The War is on !

Alright , what'd you guys think of Bush's speech - did it convince any of you anti-war / anti - Bush guys out there that what we are doing is the right thing?

I think war now may save American civilians in the future so I guess I'm PRO for the whole war deal. I mean if Saddam IS making weapons of mass destruction AND harboring Al-Quaida members , I mean come on theres only a matter of time before he uses these thngs against the country and people he hates the most. So is it better to wait for that first punch ( and a hell of a punch Im sure it would be if nukes were in his arsenal) then strike , or take a little incentive and get rid of the problem before it becomes an even worse problem ?

I thought Bush did a good job of trying to get across to the Iraqi people that we arent at war with them , just the regime , but I wonder , how their press will twist and construe what was said...

The only part of the speech I thought was bad was the part when Bush said that the Iraqi people should not burn the oil/wells when they see us coming -- to me that made it kind of seem like the oil was an important factor/reward in this war. I think that line kind of gave anti-war people the ammo they need when they say that Bush is in it ONLY for the oil - which I hope he's not in it totally for that ( I mean I seriously hope its to defend the American peoples' lives and not our wallets) , and the entirety of the speech should have focused on that and not the little sidebar about saving the oil.

Anyways -- what did you guys think ?

Watch out man, I can already predict what Ali will say to you, about you, and tell you how think.

Damn...for being an open guy, his patterns are easy to read.

fah, we're all family here at TNL que, no ? I welcome any and all opinions from you guys ;)

I wasn't convinced. If anything, I'm more against this whole thing now. It was your typical Bush speech: emotionally constructed and designed to curry favor with the American people. He didn't answer any of my questions, which probably would've confused him to the point of self-destruction. It's a dark day in the history of the Earth. Fitting that it's raining here in Norman.

SC

I think it is all pointless. Sadam has had these weapons for 12 years, has he used them against us? No. I think Bush just couldn't get Bin Laden so he decided to find some sort of link with Iraq to go after Sadam and finish what Bush Sr. didn't. Look at all the weapons we have here in the U.S. No one is trying to take them away from us are they? War is pointless. If the UN inspectors were actually making progress, which it seemed they were, why pull them out and attack?

He said a lot of things that I've already heard. Iraq is crippled at the end of the week, dead in two.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jetman
The only part of the speech I thought was bad was the part when Bush said that the Iraqi people should not burn the oil/wells when they see us coming -- to me that made it kind of seem like the oil was an important factor/reward in this war.

---

Because it is. Read International Newsweek.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeomegaCloud
I think it is all pointless. Sadam has had these weapons for 12 years, has he used them against us? No. I think Bush just couldn't get Bin Laden so he decided to find some sort of link with Iraq to go after Sadam and finish what Bush Sr. didn't. Look at all the weapons we have here in the U.S. No one is trying to take them away from us are they? War is pointless. If the UN inspectors were actually making progress, which it seemed they were, why pull them out and attack?

---

Exactly. 12 years of nothing is what it was. We didn't enforce anything until after 9/11. Now all of sudden, Iraq is Public Enemy #1. And there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. That was already proved to be false. Then the documents linking the sale of nuclear arms between Niger and Iraq was also false. I'd like to say Bush failed at diplomacy, but he didn't even try. 2004 can't come soon enough.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Fitting that it's raining here in Norman.

---

Well... today was the most beautiful day I have seen in ages here in Los Angeles - and this is saying a lot, considering how amazing the weather is here.

And Jetman... well, we can argue the oil point home, but coming from a Bush Administration standpoint:

01. If Iraqis ruin the oil fields, then they can't use them when liberation comes.
02. The last time the Iraqi army did it, tons of gross pollution was hurled into the air. That's not good.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
2004 can't come soon enough.

---

Here, here.

you guys can humor me all you want for this question because I'm sure it will come off as naive as I expect, but what are the chances of another draft? I am not going to get myself killed for some dumbass shit like this

I can only hope that this will start WW III and we can finally end this experiment called humanity.

George Carlin was right.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by diffusionx
Well... today was the most beautiful day I have seen in ages here in Los Angeles - and this is saying a lot, considering how amazing the weather is here.

---

It's always nice in California. :)
It's a good thing I save often in Xenosaga cuz the power's been on the fritz all day.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug Branches
you guys can humor me all you want for this question because I'm sure it will come off as naive as I expect, but what are the chances of another draft? I am not going to get myself killed for some dumbass shit like this

---

Slim to nill. This war will likely compose of bombing campaigns, troops will be nothing but glorified clean-up crews. I believe we have more than enough soldiers, you have little to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug Branches
you guys can humor me all you want for this question because I'm sure it will come off as naive as I expect, but what are the chances of another draft? I am not going to get myself killed for some dumbass shit like this

---

I seriously doubt it. Rich kids might have to go to war and we don't want that. We'll leave it for the poor to fight our wars.

SC

Alright thanks for the prompt responses

but

Quote:

---

I seriously doubt it. Rich kids might have to go to war and we don't want that. We'll leave it for the poor to fight our wars.

---

Was this directed at me or were you just saying that in general?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by diffusionx
And Jetman... well, we can argue the oil point home, but coming from a Bush Administration standpoint:

01. If Iraqis ruin the oil fields, then they can't use them when liberation comes.
02. The last time the Iraqi army did it, tons of gross pollution was hurled into the air. That's not good.

---

It would be nice if those were the real reasons.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug Branches
Was this directed at me or were you just saying that in general?

---

Just in general.

SC

Didn't do a thing to change my mind.

There is still no proof of Iraq's connection to al-Qaeda, nor is the U.S. under threat of imminent harm from Iraq. Bush has not convinced me why he must take the lives of thousands (potentially hundreds of thousands) of Iraqis and spend $80 billion taxpayer dollars to fight a war the vast majority of the world's population opposes. Nor has he convinced me that a war in Iraq will not increase the risk of terrorist attacks by turning the Muslim world even more vehemently against the U.S.

It's not like it's going to be much of a fight anyhow. Troops are just waiting to surrender. For their sake, I hope they do it quickly.

I had no point in watching, so I put my time to better use. (like WWE! :D ) If there's one thing that makes a good reason for fighting, Saddam needs to be removed and we had over 10 years to do it, this must be done now becuase history tells us what this guy is capable of (or lack thereof)

I have been and always will be against this attack. We didn't take over Iraq after Desert Storm because we knew it would be a pain both financially and in manpower, and yet we're going back to do just that. And we also now get to piss off a whole bunch of other nations which could cause more problems down the road. Not to mention we're getting rid of the least terrorist friendly regime in the middle east, and probably only going to incite further acts of terrorism for the even greater U.S. presence that will be sustained in that region once we take it over. The only plus to this war is getting rid of a dictator who terrorized his own people.

Why we suddenly are world police is odd to me. We have so very little to gain and so much to lose, especially lives, that I truly feel bad for all those in Iraq and our soldiers who will be dying over this.

If we were gonna do it, we shoulda done it 12 years ago. This is like sending a murder convict to the electric chair even though he got a life sentence and had already been serving it for a long while. Except this will cost a whole hell of a lot more in tax dollars and blood.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jetman
The only part of the speech I thought was bad was the part when Bush said that the Iraqi people should not burn the oil/wells when they see us coming -- to me that made it kind of seem like the oil was an important factor/reward in this war. I think that line kind of gave anti-war people the ammo they need when they say that Bush is in it ONLY for the oil - which I hope he's not in it totally for that ( I mean I seriously hope its to defend the American peoples' lives and not our wallets) , and the entirety of the speech should have focused on that and not the little sidebar about saving the oil.

---

Actually, the reason he brought that up was because it happened in the first Gulf War. The Iraqi's lit up the oil fields to create a smoke-screen and attempted to sneak attack us in that manner. It was actually relatively successful for them, albet very briefly. So it's not about rewards or anything like that, just experience.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
I seriously doubt it. Rich kids might have to go to war and we don't want that. We'll leave it for the poor to fight our wars.

SC

---

*ahem*

WTF?

Yeah, how dare you talk like that about reservists, just chalking them up to 'poor kids.'

Has there ever been a decade where the U.S. wasn't involved in a war, skirmish, or otherwise? War is good for the economy. Think of how many jobs GE needs to fill in to help make more bombs. As for the U.S. policing the world, well might makes right.

That's true in some fashions... we are the most poweful, so obviously we are doing something right...

To paraphrase a speech from Young Frankenstien, "War is an ugly thing. Once you get one started there is little chance of stopping it, short of bloodshed. So before we start one, we better be damned sure of our evidence."

Also, do they have an official name for this war yet? I'd call it 'Cuban Missile Crisis part 2: this time it's in Iraq.' If Castro is still around, I wonder what he thinks about this whole situation.

I'd call called it "Attack of the Giant Bush", but it's like 12:10 right now and I'm not good at thinking of ideas...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ginaman
Why we suddenly are world police is odd to me.

---

Suddenly?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr-K
Suddenly?

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Box Drink
I'd call called it "Attack of the Giant Bush", but it's like 12:10 right now and I'm not good at thinking of ideas...

---

That sounds like some sort of really bad low-brow sci-fi porn. :chick: :chick:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug Branches
you guys can humor me all you want for this question because I'm sure it will come off as naive as I expect, but what are the chances of another draft? I am not going to get myself killed for some dumbass shit like this

---

Rumsfeld has said he'd be strictly against it. As for the rules, visit the Selective Service website. Males 20-25 and then 18-19 are eligible regardless of pursuit of a college degree.

Regardless of the outcome of the war, the US has lost. Bush's arrogant schoolyard-style I'm-right-and-you're-wrong diplomacy has seriously damaged the UN, NATO, and our friendships with most of our (former) allies. I couldn't believe his gall in trying to attach 9/11 to Iraq. The hijackers were Saudi-born Al Qaeda operatives who trained in Afghanistan under the Taliban government. What does Iraq have to do with that!? This war has been on the Bush Sr&Jr/Republican agenda since the 2000 presidential campaign.

[edit: spelling]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rose4256
Regardless of the outcome of the war, the US has lost. Bush's arrogant schoolyard-style I'm-right-and-you're-wrong diplomacy has seriously damaged the UN, NATO, and our friendships with most of our (former) allies.

---

This simply isn't true - the UN is and has been an anchor wrapped around our necks. A receding connection to the UN is hardly going to damage the US. Beyond this, every time we go outside of the UN and utilise NATO (Kosovo) or something similar, idiots whine about the weakening of the UN and what effect that'll have - inevitably, the effect is little.

Currently, the UN is a tool that provides disproportionately large amounts of influence to useless countries like France, while causing us disproportionately large amounts of trouble. Look at our GDP, look at our defense spending - we're severely underrepresented on the UN, and that lack of representation provides us no tangible benefit.

If what we get out of this is a new trade/political agreement between the US and the countries that have supported us: the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Spain, Poland, and so on, then we'll all be better off. It'll be a windfall for those countries' economies, and France and the rest of the EU will be able to enjoy the spoils of their troublemaking.

Ah yes, more if youre not with us youre WRONG rhetoric.

Oh, boo hoo. The weeping and gnashing of teeth of the TNL liberals still does not soften my heart. Piss moan, piss moan, piss moan.

The world is against us!

Even if they were, I wouldn't care. The world was against preempting Hitler, too.

The world will hate us!

They already do.

The Muslims will form terror factions and try to kill us!

You mean on top of the ones they have already?

Quote:

---

Posted by the Honorable Herr Almaci
Ah yes, more if youre not with us youre WRONG rhetoric.

---

You've described your clique perfectly. Bravo!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
Ah yes, more if youre not with us youre WRONG rhetoric.

---

I think it's more like "If you're not with us, we don't give a damn - have fun being irrelevant" rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
I think it's more like "If you're not with us, we don't give a damn - have fun being irrelevant" rhetoric.

---

Elitest shitheads at their best.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Elitest shitheads at their best.

SC

---

Heh, given the context, I think we can take that as a compliment.

Does anyone else feel like saluting when they see pictures of the MOAB on television? 21,000 lbs of freedom, baby!

Quote:

---

Originally "posted" by spacecowboy in French, translated to English
Elitest shitheads at their best.

SC

---

Yeah? So?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Does anyone else feel like saluting when they see pictures of the MOAB on television? 21,000 lbs of freedom, baby!

---

Hell yes. In fact, I think I may just find a picture online and salute that sucker.

All hail the king of bombs!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
Currently, the UN is a tool that provides disproportionately large amounts of influence to useless countries like France, while causing us disproportionately large amounts of trouble. Look at our GDP, look at our defense spending - we're severely underrepresented on the UN, and that lack of representation provides us no tangible benefit.

---

UN Charter
"by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest"

Note that it says the UN was formed to serve a common interest, not USA's interest. Every nation undoubtedly has its own agenda; however, all nations should comprimise and work toward a common goal through the UN.

I still don't see how any good for anyone at all is going to come out of this war (except maybe the weapons contractors), so all I can really do at this point is hope that a miracle happens and war can be averted, or that at least all hell doesn't break loose because of all this shit.

I don't believe 99% of the shit that comes out of the anti-war fanatics camp, but at the same time I just don't see how anyone at all will benefit the way Stone, Carter et al do. All I know is that a whole shitload of people are about to die, and for what? *shakes head and sighs*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CynicalSphere
I still don't see how any good for anyone at all is going to come out of this war (except maybe the weapons contractors), so all I can really do at this point is hope that a miracle happens and war can be averted, or that at least all hell doesn't break loose because of all this shit.

I don't believe 99% of the shit that comes out of the anti-war fanatics camp, but at the same time I just don't see how anyone at all will benefit the way Stone, Carter et al do. All I know is that a whole shitload of people are about to die, and for what? *shakes head and sighs*

---

A whole shitload of people are about to die so:

1.) Shitloads of Iraqi civilians stop dying EVERY YEAR.
2.) A Shitload of American, Israeli, British, whatever citizens don't die if/when Hussein gets the capability to attack us/them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rose4256
Note that it says the UN was formed to serve a common interest, not USA's interest. Every nation undoubtedly has its own agenda; however, all nations should comprimise and work toward a common goal through the UN.

---

Sorry, I could have sworn we'd been trying to work with the UN since September. Oh right, we did.

Personally, I couldn't care less about the UN anymore. It's worthless. It can't even keep it's own Resolutions enforced. And when it comes down to protecting the US, I really don't give a crap if the UN is against it. We tried to compromise, tried to shift it so they could sign on, but they didn't. So, tally-ho, to war we go.

Onward. To Victory.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ShineAqua
War is good for the economy. Think of how many jobs GE needs to fill in to help make more bombs.

---

We'd have to be involved in a fairly major war for at least a year for it to have have any effect on our economy. This shit in Iraq won't do dick.


I have to agree with those that say that Bush hasn't proved a goddamn thing to his people about any link to terrorists or what weapons Saddam is supposed to have or why we have to invade right this second. I'm sure there's proof of some sort, but it isn't being shared with the American people. As said, we weren't in danger from Iraq, and this war will probably increase the danger of terrorist attacks on the U.S. by 1000%. Plus, I had fun trying to seperate the truth from propaganda in Bush's speech last night. I agree that the UN isn't doing their job and that Saddam is a scumbag and should be removed, but there were far better ways to do it than to turn the world against us. Why couldn't we just send in some covert-ops guys to wack him in his sleep? Where's Sam Fisher, Gabe Logan or Solid Snake when you need them? :)

Well, the war will be on soon, and a lot of innocent lives are on the line. The best we can do now is to support them and wish them a safe return.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
Sorry, I could have sworn we'd been trying to work with the UN since September. Oh right, we did.

Personally, I couldn't care less about the UN anymore. It's worthless. It can't even keep it's own Resolutions enforced. And when it comes down to protecting the US, I really don't give a crap if the UN is against it. We tried to compromise, tried to shift it so they could sign on, but they didn't. So, tally-ho, to war we go.

Onward. To Victory.

---

Bush had NOT been trying to compromise. He's been aiming for wording that includes a deadline, so that no matter what he could declare Iraq in breach based on assertions dressed up as evidence. The other members of the Security Council knew this and decided not to concede their votes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rose4256
Bush had NOT been trying to compromise. He's been aiming for wording that includes a deadline, so that no matter what he could declare Iraq in breach based on assertions dressed up as evidence. The other members of the Security Council knew this and decided not to concede their votes.

---

There were no "assertions dressed up as evidence". Saddam hasn't disarmed. Even your friends the French have said so.

We wanted immediate action. The UN wanted none.

We said, okay, let's have delayed action. The UN said no.

We compromised, they didn't. 'Nuff said.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
A whole shitload of people are about to die so:

1.) Shitloads of Iraqi civilians stop dying EVERY YEAR.
2.) A Shitload of American, Israeli, British, whatever citizens don't die if/when Hussein gets the capability to attack us/them.

---

1) If there were ethnic cleansing going on, there would have been more international support.
2) That's an assumption. Saddam has been adequately contained for 12 years. Our terror attack risk level has increased as a direct result of this war. If Bush really wanted to reduce terror risk, he'd take the motives away from the terrorists: a) stop funding Israel when they already have enough military might to confiscate land and oppress Palestinians, b) remove military presence from the gulf, and c) jump start an initiative to research and give to consumers an energy alternative to petroleum. $1 billion for fuel cell cars is peanuts compared to the >$100 billion invested in this war.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dolemite
Where's Sam Fisher, Gabe Logan or Solid Snake when you need them? :)

---

:lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Well, the war will be on soon, and a lot of innocent lives are on the line. The best we can do now is to support them and wish them a safe return.

---

I agree. Good luck to our troops and I hope to see them home very soon. It's not their fault we're fighting this war.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
There were no "assertions dressed up as evidence". Saddam hasn't disarmed. Even your friends the French have said so.

---

If he hasn't disarmed, where are the weapons? Mobile trucks? Those were cartoons!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rose4256
If he hasn't disarmed, where are the weapons? Mobile trucks? Those were cartoons!

---

Yeah, right. Like he's going to parade them around for you. He's just gonna load 'em up and drive 'em out saying "Here ya go, Rose! Just to convince ya!" Righto.

It's not just the President or Republicans saying he has weapons. Even Indiana Senator Evan Bayh of the Party of the French said last night that he, if his life depended on it, would swear that Iraq has the weapons, due to the intelligence reports he has seen. He is on the Intelligence Committee, after all, so he sees these things.

If we've got more than thirty nations in our coalition, I'd believe that the evidence has been seen and believed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
If we've got more than thirty nations in our coalition, I'd believe that the evidence has been seen and believed.

---

Yeah, that means that there is a 160 some-odd nations who aren't in our 'coalition'. So their stupid, right?

SC

Funny - hear about how Saddam is mobilizing chemical weapons to the borders? You know, the one's you keep saying he doesn't have, and all evidence of such were cartoons? You know, those weapons...

No one source has confirmed it, but Fox, ABC, and NBC are all reporting it.

There's also reports that Iraqi soldiers are already trying to give up. Seems like a good choice - this will be happening, like it or not, and it's better if the least amount of people get hurt from it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
Funny - hear about how Saddam is mobilizing chemical weapons to the borders? You know, the one's you keep saying he doesn't have, and all evidence of such were cartoons? You know, those weapons...

No one source has confirmed it, but Fox, ABC, and NBC are all reporting it.

There's also reports that Iraqi soldiers are already trying to give up. Seems like a good choice - this will be happening, like it or not, and it's better if the least amount of people get hurt from it.

---

Aren't you the same ones who call all of these news stations liberal? Seems like you only believe them when you want to. I haven't heard anything of it on CNN so far, but maybe they'll say something soon.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rose4256
1) If there were ethnic cleansing going on, there would have been more international support.

---

There has been ethnic cleansing in Iraq, for a decade. Ever hear of the Kurds? Cmon , do some research before you post.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
Funny - hear about how Saddam is mobilizing chemical weapons to the borders? You know, the one's you keep saying he doesn't have, and all evidence of such were cartoons? You know, those weapons...

No one source has confirmed it, but Fox, ABC, and NBC are all reporting it.

There's also reports that Iraqi soldiers are already trying to give up. Seems like a good choice - this will be happening, like it or not, and it's better if the least amount of people get hurt from it.

---

Well obviously Iraq had some chemical weapons. The U.S. gave it to them back in the 80s. They're using it now because the U.S. is invading. If you were an Iraqi soldier defending your nation from invasion, you would have to do the same with whatever weapons you had at your disposal. Whats the point in arguing at this point anyway? All forms of mediation and diplomacy were thrown out the window and nothing is going to stop the attack now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone
A whole shitload of people are about to die so:

1.) Shitloads of Iraqi civilians stop dying EVERY YEAR.
2.) A Shitload of American, Israeli, British, whatever citizens don't die if/when Hussein gets the capability to attack us/them.

---

Yes, yes, I'm well aware of that. That wasn't a stab against war or getting Hussein (Hell, I'd dance on Saddam's grave if I could, which goes to show how much I despise the man). I could care less about the bloodthirsty Hussein regime; they can kill every last one of them for all I care. I'm just very squeamish about all the civilian deaths.

I don't know; I know that we wouldn't be going to war if there was no benefit to be gained from it, but I still shudder at the thought. Maybe I'm just the eternal pessimist. Or maybe I've been exposed to so many anti-war pussies that I'm starting to grow labia myself. :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rose4256
1) If there were ethnic cleansing going on, there would have been more international support.

---

B. U. L. L. S. H. I. T.

Saddam has been killing Kurds and using his weapons on his own people and that's reason enough to kill the fucker...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
Funny - hear about how Saddam is mobilizing chemical weapons to the borders? You know, the one's you keep saying he doesn't have, and all evidence of such were cartoons? You know, those weapons...

No one source has confirmed it, but Fox, ABC, and NBC are all reporting it.

There's also reports that Iraqi soldiers are already trying to give up. Seems like a good choice - this will be happening, like it or not, and it's better if the least amount of people get hurt from it.

---

Once again, Hero puts his own spin on things. No one has said Saddam is mobilizing chemical weapons. U.S. intelligence says they recieved new information that Iraqi's may have Mustard gas and VX. They even admit that this info is sketchy at best.

SC

Why are my posts always ignored in these threads?

Oh well, I suppose it doesn't really matter. When you can ridicule Almaci I guess my posts are less interesting.

Every time I read these threads I get more insulted. I ask legitimate questions, like "why does the U.S. need to spend $90 billion on a war only tangentially related to the war on terrorism?", and I get ridiculed as a "TNL liberal." Every time I ask why we need to start a war that will leave hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, I am ignored.

Go on, invent more stupid French insults. They're not going to help you explain how this war will make the world a safer place.

Saddam's human shredder

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sleeveboy
Why are my posts always ignored in these threads?

Oh well, I suppose it doesn't really matter. When you can ridicule Almaci I guess my posts are less interesting.

Every time I read these threads I get more insulted. I ask legitimate questions, like "why does the U.S. need to spend $90 billion on a war only tangentially related to the war on terrorism?", and I get ridiculed as a "TNL liberal." Every time I ask why we need to start a war that will leave hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, I am ignored.

Go on, invent more stupid French insults. They're not going to help you explain how this war will make the world a safer place.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Schlep
Saddam's human shredder

---

Whenever I hear about Saddam torturing and killing his population, I can only think of other mass killers in positions of power like Pol Pot who had babies killed by bashing their heads against trees and dumping all the millions of bodies into mass graves. And then I think about all the stuff the U.S. did to stop it. Oh wait, we didn't do jack shit for those people. The only justification I see for this war is to protect Iraq from Saddam. And the U.S. doing such a thing is a first in history. I hope now that the U.S. takes down every single evil murderous dictator alive today and will continue this policing. Or else it will look really bad on us. Why exactly Saddam is more worthy of removal than guys like Pol Pot or Mao Zedong I will never understand.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sleeveboy
Why are my posts always ignored in these threads?

Oh well, I suppose it doesn't really matter. When you can ridicule Almaci I guess my posts are less interesting.

Every time I read these threads I get more insulted. I ask legitimate questions, like "why does the U.S. need to spend $90 billion on a war only tangentially related to the war on terrorism?", and I get ridiculed as a "TNL liberal." Every time I ask why we need to start a war that will leave hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, I am ignored.

Go on, invent more stupid French insults. They're not going to help you explain how this war will make the world a safer place.

---

I hear you. It's not even going to be only $90 billion (I shudder at the sound of that much money being spent on this). The UN needs $40 billion in order to take care of Iraqi refugees. Since the U.S. wants to liberate Iraq, everyone is going to expect us to front the bill. Then how much is it going to cost us to 'rebuild' Iraq? The 'TNL conservatives' only see what they want to and only respond to what they want to.

And the French have said that if Iraq uses WMD, they would help us. Man those French sure do hate us don't they. They'll do anything to go against us right? Or maybe they would rather handle things diplomatically before resorting to war like we do. We do things the other way around.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Schlep
Saddam's human shredder

---

That's a pretty sad article. I don't disagree that Saddam is a bad guy. But I don't think war is the answer. Interesting article, though perhaps thinking emotionally isn't the best way to go about this.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sleeveboy
Why are my posts always ignored in these threads?

---

Ohhh, I dunno. Your posts just aren't fun. You're better than the rest of us, so how can we even reply? It'd be like me trying to argue down the Pope. I mean, he leads the Roman Catholic Church and has a kick-ace hat to boot. Nobody argues him down. And your name is sleeveboy. How can one simply argue with that? And you've an ugly woman as your avatar, which is also powerful. True; I have an ugly man. But James Earl Carter is simply a man of the people and a builder of houses.

Quote:

---

Oh well, I suppose it doesn't really matter. When you can ridicule Almaci I guess my posts are less interesting.

---

I don't even respond to him anymore.

Quote:

---

Every time I read these threads I get more insulted. I ask legitimate questions, like "why does the U.S. need to spend $90 billion on a war only tangentially related to the war on terrorism?", and I get ridiculed as a "TNL liberal." Every time I ask why we need to start a war that will leave hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, I am ignored.

---

And people answer. The only problem is, is that you don't accept their answers. You say they're wrong, baseless, etc, etc, piss, moan, whine, whatever. The bottomline is that I ignore Almaci and generally ignore you because, while I am confident that I am correct, I can at least accept the fact that you have your opinion/it is your opinion/you can keep your opinion. You, Almaci and the rest o' the gang seem to have a major beef with our (conservative TNLers) reasons for believing what we do.

You'd do a heck of a lot better in getting replies if you'd just get off of your throne and accept the fact that these opinions, ideas and beliefs are our own and we will not change them due to your own personal refusal to believe them.

Quote:

---

Go on, invent more stupid French insults. They're not going to help you explain how this war will make the world a safer place.

---

But they sure are fun! Le oui oui!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Schlep
Saddam's human shredder

---

Hey, remember all those reports of atrocious human rights violation being perpetrated by the Iraqis back when they invaded Kuwait? Completely fabricated propaganda. There was that one "unidentified Kuwaiti girl" who testified before congress (I think it was congress, coulda been the Senate) about her eyewitness account of babies being ripped from their incubators in hospitals and being dashed on the floor. Turns out she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US and hadn't been out of the US in years.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
And the French have said that if Iraq uses WMD, they would help us. Man those French sure do hate us don't they. They'll do anything to go against us right? Or maybe they would rather handle things diplomatically before resorting to war like we do. We do things the other way around.

---

It's called "Damage Control".

Quote:

---

The bottomline is that I ignore Almaci and generally ignore you because, while I am confident that I am correct, I can at least accept the fact that you have your opinion/it is your opinion/you can keep your opinion. You, Almaci and the rest o' the gang seem to have a major beef with our (conservative TNLers) reasons for believing what we do.

---

Well that explains it, I guess.

I'm not looking for insults here, and I'm not looking to prove people wrong. I'm looking for intelligent discussion and based on your ridiculous reply, you have no intention of providing it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sleeveboy
Well that explains it, I guess.

I'm not looking for insults here, and I'm not looking to prove people wrong. I'm looking for intelligent discussion and based on your ridiculous reply, you have no intention of providing it.

---

And your reply falls right into what I said. Instead of accepting my response opinion, you say that I've no "intenion" of providing "intelligent discussion". Nice try.

If I had used your tactic I'd be killed on these forums, but I don't. I engage, I discuss and I state my opinion and if you can't accept that, fine. That'll be your problem, not mine, when you enter the real world. There are those of us who understand the whole concept of "freedom of thought" and we don't feel the need to force everyone to conform or have them risk being deemed incapable of intelligent discussion.

When did I ever say you were not free to express your opinions?

I said only that was tired of seeing clumsy French insults and cliched rhetoric (from both sides, incidentally) in place of real debate. If you want to keep providing that, go ahead.

Quote:

---

If I had used your tactic I'd be killed on these forums, but I don't.

---

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

These threads always seem to degrade into petty squabbles... that's why I avoid them.

Oh and Bush's speech last night was a big load of propoganda horse shit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
And your reply falls right into what I said. Instead of accepting my response opinion, you say that I've no "intenion" of providing "intelligent discussion". Nice try.

If I had used your tactic I'd be killed on these forums, but I don't. I engage, I discuss and I state my opinion and if you can't accept that, fine. That'll be your problem, not mine, when you enter the real world. There are those of us who understand the whole concept of "freedom of thought" and we don't feel the need to force everyone to conform or have them risk being deemed incapable of intelligent discussion.

---

Carter, you're an odd person. You've never accepted any of us 'liberals' because 'all we do is give our opinions and not facts'. So now it's about opinions? Everything I've said has been dismissed as liberal rhetoric. How is that accepting of my opinion? Perhaps, you should heed your own advice.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bbobb
These threads always seem to degrade into petty squabbles... that's why I avoid them.

---

I've started to notice this as well.

SC

Iraq Civil War?
by Amir Taheri
New York Post
March 2, 2003
AS if it didn't have enough trouble with some allies about whether or not to take action against Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration is becoming involved in a tussle with the Iraqi opposition on what should happen after the war. The administration is strongly considering the idea of U.S. military rule - with the State Department and CIA strongly in favor. But in public and private conversation, the Iraqi opposition has objected loudly: It sees this as a plan to keep the Ba'athist regime in place (minus a few top leaders, notably President Saddam Hussein).

To show their pique, Iraqi opposition leaders have multiplied contacts with Iran, preach a program of massive "de-Ba'athification" and threaten to announce a provisional government the moment that Saddam's army surrenders to the U.S.-led coalition.

The United States has said it would not recognize such a government. Iran has hinted that it might. The quiet alliance formed between America and Iran, symbolized by their sponsorship of the opposition conference in London last December, is under strain.

Imagine the United States installing a military ruler in Baghdad while the Iraqi opposition announces a provisional government in Erbil. Iran could recognize that government, thus emerging as the ally of the Iraqi people against foreign, i.e. American and Turkish, occupation.

The Bush administration and the Iraqi opposition need to take a deep breath and ponder the consequences. Unless they work together, they could lead Iraq into a tragic mess.

American military rule would mean a disappearance of the Iraqi state, at least for a while. That could encourage fissiparous forces, including ethnic groups, tribes and even criminal gangs, to seize control of as much territory as they can, making the re-emergence of a central government that much more problematic. And if Turkish troops are allowed to occupy part of Iraq, be sure that Iran would react by massively arming its own clients among Iraqi Kurds and Shiites.

The United States could thus find itself with no local allies except the remnants of the Ba'athist regime and security services, based on a few clans in Takrit and its environs. If that is the ideal, why not keep Saddam, as the French suggest? (Saddam has told the French that he is ready to do whatever Washington wants in exchange for written guarantees that nothing will be done to topple him.)

For the past 30 years, the Iraqi people have been fighting for liberation, not for an American military occupation. Liberation from Saddamist rule should be seen as a partnership between the Iraqi people and allies led by the United States.

The Iraqi people started to fight the regime long before America became interested in Iraq, and in periods when Washington backed Saddam. They have made greater sacrifices than the United States could make in liberating Iraq.

By most estimates, more than 100,000 opposition members and leaders have been executed in Iraq since 1968. Many more have died in civil wars and "ethnic cleansing" operations conducted by the regime. Some 4 million Iraqis have been driven into exile, while over a million others suffered prison terms of varying lengths during the past 30 years.

Should all that "investment by suffering" produce nothing but American military rule backed by the existing Ba'athist repressive machine?

It is not too late for the Bush administration to abandon the idea of direct military rule. Once Saddam's forces have surrendered, the United States must recognize the new Iraqi provisional government, which should be announced at the same time and not earlier.

The provisional government would then sign accords under which the U.S.-led forces would be invited to stay in Iraq at its discretion and for the performance of precise tasks. Thus, legally speaking, Iraq would not become occupied territory but host to an allied force for a fixed period.

The provisional government would then fulfill Iraq's obligations under the 18 U.N. resolutions, preparing the way for a lifting of the sanctions.

The CIA and State Department should read Iraq's history: They'd realize that the British, who created the modern Iraqi state, did not try to rule it directly but depended on the local elites for the purpose.

There are also things that the Iraqi opposition should do if we are not going to have a post-war tragedy in Iraq. The opposition's call for "massive de-Ba'athification," on the same pattern as de-Nazification in Germany after Hitler, is disingenuous to say the least.

Almost a third of the opposition's 65-man council are dissident Ba'athists, including some former members of Saddam's intelligence services. If those guys could change their minds, why shouldn't present-day Ba'athists also be able to reform once the tyrant is deposed?

The Ba'ath Party in Iraq is not like the Nazi Party in Germany. The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi Ba'athists are individuals who joined the party to protect their careers and businesses or to secure a share of the favors that such regimes distribute.

Thus the opposition should not preach a witch-hunt. It should propose the creation of a truth and reconciliation committee to heal Iraq's internal wounds, rather than keep twisting the knife in them.

President Bush has promised to help Iraq become a model of democracy. He should, therefore, veto the CIA-State Department plan and let Iraqis form a government that reflects the nation's ethnic, religious and political diversity.

The United States would thus gain a potentially powerful ally in the Middle East rather than turning a whole nation into another enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sleeveboy
When did I ever say you were not free to express your opinions?

---

You denounce every opinion of mine or conservative TNLers. I'm for the war because I view Saddam as being tied to terrorism, tied to the war on terrorism and a neccessary(sp) target. Second, I am honestly excited that we can help Iraq. These are my opinions. This is what I think. Instead of accepting the fact that I believe these, the liberals on this forum including yourself have been quick to denounce them as untrue or wrong because you simply don't agree.

It is not an actual quote of "you can't express your opinions" but an applied insinuation due to actions. If I can accept the fact that you've been critical in thinking over your opinions on the situation and chosen your opinions based on such, I believe you and the others who disagree with me can do the same.

All I ask for is that when I say, "I believe the President, I believe his proof, I'll trust him", I don't get hammered for being a fool or an idiot because I'm not as harshly cynical or liberal as the rest of you are.

Quote:

---

I said only that was tired of seeing clumsy French insults and cliched rhetoric (from both sides, incidentally) in place of real debate. If you want to keep providing that, go ahead.

---

I've not given cliched rhetoric, I've given my opinions that I've gotten to via critical thinking.

Quote:

---

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

---

Meaning: If I tried to put everyone I disagreed with in a box and marked it "Not Intending of Intellectual Discussion", I'd be textually raped.

Great article , xS.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
Yeah, right. Like he's going to parade them around for you. He's just gonna load 'em up and drive 'em out saying "Here ya go, Rose! Just to convince ya!" Righto.

---

If US intelligence has information, why hasn't it been shared in adequate amounts with weapons inspectors? Is our government afraid that the evidence will be uncovered, thereby affirming the effectiveness of inspections? Or is our government afraid that the supposition of such mobile trucks could never be proven correct?

If North Korea has a similar or worse arsenal of WMD, why aren't we waging war on them also? Why not seek multilateral regional help in Iraq as US is asking with North Korea?

Unilateral preemptive war sets a terrible precedent even if done with "good" intentions. What could we say to stop other countries from forming small groups to try to "regime-change" someone else? The US will no longer be a credible voice in any future peacemaking process.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Carter, you're an odd person.

---

That's what my parents say, too. Albeit, my real name isn't Carter but you get the point.

Quote:

---

You've never accepted any of us 'liberals' because 'all we do is give our opinions and not facts'. So now it's about opinions? Everything I've said has been dismissed as liberal rhetoric. How is that accepting of my opinion?

---

You're against the war and I'm for it. I think Bush is awesome, you don't. Reagan was the greatest President of the 20th century, I'm sure you wouldn't agree.

I seem to have accepted your opinions just fine.

Quote:

---

Perhaps, you should heed your own advice.

---

What's the fun in that?

Quote:

---

I've started to notice this as well.

---

It's been this way forever.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Great article , xS.

SC

---

I didn't post it to spread any anti war propoganda, I just thought it would be an interesting subject of discussion in this thread.:p IMO war would be justified mainly due to the massive amounts of abuse by the current Iraqi government.
I hope they don't attack Iran next after this... that would be a disaster.:(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rose4256
If US intelligence has information, why hasn't it been shared in adequate amounts with weapons inspectors?

---

From what it sounds like, it has.

Quote:

---

Is our government afraid that the evidence will be uncovered, thereby affirming the effectiveness of inspections?

---

Probably not.

Quote:

---

Or is our government afraid that the supposition of such mobile trucks could never be proven correct?

---

I hope not.

Quote:

---

If North Korea has a similar or worse arsenal of WMD, why aren't we waging war on them also?

---

1. It's regional.

2. We're gonna deal with it. One thing at a time. It's become the champion scream of the Party of the French against the President but if we were going against North Korea instead of Iraq, we'd probably be hearing the opposite.

3. It's not our job to police everything in this world. Saddam works with and aids terrorists. Kim Jong Il is just a psychotic loser who has low self-esteem.

Quote:

---

Why not seek multilateral regional help in Iraq as US is asking with North Korea?

---

We have.

Quote:

---

Unilateral preemptive war sets a terrible precedent even if done with "good" intentions.

---

Unilateral: "done or undertaken by one person or party". We've got thirty countries with us. That's not unilateral.

Quote:

---

What could we say to stop other countries from forming small groups to try to "regime-change" someone else?

---

Depends on the regime they're changing. If it were South Korea/Japan/China going after North Korea, I'd say, "Can I lend you a couple bucks?" If it were England, Germany, Italy and Spain against France I'd laugh and then say, "What's the point? Knock it off, guys".

Quote:

---

The US will no longer be a credible voice in any future peacemaking process.

---

Sure thing, whatever you say!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
3. It's not our job to police everything in this world. Saddam works with and aids terrorists.

---

Since when? Even Bush doesn't out and out claim this. If you're looking for a country that supports terrorists, check out Saudi Arabia.

:blank:
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/5418901.htm
:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint of Killers
Since when? Even Bush doesn't out and out claim this. If you're looking for a country that supports terrorists, check out Saudi Arabia.

---

Yes he has. Last night, "The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda."

And would you please ask me about Saudi Arabia before you say such things?

My opinion: Saudi Arabia is made up of a bunch of oppressive, anti-freedom, terrorist-harboring jerks who need to be brought to their knees. Their government sickens me, their actions anger me and their systematic killing of opinions worries me.

Saudi Arabia is most likely on our list of targets.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by xS
I didn't post it to spread any anti war propoganda, I just thought it would be an interesting subject of discussion in this thread.:p IMO war would be justified mainly due to the massive amounts of abuse by the current Iraqi government.
I hope they don't attack Iran next after this... that would be a disaster.:(

---

So now everything I say is great is anti-war propaganda? That's a little unfair. While I don't think this war is justified, I agree that the current Iraqi government is bad. I also hope they don't attack Iran next. My father is Iranian. But Iran isn't like Iraq. They're much more unified and have a better military.

SC

You still haven't answered my question.

"I've got this gut feeling that Canada supports and aids terrorists. There's no proof, and all evidence points to them actually working against terrorists. But I'm gonna have to go with my intuition. Let's bomb those fucks!"

Edit: Okay, so now Bush it out and out lying. Wonderful.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint of Killers
Edit: Okay, so now Bush it out and out lying. Wonderful.

---

How do you know he is?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint of Killers
Hey, remember all those reports of atrocious human rights violation being perpetrated by the Iraqis back when they invaded Kuwait? Completely fabricated propaganda.

---

Dude, war's all about propaganda. According to Bush last night, Saddam has "poison factories" and "rape rooms" on every corner. Most of the facts Bush tells us are either made up, exaghagerated, or true, and it's impossible anymore to tell which is which. I still say we should have just sent in a nice covert assassination squad to take Saddam and his sons out...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/D...05_krekar.html

Just the first link that popped up when I stuck "Iraq Al Qaeda" into google. There's a ton more. But I'm sure the nice Islamic terrorist is just lying to protect his good buddy Saddam.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dolemite
Dude, war's all about propaganda. According to Bush last night, Saddam has "poison factories" and "rape rooms" on every corner. Most of the facts Bush tells us are either made up, exaghagerated, or true, and it's impossible anymore to tell which is which. I still say we should have just sent in a nice covert assassination squad to take Saddam and his sons out...

---

Considering that you are "Dolemite, the Bad-Ass King of all Pimps and Hustlers" and your avatar. I say we send you in, covered by a group of Delta Force units. They'd be dead in no time and you'd be a national hero.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by xS
:blank:
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/5418901.htm
:confused:

---

Another great article, but we've talked about much of it already.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
Considering that you are "Dolemite, the Bad-Ass King of all Pimps and Hustlers" and your avatar. I say we send you in, covered by a group of Delta Force units. They'd be dead in no time and you'd be a national hero.

---

Good idea, my brother, but I don't need me no Detla Force honkies. I got my all-girl army of Kung-Fu hookers to whup dat ass.

Calm down people.:) History teaches us that diplomacy is the option 99.99999% of the time. If however, the tyrannical government tries to kill as many people as possible, their actions should be prevented by a direct intervention.

The way of the future is diplomacy, and for the world to be more tolerant. However, we must also be vigilant in case evil is propelled to absolute power over a region or market, like Microsoft. I for example consider MS to be a greater threat to the world and US than Saddam Hussain. If you look several years down the road, their current tactics are outlining their future agenda, which is that all public and private data will be handled through them and they will make the decisions pertinent to our lives. Then the conflict will not be territorial but virtual. Fighting in the future will depend on smarts not muscle.

Even though I know what that area is like through first hand experience, I cannot support a war with such insufficient grounding. I think that a lot more could have been done by using infiltration. The problem is that people in that region are paranoid of everyone they don't know since childhood and therefore it's very hard to infiltrate their social circles. The FBI themselves say that they have not been able to successfully infiltrate the militant muslims and must rely on informants who have their own agendas and sometimes give false information. What Saddam fears most is if his own people rise up against him, that's why when he came to power he held a meeting during which names were called and they were led away to be tortured and sometimes executed as they proclaimed their love for Saddam. As an Iraqi government official later said, they were executed not because they conspired against Saddam but because they were thinking of conspiring against him. Same thing with Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Castro and any others who force a slavery of the mind on their people. To them it is more important that the mind and beliefs of the individual be with them instead of their body, because then you can rob, rape, and murder them at your will and they'll still love you. The moment that control is gone, he can kiss his ass goodbye.

If however, people could be persuaded to turn against their established government, then the victory is won with minimal amount of bloodshed. The problem is that Iraqis right now don't believe that US will provide a better government than the currently ruling Baath, because Bush has not given any indication that he's even thinking about it. It looks like its all about revenge for him as he tries desperately to link Saddam to Al-Quaeda. A business which his daddy didn't finish 12 years ago. They are not about to change their whole way of life for a vaporware government. They don't want to become another Afghanistan, they're much more intelligent than that.

You should hear the discussions in Russia on the subject, many intelligent people from all over the former Soviet Union discuss this in an open forum and without bias. All the leaders of their communities are respected without reservation because they might come from less economically important regions. They are unanimous on the war being wrong for the entire world and that Bush has dug a deep hole for himself with this.

If Bush would take more time to secretly plan the removal of Saddam with some trusted Iraqi officials, he would be seen as a savior, but now the future is more uncertain than ever. Millitant muslims are now majorly pissed and we can expect more terrorist attacks on US soil as well as western interests in general.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dolemite
Good idea, my brother, but I don't need me no Detla Force honkies. I got my all-girl army of Kung-Fu hookers to whup dat ass.

---

Best. Army. Ever.

And should George give you that fateful call, remember to bring a camera. You could make millions with a video.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dolemite
Good idea, my brother, but I don't need me no Detla Force honkies. I got my all-girl army of Kung-Fu hookers to whup dat ass.

---

]
:lol:

I'm loathe to get involved in these threads, since they generally go nowhere. But, with the impending attack, here are a few points which you can consider, or not, at your leisure:

-Saddam is a defeated enemy, one who has not complied with the terms of his surrender. This is unacceptable, no matter how one views the political machinations of the U.S. or it allies.

-There have been almost no large-scale military actions backed by the U.N. The biggest players have obvious competing interests, and that has been the case since the U.N.'s inception. For example (and correct me if I'm mistaken), but I do not believe that the U.N. unamiously sanctioned the high-altitude bombing in and around Belgrade, which by its very nature was destined to, and did, result in a boatload of civilian casualties. (By the way, can you guess which U.N. "players" weren't exactly on board with that little stunt?) I'm not arguing whether it was justified or not, rather only pointing out the consistent lack of any U.N. unity on what most people would consider to be the most high-profile military actions. Some will certainly disagree, but I find it laughable to argue that the U.N. has any collective moral authority -- examples where it sat by while literally millions of people have been subjugated and/or murdered are atrociously numerous.

-"Regime Change" for Iraq has been the official U.S. policy since approximately 1998 when it was specifically enacted by President Clinton. Go check out his reasons for this policy -- curiously, he mentioned something about the enormous threat of giving Saddam any breathing room, which he would only use to his murderous advantage.

-"Nonviolence" has almost never been successful. (Further, IMO, and under certain circumstance, it is an immoral position. Ironic.) The one notable exception is, of course, India and the British. Ahimsa worked there because, despite any number of ugly missteps in their history, the British, at heart, were not murderous savages. They had compassion, and they were a people with whom one could ultimately reason.

-Saddam will not and cannot be reasoned with. He has no interest in peace, and never had any such interest as consistently demonstrated by his actions. He cannot be contained (at least, not with respect to any variety of atrocities and general dirty deeds that have taken place, and will continue to take place, within Iraq's borders, and which *could* spill over into other countries, including the U.S. and its allies). Criticism of the U.S. and its allies does not alter the foregoing.

-The hands of the U.S. (and some of its allies) are by no means clean in this matter. In an of itself, however, that is not a persuasive reason to stay our hand now.

-There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of the U.S. and its policies, along with those of its allies. There are legitimate arguments for why a military action is ill-advised. That said, I'm not convinced that a military action is unquestionably inappropriate.

-The present coalition is, I believe, one of the largest, if not "the" largest coalition of countries that have officially backed a large-scale military action since World War II.

I hope it will all be over quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Prince Planet

-The present coalition is, I believe, one of the largest, if not "the" largest coalition of countries that have officially backed a large-scale military action since World War II.

---

Third largest. 47 for WWII and 50 for GWI. Or vice versa.

Yes, a nitpick but ... I couldn't help it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
There were no "assertions dressed up as evidence". Saddam hasn't disarmed. Even your friends the French have said so.

We wanted immediate action. The UN wanted none.

We said, okay, let's have delayed action. The UN said no.

We compromised, they didn't. 'Nuff said.

---

France proposed a 30 day deadline, a deadline I might add that would have received near unanimous backing, the US declined and decided to claim that all diplomatic efforts had failed and he promptly put a 48 houre deadline.
Check it up, claiming that France would veto any second resolution is an outright lie.

Dont have time right now to deal with the rest of this thread.

Just this stone, how can you marvel at the destructive force of a huge bomb and call it freedom?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Almaci
Just this stone, how can you marvel at the destructive force of a huge bomb and call it freedom?

---

How can he not?

Lookit that beast! It's huge! It's powerful! It's ... beautiful.

I'm drunk, so this is the best I can contribute to this thread.=\
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E1702,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...15690,00.html:(

Nice, totaly ignore another point I made.
Another lie told by Bush, mwah wont make any difference, whats just another lie amongst the hunderds he and his cabinet have been spouting.

I know its not gonna happen but what if Saddam and his sons leave iraq within the next 24 houres.
Wont the country still be filled with all those WMD Bush claims they have, wont it still be a safe haven for Al queda like Bush claims, wont the republican guards still oppres and torture the people and whats stopping saddam from organising mega terror attacks from wherever it is he goes into exile to?

Bulshit plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
How can he not?

Lookit that beast! It's huge! It's powerful! It's ... beautiful.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Prince Planet
Ahimsa worked there because, despite any number of ugly missteps in their history, the British, at heart, were not murderous savages. They had compassion, and they were a people with whom one could ultimately reason.

---

Oh bullshit. Ask the Irish and Scottish how compassionate and reasonable they were.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint of Killers
Oh bullshit. Ask the Irish and Scottish how compassionate and reasonable they were.

---

They weren't very compassionate or reasonable with the American colonists as well.

SC

Or with India.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint of Killers
Oh bullshit. Ask the Irish and Scottish how compassionate and reasonable they were.

---

Are. Your statement is past tense. I'd make it present.