we use on other nations with lesser armaments hold true..but not with those have many of the same capabilities as the US. North Korea is considered hostile and capable (to use and deal weapons). The US like in most other things in life...leads with it's strong suit...which is militarily and economically. If nations don't comply with economic interests, military engagements are initiated. North Korea knows the US has no interest in such war with them..which is why they can go around talk of war threats, military capability of their missiles and such. The US is trying to barter with them via economic plans (via energy and aid programs).

And many people have talked of France profiting the most from such a war? Then why has Chirac previously tried to stop such actions? The US has always had oil interests all over the world and would clearly profit the most from such action. And you talk of technology and innovation? It's the US who uses subsidies, paid for by taxpayers, that are integrated by corporations, business's and such all over the 3rd World. The US Corporate machine is all over the world and holds influence...they are the ones who profit, create innovation and technology. And it's all on the US taxpayers...do you think we see any of that profit back?

Plain and simple..the US is economically driven and acts upon interests in such a manner. Almost every historic figure in American history has commented and alluded to such notions; founding fathers, economists, politicians as well as others. There are many obvious signs of that..things like separation of wealth, tax increases, trade agreements and economic institutions just to name a few. All of the items brought up that would hinder this nation from true democracy, have come to light (corporations, tyranny of the majority, interest groups).

grlNIN

02-17-2003, 11:57 PM

As awful as this is going to sound i have pretty much ignored everything surrounding this whole thing. I dont watch the news and dont listen to it on the radio, i dont actually KNOW any of the facts that would prove a point i would have to make so i cannot backup any of my answers given. This may seem UnAmerican but i am 17 years old and i am just trying to live my life without things like this scarying me into a dark corner and keeping me afraid of the world forever. This may sound very very naive but i dont really care bc at the end of the day it is just me, not the rest of America and not these Arabs.

Im not saying the shit they have done to us as a country is right but if you are going to hate them then you shouldnt be disgusted with the fact that they hate us, bc youre just being hypocritical

THEREFORE I CANNOT GIVE A YES OR NO ANSWER

there you go johnny you fucking prick

We Say Stand Together, Not To Fight Just To Exist
<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/grlnin3.gif>
INSOMNIAC THREAD KEEPER
<marquee>"I don't consent, thats how i feel because life's too short, so i do what i can to get by, i'll decide where my time is spent and you can bet there'll be a smile on my face. How about yours?"</marquee>

This message was edited by grlNiN on 2-18-03 @ 2:11 PM

Heavy

02-18-2003, 10:01 AM

What are you even talking about?

Mad props to Fluff for the sig and C.O.soup for hosting!
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/jwaddsig.gif">
<A HREF="http://www.onaarmy.cjb.net">Join The O&A Army!!</A> Please, help us save Black Earl.
Yes, he is hung like a horse. One female porn star describes having sex with Johneewadd as like giving birth.

CaptClown

02-18-2003, 11:54 AM

Some of you bring up some very absurd logic and points.

Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them absurd.

Have I ever been in a fist fight? That doesn't even need a response.

I neither know nor care. If you have then you might know that some are going to attempt to attack you no matter what you do or say, and it gets worse the more you try to appease them.

As for some of the others...the idea that we should blow up every enemy cause we don't know how to deal with any other means is crazy.

How exactly do you deal with someone that is bent on your utter subjugation and destruction? How much are you willing to give up before it becomes too much? At what point does enough become enough? How do you deal with someone doesn't understand your point of view? How do you deal with someone who really makes no effort to do anything until they are physically forced? Talking has done nothing other than give them more of a strangle hold on their positions.

After Iraq, Bin Laden (if we ever get him)..and others...there's always something or someone else.

If they choose to attack the US then they should be prepare for the backlash. That is one of the consequences of such actions. There are plenty of avenues to deal with the US and air their grievences.

And as for North Korea...they are a nation in which threats will not fall...cause they realize they can cause serious damage.

That is why the US is cutting off economic and fuel aid and asking North Korea's neighbors to do the same. Unlike Germany who seem to think that the sodium cyanide they shipped in Dec would actually be used for "pesticides."

And many people have talked of France profiting the most from such a war?

Which war? The Iran-Iraq war where France made $25 billion supplying military hardware to Iraq?

I made mention about France profiting from ignoring UN sanctions over the past dozen years. Nothing about France profittiong from any upcoming war.

Then why has Chirac previously tried to stop such actions?

Before or after France made $3.5billion?

The US has always had oil interests all over the world and would clearly profit the most from such action.

All countries have such interests and will have such interests until an alternative for oil is found. Besides if you actually look at the figures for oil imports you will find that the majority of the oil the US imports is from Canada.

And you talk of technology and innovation? It's the US who uses subsidies, paid for by taxpayers, that are integrated by corporations, business's and such all over the 3rd World.

A lot of the technology that we use today came from military applications. The taxpayers through the US government are the largest supplier of humanitarian aid to the UN, but that doesn't get any press because it would actually be pro-American.

The US Corporate machine is all over the world and holds influence...they are the ones who profit, create innovation and technology. And it's all on the US taxpayers...do you think we see any of that profit back?

Through the needs at the time the tech and innovation are created. As for seeing the profit back you can invest directly in th companies at the time or indirectly with T-bills or bonds which will pay you back the money over time.

Plain and simple..the US is economically driven and acts upon interests in such a manner.

Every country is economically driven. and acts in a similar manner to protect their interests.

Almost every historic figure in American history has commented and alluded to such notions: founding fathers, economists, politicians as well as others. There are many obvious signs of that..things like separation of wealth, tax increases, trade agreements and economic institutions just to name a few.
The US government is not going to act in the interest of anyone othe

FiveB247

02-18-2003, 02:51 PM

Capt. Clown...you talk of items like "enough is enough", "every nation acts in such ways" to name a few.

You seriously are going to mention the Iran/Iraq war on behalf of the US to denounce France? Maybe you should do some more reading. The US supplied Iraq with funding, weapons and development plans and programs to fight in that war. The same very weapons we claim for Iraq to disarm now.

And you speak of "enough is enough"? Do you even know what you are referring too? Iraq was our ally and we had supported Sadam with aid and programs until he invaded Kuwait. Since the invasion, he was moved from ally to enemy. A typical move for the US as per various other instances. Iraq has not done anything since the invasion to seriously warrant such attention, invasion or war (and that's not to say I think Sadam should be in power or something idiotic like that). The UN laws Iraq has broken should be left to the UN to decide for punishment. It's fairly obvious the US is preparing for war and moving people into place with or without consent.....maybe you find that ok...but in the realms of international law and order...such things do not hold. The US is the most powerful, richest and influential nation in the world and should act accordingly. When parents say to their children, do as I say and not as I do. The children laugh and go about their business. It sets example and shows the ways of how to act.

On another note...I don't recall seeing much oil drilling in Canada. That is a joke for you to even mention. The US wages wars, operatives, operations all over the world for such resources. If you don't think so, look in Nigeria, Indonesia and many of the South American nations where we fund terror groups and militia's to keep control of such items in tyrannical governments that favor our US interests.

And as for you mentioning the interests of the people (be it investors or an average citizen), go back and read some of Adam Smith, Madison, Hamilton, etc and read the items of how they see the "democratic processes of the America" and how it could turn into tyranny of the majority or as Smith put it ,"the vile maxim". It correlates exact to what you see in government, economics, globalization and corporatization.

travis151

02-18-2003, 05:24 PM

Yes, we should invade I love the fact certain people say just how they want to save the people of Iraq from the U.S. How about we save the Iraqi people from Saddam he has killed thousands of his own people using chemical weapons, I love the fact these liberal idiots who say all we want is oil and all our government is about is to destroy the enviroment, wasn't it Saddam who set the oil fields on fire as his troops retreated yet time and again you defend this disgrace of a human being. When our military sucessfully disarms Saddam the people of Iraq will be grateful for what we done hopefully a new government that will be placed will use the money they receive from oil and use it for food and not weapons. The only reason countries such as France and Russia are against this is because the invested millions into Iraq. Wake up get your head out of your asses if you don't think Saddam is a threat. No war is right but if this saves lives of not only Americans but other citizens of the world then let's roll.

FiveB247

02-18-2003, 08:42 PM

He (Sadam) set the oil fields on fire, due to the fact that he knew that's what the US was there for. The US cares so, so much about the Iraqi people we supplied and supported Sadam during the gasing of his own people in the early 80's. Yes...it's obviously for the ideal of democracy and for people's freedom. Ugh..

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 2-19-03 @ 1:05 AM

TheMojoPin

02-18-2003, 10:26 PM

Man, I thought *I* was jaded...

Lighten up, Francis.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
VP #2 for the Coalition of Angry Micks. FREE YERDADDY!!!
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

TheBrain007

02-19-2003, 07:54 AM

No, we are fighting the wrong people! Is anyone even paying attention to North Korea!? They announced they have a ballistic missle and everyone is sitting on their thumbs, while we look for imaginary weapons in Iraq. They'll act when a city is blown off the West coast.

TheBrain007
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"

FiveB247

02-19-2003, 08:28 AM

Jaded? Lighten up? Maybe when you talk of war, invasion, control and killings, it's light hearted. But then again I don't hear many 9-11 or WTC jokes, do I?!

TheMojoPin

02-19-2003, 09:54 AM

But most of the people you're arguing against aren't making jokes, like Berg...and while you've got some HINTS of some good points, you are going out of your way to ONLY see the bad America has done or may do. Yes, we deal out our share of dirty tricks, but you refuse to see the positive side of ANY international issue involving America, well beyond the impending war in Iraq...if we went by your viewpoints it seems like we might as well just seal the country up in a box and never even look at another country again.

I will readily admit I'm incredibly skeptical twoards this possible "war" and much of America's international policy in the last 30 years, but I'm always willing to be convinced otherwise or at least hear out the other side. You're coming into all of these issues with your mind made up and you're not even bothering to listen, and instead just automatically assume everyone who disagrees with you is 100% wrong.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
VP #2 for the Coalition of Angry Micks. FREE YERDADDY!!!
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

FiveB247

02-19-2003, 11:15 AM

Ok..I don't merely state things which are un-mentioned or conspiracies (like many would have you to believe). And whether you agree with many of the notions, points and ideas I write or talk about, they are based on fact. (something many others lack)

You all may read the ideas, beliefs and notions I talk about and see it as bashing America or anti-American. But when in fact, I believe in the ideals and notions this nation was based upon. Many would rather ignore such trends, notions and concepts than to admit things of such impact are being done by this country. I consider myself a realist with Idealist beliefs. I look at what is going on and accept it, yet I want to make things better. As a person, like anyone else, I strive to make myself better and the things around me as well.....to achieve and accomplish. And I look for the same and try to do the same with this nation. Everything in this world is in flux, If you are not moving forward, you're falling behind.

NewYorkDragons80

02-19-2003, 12:09 PM

YesBut not if it means a fullscale invasion.
So Mojo, you prefer a half-assed invasion?

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/myhomepage/nydragonssig.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig.
<marquee>New York Dragons Next Home Game Saturday, February 22nd at 7:00 PM at the Nassau Coliseum</marquee>

Drudge Jr.

02-19-2003, 12:30 PM

the united states will not set up a democracy in iraq for the same reason they dont want musharaaf out of power in pakistan, a democratic country that hates america will elect a leader who hates america and may infact be more hostile to the united states, therefore the iraqi people although they will be free from the tyranny of sadaam hussein, will still be irrelevent only this time of the for the united state's interests

this war will not make the people of iraq like the US, it didnt contrary to popular belief in afganhistan either. the people of iraq dont like sadam but they dont want to be invaded, they dont want to be freed with bombs.

[center]
<img src="http://drudgejr.com/ronfezsig.GIF">

TheMojoPin

02-19-2003, 12:37 PM

So Mojo, you prefer a half-assed invasion?

No, there are just other ways we can use our millitary without just throwing bodies in uniforms en masse at the latest enemy du jour. I'm just saying, explore all options...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
VP #2 for the Coalition of Angry Micks. FREE YERDADDY!!!
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

TheBrain007

02-19-2003, 01:03 PM

Ugh... The UN used to do something about things like this, didn't they? I just think we should not be the ones to head-up this operation. It should be a UN backed coalition of all allied countries, not just the US. Last time we ignored the UN, we got trapped inside Somalia and lost plenty. And let the goddamn inspectors finish their friggin job first!

TheBrain007
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"

CaptClown

02-19-2003, 01:18 PM

You seriously are going to mention the Iran/Iraq war on behalf of the US to denounce France?
Didn't like that one even ythough it is true. How about the mistreatment of the Vietnamese that lead to the Vietnam War? The French left us to clean up THEIR MESS . How about Algiers? Haiti? Cote d' Ivoire?

Maybe you should do some more reading. The US supplied Iraq with funding, weapons and development plans and programs to fight in that war. The same very weapons we claim for Iraq to disarm now.

That's a known fact and it appears the US is cleaning up after itself. If you did some reading then you would know that the arguements that France is currently using are very similar to the arguments that lead to the demise of the League of Nations, scary how history seems to repeat itself isn't it.

And you speak of "enough is enough"? Do you even know what you are referring too? Iraq was our ally and we had supported Sadam with aid and programs until he invaded Kuwait.

More so than you do. Did you even know we were allied with the Soviets also, there was a bigger problem at the time to be dealt with. At the time we were allies with Iraq, Iran was the bigger threat at the time.

Iraq has not done anything since the invasion to seriously warrant such attention, invasion or war (and that's not to say I think Sadam should be in power or something idiotic like that).

Is your intel better than the CIA, the Iraqi defectors, or any the US' allies? If so please share it with the UN so it doesn't go the way of the League of Nations.

The UN laws Iraq has broken should be left to the UN to decide for punishment.

By the time the UN quits debating if and which UN resolutions were broken. the Germans will have gone around the Maginot Line.

It's fairly obvious the US is preparing for war and moving people into place with or without consent.....maybe you find that ok...but in the realms of international law and order...such things do not hold.

The UN would have this problem if it wasn't slowly turning into a debating society. The world only half way listens to the UN because the US gives it legitamacy.

The US is the most powerful, richest and influential nation in the world and should act accordingly.

Seeing how the UN is putzing around trying to decide if or what to do and Iraq has broken a few UN resolutions and the terms of surrender, which would put them and the US back in a state of war. The US is technically doing the correct thing.

When parents say to their children, do as I say and not as I do. The children laugh and go about their business. It sets example and shows the ways of how to act.

Maybe if was Ork that might work or if kids supported the parents that argument might work.

On another note...I don't recall seeing much oil drilling in Canada.

Do you live out at sea? Been to Artic Circle lately? Petrolia, Ontario? http://www.petroleumhistory.ca/

or how about ?http://www.geohelp.ab.ca

or even?http://www.nickles.com/common/products/cor_product.asp their monthly drilling report is herehttp://www.nickles.com/rig/summary.asp

Oil drilling in Canada? Get out of here!

The US wages wars, operatives, operations all over the world for such resources. If you don't think so, look in Nigeria, Indonesia and many of the South American nations where we fund terror groups and militia's to keep control of such items in tyrannical governments that favor our US interests.

I give you the fact that the US funds some terror groups and tyrannical governments , like the communists(socialists) did, but not for those reasons. The US did it to keep the communist off the US's doorstep.

[quote]And as for you mentioning the interests of the people (be it investors or an average citizen), go back and read some of Adam Smith, Madison, Hamilton, etc and read the items of how they see the "

travis151

02-19-2003, 01:19 PM

fiveb247 I support the passion you have for this discussion, but on the other hand get your facts straight this morning on MSNBC/IMUS Stornin Normon said he never was against this act of war. He adressed about for some reason a report was out how he was against the war which were not true.He supports what is happening completly. UNICEF is shipping 4 million vaccines for small pox because they fear that Saddam might use these type of weapons against his own people. Any person who would release chemicals of mass destruction while his own people who he cares about so much does not belong in power of any country. It doesn't matter if only one American died during 9/11 you defend our country.

LiquidCourage

02-19-2003, 01:39 PM

Five is one of these "I know a conspiracy theory you don't know" kind of people, not to mention he hates the US.
It's his nature.

FiveB247

02-19-2003, 04:23 PM

Capt. Clown...you talk of France like they are some empire causing ruckus all over the globe. You did not answer the question or reply to the fact of Iraqi weapons programs and actions that where all helped along by the US. In simple comparison, How would you react if I sold you some drugs, then arrested you for trying to use those drugs? That is absurd; and in a nutshell, the US foreign policy towards weapon control on the globe. We do the selling then try to moderate it.

Anyways, Most of the French conflicts were results of post-imperialism.....while on the other hand...the US continues efforts via economic, political and social agenda's that control and hinder growth in many nations all over the world. And even those that do comply..get rapped of their resources and still remain poor due to "economic structural programs". The US supports and gives more aid to dictatorships, tyrannical governments and abusers then any nation trying to gain democratic ways. Sometime you should read up on the cause and effects of things like the IMF, WB, GATT, WTO, NAFTA and the G8. These are the institutions and agreements where the policies and growth of nations are proven. They also happen to be led by the US and its investors (banks, corporations, government aid, etc).

On a side note, if you question such methods of aid and expectations of the US government for growth and democracy. Take a look at Cuba. Obviously they hold no barring in weapons, economics or threatening manner towards the US since the collapse of the USSR. That is proven. Yet we hold them as a "threat" and sanctions remain as if the USSR still existed! And if you want to make a comparison or use the "communist state" excuse, simply look at China..."our most favorite nation". You know the one with human rights records, occupation of Tibet as well as a hazard to stability due to weapons and masses of people. The US simply does not have intentions of spreading democracy, freedom, economic growth, or other ideological practices we so claim boldly.

And of course I do not know something the CIA, UN or such knows. But If I can research and easily find a weapons report from the UN in 1998 talking of missiles that Iraq is holding ...then the US all of a sudden claims ,"we found smoking guns" (and they were the same mentions of the same missiles). That is what you call rhetoric, falsely biasing a situation to your favor and media play....not discovery. And If I can do this easily...it makes you wonder what they hell is really going on. And if you talk of the League of Nations...you should recall the US did not join. The UN lacks serious authority cause the US and others fail to give it power...not the other way around.

LC, I don't hate the US, nor do I believe in conspiracy theories. I see the world as a whole with facts, data and analysis. Not as simply an American and our interests in mind. Maybe you think it's ok that American corporations and business exploit the 3rd World for profits..and our economy and investors profit from such...but I find it disgusting and lacking morals.

TheMojoPin

02-19-2003, 04:30 PM

Five, try thinking of it this way...

You seem to be enraged to no end that America supported Hussein in the 80's and happily funded and sold weapons to Iraq...it pisses me off, too. So why not look at it as us finally cleaning up the mess we made then? I WANT the inspectors to work, but they're not unless they get thousands of them into Iraq so that there are so many on the ground it'll be near impossible for Saddam and co. to hide everything they may have. How do you want America to "make up" for the mistakes of the 80's? If Bush came on TV and said, "yes, we messed up, we shouldn't have sold them some of these weapons...now we'll fix it", would that be somewhat acceptable? What do YOU want AMERICA to do to make up for their mistakes?!?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
VP #2 for the Coalition of Angry Micks. FREE YERDADDY!!!
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 2-19-03 @ 8:34 PM

FiveB247

02-19-2003, 04:51 PM

Iraq is one instance of such on-goings...and it's not a matter of correcting wrongs. It is a matter of not making the same mistakes. There is good reason for many nations to be distasteful of US policies. You think Palestinian supporters hate the US cause they are Muslim? It's cause Israel is blowing up Gaza amongst other areas with US copters and weapons. Killing innocent people who just want to live in peace....most of the Israeli's and Palestinians want peace. Not fundamentalist terrorists running rampant (who are a far minority). They cheer people like Bin Laden due to the fact there is no other figure around to fight vs. the US.

And as for the thing I believe should be done with policy. Mostly changes in the way we use aid, social programs as well as business. Many of the programs we support and initiate, institutions we engage and conduct business with mostly deny growth to nations...not development economically nor socially.

TheMojoPin

02-19-2003, 05:25 PM

So basically...you'll never be satisfied.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
VP #2 for the Coalition of Angry Micks. FREE YERDADDY!!!
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

armymad

02-19-2003, 05:28 PM

no. to iraq, but if it war to kill bin laden yes

http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/armymad.gif

The Best Thing Going Today
in the family

The Jays

02-19-2003, 05:30 PM

Mostly changes in the way we use aid, social programs as well as business. Many of the programs we support and initiate, institutions we engage and conduct business with mostly deny growth to nations...not development economically nor socially.

.... vague?

 Fuck what you heard.
 That cab has a dent in it. [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif

CaptClown

02-19-2003, 06:32 PM

Capt. Clown...you talk of France like they are some empire causing ruckus all over the globe.

Not an empire but a country full of hypocrites. Mugabe.
I picked France because France wants to be in the forefront of the opposition to war.

You did not answer the question or reply to the fact of Iraqi weapons programs and actions that where all helped along by the US.

I must have missed something because I don't even see the question, but I will answer it. Yes it's like giving a kid a BB gun and finding out he has been terrorizing the neighborhood pets with it. You will have to take it from him before he gets into any real trouble with it.

On a side note, if you question such methods of aid and expectations of the US government for growth and democracy. Take a look at Cuba. Obviously they hold no barring in weapons, economics or threatening manner towards the US since the collapse of the USSR. That is proven. Yet we hold them as a "threat" and sanctions remain as if the USSR still existed!

Depends on if the great molecular biologist Jimmy Carter has declared them free of biological weapons or not. Or if they are still holding pro-democracy activist hostage this week or not. It can't be all that great if the people try to defect in rickety old boats.

And if you want to make a comparison or use the "communist state" excuse, simply look at China..."our most favorite nation". You know the one with human rights records, occupation of Tibet as well as a hazard to stability due to weapons and masses of people.

Sometimes the carrot works better than the stick.

The US simply does not have intentions of spreading democracy, freedom, economic growth, or other ideological practices we so claim boldly

Banks don't lend money if they don't expect to get paid back with interest.

And of course I do not know something the CIA, UN or such knows. But If I can research and easily find a weapons report from the UN in 1998 talking of missiles that Iraq is holding ...then the US all of a sudden claims ,"we found smoking guns" (and they were the same mentions of the same missiles).

You have access to what is released you don't have access to current updated intel. For all anyone, without Top Secret access, knows Iraq could be prepping a tanker or a cargo ship somewhere with a missile launcher to fire from somewhere offshore.

That is what you call rhetoric, falsely biasing a situation to your favor and media play....not discovery. And If I can do this easily...it makes you wonder what they hell is really going on.

No one said that is new info, just what was declassified, there is a big difference.

And if you talk of the League of Nations...you should recall the US did not join.

True. And it failed because...

The UN lacks serious authority cause the US and others fail to give it power...not the other way around.

Give up their sovereignty to be decided by some yahoo from halfway across the world who neither knows nor cares about your situation and is looking to line his own pocket?

I see the world as a whole with facts, data and analysis. Not as simply an American and our interests in mind.

I see the world as a whole with data, facts, and through analysis. But as an American I see that if my country attempts to help someone we get condemned and if we don't help we get condemned. No matter what this country does it will get condemned because some other country isn't doing well because they feel we are the keeping them from achieving some goal that may or may not have any relevance to why the sky is blue and it is ridiculous to me.

It's cause Israel is blowing up Gaza amongst other areas with US copters and weapons.

And where is the distaste for the Belgians for when they were supplying the Israelis with weapons during the 6-day War or in 48? Where is the hate for the Jordanians who slaughtered more Palestinians than an

Lummox

02-19-2003, 07:56 PM

Captclown is a sharp dude, and I'd like to invite fiveb247 to run for President on the socialist ticket....

The only thing I do know, is that I don't know....

TheMojoPin

02-19-2003, 08:17 PM

Found an interesting site that definitely falls into the "war isn't the only option" category...it's called "Veterans For Common Sense", and it's a pretty decent read...

***EDIT*** I've found out that the author DID see active combat in the last Gulf War and lost 8 men in his unit.

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/

I'll include part of an article as an example...keep in mind this is written by an "ANONYMOUS Gulf War Veteran", so get out your grains of salt...but it does make some interesting points, though there is not a list of sources to go with the article.

[quote]Because of these significant differences, here are 10 reasons why, as a Gulf War combat veteran, I oppose a second Gulf War as a costly and preventable mistake.

1. U.S. troops are vulnerable to Iraqi chemical and biological warfare agents -- if Iraq is capable of using them. The gas masks, detection alarms and protection suits don't work, according to internal Department of Defense documents uncovered during investigations by the U.S. General Accounting Office. This leaves U.S. troops highly vulnerable to chemical and biological attack. U.S. chemical and biological warfare agent casualties in 2002 could be significantly higher than in 1991. Only a few months ago, the Pentagon sent out a press release stating 140,000 U.S. soldiers were exposed to low-levels chemical agents near Khamisiyah, Iraq during the Gulf War. While these soldiers appeared to return home healthy, many tens of thousands face long-term disabling medical problems that are difficult to treat.

2. Scientific evidence shows that even low-level chemical exposures are dangerous. According to a recent National Academy of Sciences report (Gulf War and Health, September 2000), low-levels of chemical warfare agents cause long-term medical problems. This conclusion is based on research resulting from the sarin attack in Japan in 1995.

3. Research shows long-term adverse side effects from mandatory vaccines given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone. According to the product label insert made by BioPort in Michigan, the sole producer, the experimental anthrax vaccine has caused several deaths. The National Academy of Sciences this year concluded there are some risks to the hotly debated vaccine.

4. The Gulf War battlefield remains radioactive and toxic. Scientific research funded by the military and released two years ago links exposure to depleted uranium (DU) ammunition with cancer in rats. Solid depleted uranium bullets, ranging in size from 25mm to 120mm, are used by U.S. tanks, helicopters and planes to attack enemy tanks and armored personnel carriers. The Gulf War battlefield is already littered with more than 300 tons of radioactive dust and shrapnel from the 1991 Gulf War. Another war will only increase the radioactive and toxic contamination among U.S. soldiers. As of today, U.S. troops are not fully trained about the hazards of depleted uranium contamination, even though Congress enacted a law in 1998 requiring extensive training, especially for medical personnel.

5. Research shows long-term adverse side effects from mandatory pills given to U.S. soldiers deploying to the war zone. According to testimony before Congress (Rand Corporation, 1999), the experimental pyridostigmine bromide (PB) anti-chemical warfare agent pills "can't be ruled out" as linked to Gulf War illness. During the war, soldiers were told to take one pill every eight hours. After the chemical alarms sounded, some soldiers, out of legitimate fear for their lives, took more than the prescribed amount. To date, the long-term consequences of PB pills remain largely unknown.

6. The Iraqi civilian opposition was abandoned by U.S. troops in the first Gulf War. After U.S. troops had liberated Kuwait and conquered southern Iraq at the end of February 1991, former President George H.W. Bush encouraged the Iraqi opposition, mainly civilians, to rise up against the Iraqi dictatorship in March 1991. However, former President Bush left the rebels twisting in the wind to be ruthl

FiveB247

02-19-2003, 08:28 PM

Capt Clown...that is exactly what you are....you have a little one liner for every little reply.

France's military and economy doesn't provide for impact upon the entire world..the US does.

And there's a difference between giving, selling and aiding nations. We sell weapons, development ideas, programs, as well as actual weapons to nations all over the world. You make it seem as if these nations steal or step out of line when they are given such items. It is the US's own fault for selling, aiding and giving such items to begin with. The US is always trying to pass the blame on such notions. But it all comes full circle and points to its origin....the US.

Sadly, Cuba has such sanctions and restrictions on it...yet they have higher social standings and numbers then countries we claim to be helping and developing. It is the same when the US took credit for helping the "Asian Tigers" economies grow in the 90's. When in fact they didn't use the economic plans we push on foreign nations (and the one we don't use here nor ever used here).

And with regards to China...simply put...1 billion possible customers for US business's and corporations will gladly surpass any human atrocity and wrong doing. Maybe that's ok in your mind....but in mine it's despicable and nothing more then discussing.

And as for the World Bank, WTO, IMF, GATT, NAFTA and such; these items were created and brought to light for the economic growth and development of nations....not for profit of the US and corporations like they are now. These agreements and institutions now act undemocratically (not how they were intended), and without resolve in the act of claiming to the 3rd World, progress and development when all they really bring is separation of wealth to a higher class, the flight of money from a nation, resources, imports as well as exports to further put control of a nation in foreign hands and interest. The economic "structural plans" the IMF and WB put in place have never worked in any nation. With payment schedules, plans as well as restructured economies, never once has there been a successful development story led by these institutions. And Yet the US still give billions in aid to them. It's also no mistake the US and other G8 members hold over 1/3 of the total world's impact on the global economy. (that's 8 nations, US being the highest impact with voting, aiding and profiting, on the interests on the entire world). These aren't some random pieces in a puzzle...they have been well noted, written upon and noted. It's the new way of imperialism for the 21st century.

There is distaste for those actions you mention too...but those nations don't continue to provide such actions. The US has interest and agenda in such issues...more then most. When you speak of France and their instances...they may have been interest based...but they were isolated. The US has constant interests and acts upon them in utter neglect of everything and above all else. That is the difference.

whoopsy

02-19-2003, 09:34 PM

Want us to go to war?... NO

Economically - we can't afford it, by all accounts, we're in for 2 more rough years, war potentially stretches that one full year.

Exit strategy - none that I've heard of, you either stay and throw God knows how much cash into building democracy, or you stay for 6 months, leave, and let Turkey and Iran lick their chops as they wave us goodbye. Either way, it's hard to imagine democracy working in Iraq.

No clear purpose - Administration has done everything to convince the American public we need war - tried the weapons of mass destruction thing (didn't take), tried to link Iraq to Al-Qaeda but couldn't, then said "but look what he does to the Kurds, his own people!!!!!" When America responded, "who the hell are the Kurds", they again went back to weapons of mass destruction.

Can be achieved through peaceful means - UN would throw a thousand inspectors at Iraq to prevent war at this point. Why bomb the shit out of a country and put our soldiers at risk when there isn't a need?

Logic - What's supposedly behind this war is an attempt to protect America from terrorism by stamping out any potential threat through military force. I would argue that this kind of prevention is impossible, it just takes one mistake and you have a repeat of September 11th. Unilateral war with Iraq is the ultimate alienating act that inspires more terrorism, it doesn't protect us. Even many moderate Muslims see a war with Iraq as a war against Islam. It would put many extremists over the edge.

Why not North Korea? (Just like Ant's - why not Yemen) - North Korea is an absolute threat to the US, they're already selling weapons to everyone with cash (currently their #1 export), they're nuclear, their leader is even more whacked out than Saddam. Why don't you hear more about North Korea - because Iraq is the easy win.

Think globally - US has the ability to make the UN a legitimate world government, instead, we're only on board when the UN agrees with us. Otherwise, screw you, we'll do it alone.

my friends are driving me fucking crazy with this "bomb the shit out of 'em" and "the French are pussies". I'm no fan of the French, but does it take real courage to completely devastate a defenseless country, and I'm no fan of Saddam, but I don't think we can afford this war (financially and the repercussions we'll no doubt face from terrorists further inspired by this war)

holy shit this was a long post...

FiveB247

02-20-2003, 05:59 AM

I'm not a socialist...and I would never run for any type of office.

TheMojoPin

02-20-2003, 07:23 AM

Here's a very in-depth article that actually ties in with the source of the list I posted above...it's called "Overwhelming Force: What happened in the final days of the Gulf War?"

http://cryptome.org/mccaffrey-sh.htm

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
VP #2 for the Coalition of Angry Micks. FREE YERDADDY!!!
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

Bergalad

02-20-2003, 11:18 AM

I was trying to stay quiet, but...'whoopsy', come on now.

we're in for 2 more rough years, war potentially stretches that one full year.

We are? You know how the market works? Markets and the economy normally booms after a conflict. And any new war will last weeks. A year? Impossible. Do some brief analysis on Iraq's capabilities vs. the US and then comment.
Either way, it's hard to imagine democracy working in Iraq.

Why? Do you think they are retarded or something? Iraq's popluation is one of the better educated in the Middle East and the 'government' is probably the most secular. Chances are they will do quite well with democracy.
No clear purpose - Administration has done everything to convince the American public we need war

There is a clear purpose: failure by Iraq to disarm as required by UNR 1441. Add to that Iraq has violated the conditions of the Gulf War cease-fire. The US is within International Law if it decides to act without formal UN approval.
Can be achieved through peaceful means - UN would throw a thousand inspectors at Iraq to prevent war at this point. Why bomb the shit out of a country and put our soldiers at risk when there isn't a need?

The Inspectors are there and Iraq still is thwarting the UN. We have been peacefully trying for over 12 years to get this done. Appeasers and cowards would love to wait another 12 before anyone does anything, but thankfully there are people out there who are not afraid to act.
I would argue that this kind of prevention is impossible, it just takes one mistake and you have a repeat of September 11th. Unilateral war with Iraq is the ultimate alienating act that inspires more terrorism, it doesn't protect us.

I'm sorry, but what mistake caused 9/11? Extremists hate us; they don't need any reasons more than their religious hate to attack us. And it isn't unilateral war. As of today, there are 47 other nations who have pledged to assist us against Iraq. I think that is the definition of multilateral, no?
Why not North Korea?

You shrink from attacking Iraq but want us to strike NK? What the hell is wrong with your logic?
Why don't you hear more about North Korea - because Iraq is the easy win.

We hear about NK almost as much as Iraq. You say Iraq is an easy win, but earlier you said it could take a whole year to beat them? Nice work there! Don't worry though, it will be an 'easy win' for you, especially since the true americans, the men and women of the military, will be over there fighting and dying and winning while you sit in Hoboken playing Armchair Frenchman.
Think globally - US has the ability to make the UN a legitimate world government,

Why the hell would we want to be subjugated by a world government?! Would you elect who rules over us in this plan of yours? Would you get any say in what happens? You have got to be kidding me!
I'm no fan of the French, but does it take real courage to completely devastate a defenseless country

I hope to god you aren't accusing the military of being cowards. Iraq almost daily shoots at our planes patrolling the No-Fly Zones over Iraq. They are far from defenseless.
holy shit this was a long post..

So don't let it happen again. For once, instead of blaming the US for all this, why don't you put the blame where it belongs: Iraq. They are the ones in breach of their agreements, yet it is the US who is wrong? Oh, and I am not gonna say that this for sure is FiveB posting under another name to gain support for his diatribes against the US, but it looks pretty suspicious to me. I mean, you just had to sign up today and post? Right...

This message was edited by Bergalad on 2-20-03 @ 3:21 PM

FiveB247

02-20-2003, 12:47 PM

Berg...I don't know the economy you follow...but history has proven when we engage in war (and considering we are in a recession), the economy dips and compacts. In non-techinical terms, it's like retreating to re-group. The economy during wartime shrinks, congeils, and then once the war is over is more stable to push forward and make gains and grow. War helps stabalize the economy, not make it grow...those are two very different ideas.

And on a passing note (no pun intended), spy planes are used by the US all the time. Remember we made a big deal cause we had one go down over China.....and most of the planes that get shot down near Iraqi no fly zones are either un-maned crafts or on missions to hit and destroy radar and missles defenses. The US is never not bombing someone...it's just a matter if we do it enough to call it a "mission" or "war". Word play and lingo is always funny in the media and with politicians.

Bergalad

02-20-2003, 06:34 PM

Actually Five, it has always been considered a truism that when America fights, the economy booms. The exception to that rule was, yes the Gulf War due to higher oil prices. The difference with GW 2 is that the oil prices may be reduced due to larger output by sanction-free Iraqi wells. The upcoming war is already pre-loaded into the stock market, and during the last 4 wars shares of stock has increased an average of 36% during the conflicts.

The planes that the Iraqis are shooting at are all, unless you can prove otherwise, coalition aircraft which are manned, usually fighter jets. It doesn't matter if they are manned or not, if they fire on one of the planes it is a violation of their peace agreement and entitles the US to resume actions against Iraq. The planes that hit Iraqi targets do so in retaliation for firing on coalition planes.

whoopsy

02-20-2003, 06:42 PM

- Bergalad -

I think half of what you responded with was misunderstanding, half was just incorrect...

We are? You know how the market works? Markets and the economy normally booms after a conflict. And any new war will last weeks. A year? Impossible. Do some brief analysis on Iraq's capabilities vs. the US and then comment.

The war won't last a year - I said the economic impacts of war could last for a year. You're right, I'm not on Wall Street, so I do as much reading as I can to get the hear what the experts have to say. You probably need an account to read these, but:

http://www.www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-economy-iraq.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/opinion/15CHAR.html

"Markets and ecomies boom" is simply inaccurate - with your gorilla math, explain how going another trillion in the hole stimulates the economy. If that same trillion were invested domestically, then we're getting somewhere

Why? Do you think they are retarded or something? Iraq's popluation is one of the better educated in the Middle East and the 'government' is probably the most secular. Chances are they will do quite well with democracy.

One of the better educated in the Middle East?? Here are the latest literacy rates:(ages 15 and up)
total population: 58%
male: 70.7%
female: 45%

which puts them DEAD LAST in the Middle East - democracy doesn't work everywhere - the media is almost entirely government controlled. I say, democracy's got to be better than what they have now, but a lot have written that this transition would just be too drastic and would ultimately fail.

Appeasers and cowards would love to wait another 12 before anyone does anything, but thankfully there are people out there who are not afraid to act.
I'm sorry, but what mistake caused 9/11? Extremists hate us: they don't need any reasons more than their religious hate to attack us. And it isn't unilateral war. As of today, there are 47 other nations who have pledged to assist us against Iraq. I think that is the definition of multilateral, no?

R-H-E-T-O-R-I-C
C'mon, everyone who isn't on board with the war is a coward, seriously? You're absolutely right, extremists absolutely hate the US, some for legitimate reasons, others illegitimate. My point was, many outside the US see this war as the ultimate "we don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks". You've eliminated Saddam as a threat, but you have inspired an even greater hatred which in the end puts us at even more risk.

You shrink from attacking Iraq but want us to strike NK? What the hell is wrong with your logic?
We hear about NK almost as much as Iraq.

I didn't say anything about striking North Korea - I was pointing out that North Korea is a greater threat, but there is a huge difference in how we're handling the two situations. And compared to Iraq, NK has been almost a non-story

Don't worry though, it will be an 'easy win' for you, especially since the true americans, the men and women of the military, will be over there fighting and dying and winning while you sit in Hoboken playing Armchair Frenchman.

I hope to god you aren't accusing the military of being cowards.

So now I'm not a true American, because I disagree with you... My point was not that the military are cowards (they're not and I have nothing but respect and appreciation for them) - my point was if you're not for the war, people accuse you of being a coward (you couldn't have proved my point any better than with this quote, by the way), but then the question is "how much courage does it take to obliterate an inferior enemy". It's almost like me refusing to beat the shit out of a child who spits on me - and then you come along and say "whoopsy, what, are you afraid, coward!!"

[quote]
Oh, and I am not gonna say that this for sure is FiveB posting under another name to gain support for his diatribes against the US, but it looks pretty suspicious to me. I mean,

Bergalad

02-20-2003, 06:53 PM

Here's what one education site says about literacy and Iraq:
Iraq has a heritage of education that goes back a long time, and Iraq is known to have a relatively high literacy rate, however statistics for Iraq are scarce and literacy rates in particular are not readily available.

Yes their rates have doubtlessly dropped during the sanctions, but they are historically a bright people. The transition to democracy may be traumatic for them, but I am sure they would be willing to give it a shot over the murderous dictatorship they have now.
C'mon, everyone who isn't on board with the war is a coward, seriously?

Anyone who thinks that the answer is more Resolutions, more appeasement, continued coddling...yes, that is someone I would call a coward. Being honest.
my point was if you're not for the war, people accuse you of being a coward (you couldn't have proved my point any better than with this quote, by the way), but then the question is "how much courage does it take to obliterate an inferior enemy". It's almost like me refusing to beat the shit out of a child who spits on me - and then you come along and say "whoopsy, what, are you afraid, coward!!"

No, I didn't call you a coward, but a hit dog will bark they say. I do think that those who are willing to give their lives for the US are the true Americans, certainly. They are the ones who have volunteered to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. To me that makes them somewhat better than those who will not make that committment.
I'd like to see Saddam out of power, but it's way too costly for all the reasons I mentioned in the last post - just a differing opinion, nothing to deport me over.

Well, maybe you aren't him. At least you seem a little more reasonable, so that's good. I don't want the US to fight either, but the UN has failed in it's responsibilities. We can be like them and turn the other way and allow Iraq to keep deceiving, or we can choose the higher moral ground and do what needs to be done. Just about the entire UN agrees that something has to be done, but it is only the US and a couple of others with the stomach for it. Welcome to the board Whoopsy.

IrishAlkey

02-20-2003, 07:07 PM

The term "Armchair Frenchman" made me giggle.

<marquee>Musi ques... I sews on bews... I pues a twos on que zat...Pue zoo... My kizzer... Pous zigga ay zee... Its all kizza... Its always like... Its all kizza... Its always like... Na zound... Wa zee... Wa zoom zoom zee

</marquee>

Bergalad

02-20-2003, 07:11 PM

The term "Armchair Frenchman" made me giggle.

Thanks. As a side note, anyone else catching the reruns of 'Married With Children' on FX this week? Lots of anti-French jokes. Coincidence? They're pretty good too...

whoopsy

02-20-2003, 07:53 PM

Welcome to the board Whoopsy

thanx, brotha. "Armchair Frenchman" was kinda funny

FiveB247

02-21-2003, 06:15 AM

War has never helped a US economy grow (with the exception of WWII, but that was a different situation then most). It has stabilized economy..but nothing more. And if you honestly believe the stock market is already prepared for war actions...you are insane. The market reacts upon stability, and things like war, terrorism and military actions create instability. A study announced today that a possible war, even if short, would cost 1 trillion dollars. And that's looking at the situation if everyone goes as planned, which in this case is not necessarily a given or a definite.

When ever the US decides to invade, the economy will shrink and descend until the point where the war is over. Then you will see growth and gains, etc... Remember this when we attack, look back and recognize it. It holds very true throughout history.

Bergalad

02-21-2003, 06:21 AM

Maybe we should start a general war thread so as to not branch off topics too much.

Now, the Wall Street Journal has said that every US war other than the Gulf War was a benefit to our economy. Just going by what they say since I figure they know. The 1 Trillion figure is the extreme; no one can predict what the cost will be or who will pay for it all. And yes, the stock market has already begun preparing for the war by lowering stock value. This reduces the shock on the market once the bullets start flying. This info is from the analysts I watched on TV most of the day yesterday, so I would be inclined to believe them.

FiveB247

02-21-2003, 06:42 AM

Like I mentioned previously, War benefiting the economy is a completely different notion then Economic growth directly from war. There is no such thing as economic growth directly from war. The growth is after a war ends...not during. And as for the Stock market, here's a clue...the economy sucks right now. It isn't "preparing for war", it's a recession. Jobs and growth aren't created from war, they are created from development and expansion of the economy...which occurs after actions occur. And as for the costs of such military actions, yes it varies and many of them are just ballpark figures....but it can be viewed as a rough or general estimate.

high fly

02-21-2003, 06:54 AM

I'm for it, but teetering. Can we really afford a California-sized West Bank of our own, for several years while we try to bring civilization to the savages?
Remember, arabs love a loser and can be counted on to act contrary to their best interest.

"Fan of Latin Spice's Kadoonk Adoonk since day one"

Bergalad

02-21-2003, 08:50 AM

War benefiting the economy is a completely different notion then Economic growth directly from war. There is no such thing as economic growth directly from war. The growth is after a war ends

Anyone?

FiveB247

02-21-2003, 08:51 AM

Ok..I thought it was in terms you would understand...but obviously not.

You keep saying that the US economy will grow due to war. That is untrue. War typically hinders the economy and causes a decline.

When a war or actions are OVER, the economy typically rises or grows due to the stagnatized and congeiling of economic factories during the wartime. Markets rise or grow where they had previously fallen during the war.

NewYorkDragons80

02-21-2003, 09:56 AM

The French left us to clean up THEIR MESS . How about Algiers? Haiti? Cote d' Ivoire?
Capt Clown, I'm agreeing with most of what you're saying, but I don't recall the United States cleaning up a mess in the Ivory Coast. In fact, the Ivory Coast is an example of a former French colony becoming a stable nation. The current turmoil in the Ivory Coast is due to the death of their President who served for decades. His death turned the beacon of stability into a nation with a shaky hold on power. Therefore, this is an internal issue that has little or nothing to do with the fact that the Ivory Coast is a former French protectorate. French troops are currently in the Ivory Coast because they enjoy(ed) a friendly relationship with the recognized government and wanted to aid them in crushing the rebellion.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/myhomepage/nydragonssig.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig.
<marquee>New York Dragons Next Home Game Saturday, February 22nd at 7:00 PM at the Nassau Coliseum</marquee>

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 2-21-03 @ 2:04 PM

NewYorkDragons80

02-21-2003, 10:06 AM

Can we really afford a California-sized West Bank of our own, for several years while we try to bring civilization to the savages?
Iraqis were actually noted for being a haven of intellectuals before Saddam came to power. Remember that before the Gulf War, this was one of the most modern nations in the Middle East. Why do you think a secularist like Saddam was able to take power? Don't underestimate the will of the Iraqi people to modernize. I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but it's certainly doable, especially by the United States.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/myhomepage/nydragonssig.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig.
<marquee>New York Dragons Next Home Game Saturday, February 22nd at 7:00 PM at the Nassau Coliseum</marquee>

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 2-21-03 @ 2:11 PM

FiveB247

02-21-2003, 10:22 AM

With mentions of "savages"...I could only hear ideas of 'white man's burdern' all over again.

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 2-21-03 @ 2:28 PM

CaptClown

02-21-2003, 12:08 PM

Had a fe w things to do but I am back.

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

dassal3399

02-21-2003, 12:16 PM

I say yes!

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/dassal3399.gif>

"I'm Tony Montana...You Fuck Wit Me...You Fuck Wit The Best!!"

Shout Out To Can of Soup 15 and Toddevf for the Kick Ass Sig Pic!

CaptClown

02-21-2003, 01:44 PM

Had a few things to do but I am back

Capt Clown...that is exactly what you are....you have a little one liner for every little reply.

I never claimed to be otherwise., besides that is my mutant ability.

France's military and economy doesn't provide for impact upon the entire world..the US does.

Not anymore but that doesn't stop them from trying.

And there's a difference between giving, selling and aiding nations. We sell weapons, development ideas, programs, as well as actual weapons to nations all over the world.

Yes there is and, wait for it, we are not the only ones. The leaders of the opposition to war do so also it is nothing new. We have established this already.

You make it seem as if these nations steal or step out of line when they are given such items.

Actually I never made mention one way or the other, but even allies spy on and steal secrets from each other.

It is the US's own fault for selling, aiding and giving such items to begin with.

Yes it is and a few people might have mentioned that you can look at it as the US cleaning up it's own mess.

The US is always trying to pass the blame on such notions. But it all comes full circle and points to its origin....the US.

It is kind of hard to even pay attention to that argument since Rumsfeld has already confessed to making the sale when he was SECDEF the first time.

Sadly, Cuba has such sanctions and restrictions on it...yet they have higher social standings and numbers then countries we claim to be helping and developing

We help a lot of countries not all are succesful. On a side note when was the last time there was a great exodus from anywhere to Cuba on anything that will float?

It is the same when the US took credit for helping the "Asian Tigers" economies grow in the 90's.

Need I remind you the biggest Asian Tiger is a country that the US rebuilt from the ground up.

When in fact they didn't use the economic plans we push on foreign nations (and the one we don't use here nor ever used here).

The ones that lead the Asian market crash in the late 90's?

And with regards to China...simply put...1 billion possible customers for US business's and corporations will gladly surpass any human atrocity and wrong doing. Maybe that's ok in your mind....but in mine it's despicable and nothing more then discussing.

Every country has done wrong or commited some sort of atrocity. I defy you to name one country that hasn't.

And as for the World Bank, WTO, IMF, GATT, NAFTA and such: these items were created and brought to light for the economic growth and development of nations....not for profit of the US and corporations like they are now.

Actually the organizations and associations are there to keep each country from gouging each other on tariffs and which goods are traded.

These agreements and institutions now act undemocratically (not how they were intended), and without resolve in the act of claiming to the 3rd World

Actually they are not democratic by nature, they are there to promote trade between nations. Free trade and democracy aren't the same and are mutually exclusive concepts. They just play of the greed of those in power of those 3rd world countries.

progress and development when all they really bring is separation of wealth to a higher class,

As long as humans are involved no matter what system of government the country follows there will always be thosethat know how to manipulate there system of government to their own personal gain. So you will never be rid of class system in any form.

the flight of money from a nation, resources, imports as well as exports to further put control of a nation in foreign hands and interest.

How are they going to get the marvels of the modern world if they don't use their resources. They want foriegn investment but have little e

DarkHippie

02-21-2003, 04:47 PM

No, we should not go to war:
A "pre-emptive war" such as what we are planning creates a dengerous precedent, and one that will surely be used again in the near future, possibly against us. The idea of invading a country because they pose a threat, effectively considering building a strong military an "act of war" opens so many doors for future conflicts that I can not even begin to compute the ramifications in my head. weare already seeing the beginnings of this with the diplomatic sparring between Japan and N. Korea threatening to consider each others actions as "acts of war". If America goes through with this invasion, these two will be lobbing nukes next. or perhaps it will be Pakistan and India who finally decide to take our lead, making pre-emptive strike against the other "threatening country."

and this doesn't even take into account how difficult it will be to keep the peace and to rebuild a destroyed Iraq. After WWII our soliders in Japan quickly became friends to the japanese. In Iraq, 50,000 soliders will be 50,000 terrorist targets. and how much money can we afford to spend to rebuild Iraq (better than we did afghanistan please)? we don't exactly have a surplus here.

This is why i say NO to the war in Iraq

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>FREE YERDADDY!!! </marquee>
LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
<a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

Bergalad

02-21-2003, 05:44 PM

A "pre-emptive war" such as what we are planning

Hey Hippie. Two things, if I may. First, would you consider it a 'pre-emptive' attack if the US was fully backed by the UN? Either way it will be US troops doing the majority of the fighting, with or without UN backing. Just curious about your views there.

Second, maybe you are looking at this the wrong way. It is not a pre-emptive strike, it is a resumption of hostilities. Due to Iraq's actions since 1991, they have (many times over) broken their agreements in the Gulf War Cease-Fire with the US. Iraq signed that agreement with the US, not with the UN. Therefore it is completely within the US's rights under International Law to resume actions against Iraq to enforce the Cease-Fire.

I do understand your concern about other nations and pre-emptive strikes. Japan last week said the fueling of missles by NK could be construed as an act of war. I think that might be going a little far, but I understand their desire for security. If other nations want to use US actions as an excuse for what they do, well, they would probably do the same even action without the US's example.

Gvac

02-21-2003, 06:04 PM

In a perfect world there would be no such thing as war. Our world is far from perfect, however. When a threat as imminent and dangerous as Saddam Hussein exists, he must be dealt with.

If we lose one American life in the war with Iraq it's one too many in my book, but sometimes sacrifices must be made for the greater good.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I never want our country to be at war, but there are times when there is no other way. I fully support removing Hussein from power as swiftly as possible, and I believe the Iraqi people will be celebrating in the streets when we do.

<img src=http://gvac.50megs.com/images/crazycap.jpg>

HordeKing1

02-21-2003, 07:53 PM

No one ever WANTS war.

However, circumstances such as these compell action if only for our own self-preservation.

At stake is Iraq's potential to launch nukes and chemicals and bacteriological weapons (and the conventional ones as well of course.) Sadaam has demonstrated his willingness to do so. He will use them against us at his first opportunity.

<img src="http://members.aol.com/rnfpantera/hking1">

Heavy

02-21-2003, 08:15 PM

OK is that a yes? I'm trying to keep score.....

Mad props to Fluff for the sig and C.O.soup for hosting!
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/canofsoup15/images/jwaddsig.gif">
<A HREF="http://www.onaarmy.cjb.net">Join The O&A Army!!</A> Please, help us save Black Earl.
Yes, he is hung like a horse. One female porn star describes having sex with Johneewadd as like giving birth.

LiquidCourage

02-22-2003, 07:52 AM

1 trillion dollars?
But who cares.... I thought we were just going to take all the oil and it would be paid for anyway, right?

LiquidCourage

02-22-2003, 07:52 AM

No one ever WANTS war.

Not entirely true there HordeKing.

Example, the military during the Cuban Missle Crisis was praying for war.

reeshy

02-22-2003, 08:10 AM

Discussion Topic: Want us to go to war?...yes or no

Yes

<IMG SRC=http://nora.heathens.co.nz/images/waits.gif>

NewYorkDragons80

02-22-2003, 08:22 AM

Example, the military during the Cuban Missle Crisis was praying for war.
Not necessarily war, but a pre-emptive strike against an aggressive Soviet action. Attacking the Cuban missile sites would have been justified by the Monroe Doctrine.

This situation is somewhat comparable to Cuba. The only difference is that with Iraq there is not MAD. MAD is the only thing that stopped us from invading Cuba the second we got the first U2 pictures back.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/myhomepage/nydragonssig.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig. FREE YERDADDY!!!
<marquee>New York Dragons Next Home Game Saturday, February 22nd at 7:00 PM at the Nassau Coliseum</marquee>

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 2-22-03 @ 12:28 PM