War with Iraq has Begun

[Sasarai]

Incase you weren't aware, at 9:30PM EST, F-117 Stealth fighters fired at Baghdad in an attempt to take out Iraqi leaders.

Shortly after anti-aircraft fire could be seen in the Iraqi sky.

Feel free to speak your opinion on the war we all knew was inevitable.

Edit: Change in information which was finally confirmed.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sasarai on 2003-03-19 21:01 ]</font>

[sharkie-do]

Holy crap man...its all going down...I cant wait to go to school tommorrow and see all those ignorant fools talking about their day off...dumbass bitches...I dont think ill ever even want to date in high school...

[BlackRose]

All I can say is I hope George W. Bush is having a hell of a lot of fun with this war he's spending our money on...

[Sasarai]

Disclaimer: The content below is pro-war and reflects my personal opinion and knowledge, feel free to flame me but know I will defend my point intellectual responses.

The U.S. government is obviously more privy to information than most countries (allies included) and the public (meaning all civilians; myself included), so anti-war protests can continue, but the simple fact is none of us truly know half of the truth or motives.

Frankly, when people begin to protest illicitly by any form of civil disobedience, they are a threat to the public safety of any country. Protesting does nothing but fuel the fire to further separate the unity and resolve needed to accomplish the task at hand.

Not only does protesting cause moral/political divides; but it can create a greater problem (more in the U.S. and Britain than other countries because we are leading the campaign) because our law enforcement (local, state and federal), which should be defending our sensitive sites (public buildings, government buildings, major attractions) and people, are busy arresting buffoons who have nothing better to do than blindly brandish banners and signs.

If you are anti-war, I'd like to know what your viewpoint was on Clinton's Operation Desert Fox

Incase you're a stalwart liberal, let me remind you of some facts.

Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 without U.N. or Congress backing him. At least President Bush failed at diplomacy, the self-promclaimed harbingers of peace (democrats) didn't even make an attempt at diplomacy in 1998.

A common counter-point is that it was all a charade, to mobilize U.S. forces. Or, that Colin Powell was just a decoy for the media. Of course, I'd point out the French promised Sec. of State Powell, that they would support us and use force against Iraq if it was proven Iraq was still in possession of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and other banned weapons.

Resolution 1441 clearly outlined the aforementioned fact and was approved unanimously by the U.N. Security Council. When Sec. of State Powell urged Pres. Bush to seek a U.N. resolution he was under the impression he had support from France and the other permanent members of the Security Council.

To put it simply, Colin Powell was stabbed in the back by the French and horribly humiliated.

[LollipopLolita]

sharkie, you better stop the stupid spam before i give you another warning and result in your banning.

[sharkie-do]

I didnt read it but i saw PRO-WAr so, amen brother!

[LollipopLolita]

sharkie this is your last warning. i will not hesitate to throw the last warning over to you

[-BK-]

Sasarai, you said it better than I could have. I really think that Bush is doing what he feels it best/safest.

[Manpukkuken]

This war is a crime.
And there will be a time,when Bush will have to face consequences.
No country can act like being ruler of the world,ignoring the opinion of the majority of nations.
And for the coalition supporting Bush:
Who except UK really plays a role in world´s policy?
Poland?Ethiopia??Australia???
But nations who do (Germany,France,Russia and the whole UN Security Council) were simply overruled like some 3rd class mini-states...
There is no legitimation for this war,therefore it´s a crime against Nation´s Law.

[DukeElrond]

I don't think there is anything wrong with being anti-war, or being an anti-war protestor. Every person has that right to express thier views in a democracy. Protesting in a way that gets you arrested is crossing the line, however.

I prefer to keep my thought on the war private, but I just wanted to get that point across. One of the things we're trying to protect in the USA is people's right to peacefully protest; therefore, using the police force to help manage such events in a legal way is not a waste of time.

[Abaddon]

So FINALLY the mental masturbation has ended.
*shrugs* i couldnt care less what happens now

[Elentari]

All i can say is that all of the anti-war people i have talked to have only had one reason to back up their view point. They said "well, i dont want innocent people to die." I couldnt believe it when i heard it...do they NOT watch the news? I dont understand why people cannot formulate their own position on this matter based on the facts... I asked them what they thought of how an iraqi man was punished because he defaced one of Saddam's pictures(in case ya didnt know...he was tied up, they cut out his tongue and the people watched him bleed to death), they said "well, thats just how they punish people in that country" and walked off. Its amazing the freedoms people take for granted...

I also heard that Saddam had a bunch of his people dress in american uniforms and go and rape and murder iraqi men and women, so that the iraqi people would think that its americans doing it. Argh...that man just makes me furious.

To get back to their comment about the innocent people dieing. They already are, and have been. He lives the life of the dazzling rich, and his people live in poverty with out food. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_frown.gif i cant think anymore... too late.

[DJplaeskool]

To paraphrase Senator Byrd...

We are going to be spending more time repairing our image and international relations than reconstructing Iraq, pending an outcome in our favor. This unilateral (35/188 (sic) countries doesn't count as a coalition in my eyes) action will sow the seeds of events we will never wish to see and possibly could not have imagined...

[Ness]

On 2003-03-19 20:20, LollipopLolita wrote:
sharkie, you better stop the stupid spam before i give you another warning and result in your banning.



I think he's Blaize in disguise.

Anyway..

By going to war with Iraq, I think Bush is doing the right thing. (For once)

[Sasarai]

The U.S. as a nation has the right to defend itself from future possibilities of terrorism (Saddam's and other radical muslim groups' goal).

The thing is, two days after September 11th, the world turned their back on the U.S. and you know why?
America's weakness was finally exploited, and the world saw (including Americans) that we are not invulnerable.

So now, the European nations who so adamantly oppose the War are doing so because they wish to restore their popularity and power.

Let me remind all of you, in a current poll of the French public nearly 45% of the country believes in communist ideals, a staggering 25% still believes in Fascism (Jacques Chirac, the French President) and 30% of the country is as left (liberal) as Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi. Obviously these numbers aren't in reality as exact as I've made them, but for sake of simplicity this is what an overwheliming portion of the French break down into; the clinically insane.

And for all of you who are anti-war and support France and Germany's position, let me remind you of something else. Germany is still allowing the use of U.S. military bases and German airspace for the War; are they really against the war or are they trying to save face in the public eye? I believe save face.

France, equally, is against the War for ulterior motives. They don't give a rat's ass about the "innocent lives" that will be lost--they only care about the money that Iraq owes them (I believe the figure was in the millions, or billions, I honestly can't remember) and if Saddam is removed from power they're going to lose a shitload of money. Also, France purchases 25% of Iraq's crude oil. They stand a lot to lose, this is why they are anti-war.

For all of you complaining about how much it will cost you--not a damn thing. We pay taxes for the services that our government and its ellected officials provide. If you don't like that, leave.

The U.S. was actively seeking a second U.N. resolution, but France swore that they would veto any other resolution concering the future Iraq. Bush and Powell didn't fail at diplomacy it was shot in the head by the French. Incase you weren't aware, Dr. Blix even stated that the inspections in the last two weeks before the War were becoming useless as their access was even more restricted than before. Face it people, Saddam is not interested in peace, he is a madman who wouldn't think twice about murdering his own people and anyone else.

One last point about protesting, in Cairo, protesting citizens have begun throwing stones at the U.S. Embassy. When does one draw the line on acceptable forms of protest? Protests, as I've said before distract law enforcement from more important duties which can lead to a leak in security and give an opportunity for more terrorists to attack our nation. Frankly, I believe all protestors should be arrested and kept locked up until the War is over. You may have the right to speak, but you don't have the right to endager the lives of your fellow citizens. I want the law enformcement and federal forces (National Guard, etc.) to focus on keeping me and my family safe, not trying to break up a group of idiots.

[Dangerous55]

About time, but it seems it is going to be more of a war than I thought.

Also, we are going to sacrafice our ground troops just so innocents are not going to be killed. If we didnt care about innocents, we could just air-strike anything.

[DJplaeskool]

On 2003-03-20 10:55, Sasarai wrote:
The U.S. as a nation has the right to defend itself from future possibilities of terrorism (Saddam's and other radical muslim groups' goal).

But we have no right to act with such finality based on speculation and unpresented 'evidence'...If Bush really wanted to make his case, he should have put all his cards on the table and told Saddam to show his hand...vague presentations and international hearsay have failed to convince most nations...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJplaeskool on 2003-03-20 12:28 ]</font>

[Auracom]

I don't think anyone sees the big picture... Bush has to have some sort of motive behind this war. I don't thinks its oil either. I hope the war ends before any other countries join in and we have ourselves a WWIII. I heard China was gonna join in with Iraq but thats just stupid people talking in the hallways of my school. War sucks, but we can't stop it now anyways. No use complaining.

[Guntz348]

One of Bush's main motives is oil, that and cleaning up Daddy and unle Rons messes from the 80's, among other things. And if you still think its not about oil read this.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/08/MN242495.DTL



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Guntz348 on 2003-03-20 12:24 ]</font>

[Night_Shadow]

I think Bush is doing it for populaarity, oil, and being these two words together. Dumb and ass.

[MonoxideChild]

That's it. *Rolls eyes*

Hey, maybe it could be that they are sending scud missles (by the way, they aren't suppose to have any) over to Kuwait. Nah, it can't be. Bush just must need oil.

[ABDUR101]

It's always those damn radical muslims. Someone should hold a meeting and tell them it's an old trend and to get new material. =|

[DJplaeskool]

On 2003-03-20 13:41, ABDUR101 wrote:
It's always those damn radical muslims. Someone should hold a meeting and tell them it's an old trend and to get new material. =|



...you are misguided...
This has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq's muslim heritage...
It has mostly to do with Its parisho-maniacal (wanton for regional dominance) dictator, his dealings in breach of UN resolution 1441, and some with the vasts amounts of oil that are now at his disposal.

oh yeah...and someone should hold a meeting and tell us all the 'American Dream' is also an old trend, since we're 'educating' the masses...not to get into a battle of societal goals or anything...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJplaeskool on 2003-03-20 13:52 ]</font>

[_xX_Frosty_Xx_]

On 2003-03-20 12:14, DJplaeskool wrote:

But we have no right to act with such finality based on speculation and unpresented 'evidence'...If Bush really wanted to make his case, he should have put all his cards on the table and told Saddam to show his hand...vague presentations and international hearsay have failed to convince most nations...



A very well thought out opinion I think. We really don't have any right to attack anyone because of what we think may happen. This is the main reason that I am totally against Bush in all aspects of this war.

[Guntz348]

On 2003-03-20 13:49, DJplaeskool wrote:


On 2003-03-20 13:41, ABDUR101 wrote:
It's always those damn radical muslims. Someone should hold a meeting and tell them it's an old trend and to get new material. =|



...you are misguided...
This has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq's muslim heritage...
It has mostly to do with Its parisho-maniacal (wanton for regional dominance) dictator, his dealings in breach of UN resolution 1441, and some with the vasts amounts of oil that are now at his disposal.

oh yeah...and someone should hold a meeting and tell us all the 'American Dream' is also an old trend, since we're 'educating' the masses...not to get into a battle of societal goals or anything...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJplaeskool on 2003-03-20 13:52 ]</font>


I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

[DJplaeskool]

On 2003-03-20 14:05, Guntz348 wrote:

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.



Probably...
It's just really hard to read sarcasm...
I need to chill for a bit...this whole thing has gotten me a little upset...

[pixelate]

On 2003-03-20 13:54, _xX_Frosty_Xx_ wrote:
We really don't have any right to attack anyone because of what we think may happen. This is the main reason that I am totally against Bush in all aspects of this war.



Ditto. I don't believe in this preemptive strike. Going after Iraq to lessen the threat future terrorist attacks doesn't make sense to me. The war on terrorism doesn't make sense to me. The war on terrorism is like a war on jealousy: you're not going to one day say Hey, we got 'em all. Everybody loves us! No, it won't happen like that, and trying to stop violent actions with more violent actions will do nothing more than create more violence.

Did anybody else enjoy it when Bush said the U.S. was reluctantly entering the war? Seriously now...

[DJplaeskool]

On 2003-03-20 14:18, pixelate wrote:
Did anybody else enjoy it when Bush said the U.S. was reluctantly entering the war? Seriously now...


Yeah...
Bush might as well have bronco busted that first cruise missle into Baghdad a la Dr. Stranglove...

[ABDUR101]

On 2003-03-20 14:09, DJplaeskool wrote:
Probably...
It's just really hard to read sarcasm...
I need to chill for a bit...this whole thing has gotten me a little upset...


It was pure sarcasm. And don't let it get you too upset, there's no use in getting upset over something you have no real control over. =

...sarcasm can be read though. =x

[Dangerous55]

Night_Shadow you are a moron...


It turns out it was justified too, he has SCUDS, and used them. He told his military commanders they can use chemical weapons.



Alright, war is not free. This war, and the cost of rebuidling Iraq is going to be very expensive. It will outweigh any oil we get from this. So, it's not about oil, that is a terrible argument for this.

[pixelate]

On 2003-03-20 16:57, Dangerous55 wrote:
Alright, war is not free. This war, and the cost of rebuidling Iraq is going to be very expensive. It will outweigh any oil we get from this. So, it's not about oil, that is a terrible argument for this.



And yet teachers are being laid off all over the country and my college has to cut class to 1/4 of what they were last year for summer school because there's not enough money in the budget for community colleges.

Isn't Bush the education president?

[Dangerous55]

On 2003-03-20 17:07, pixelate wrote:

And yet teachers are being laid off all over the country and my college has to cut class to 1/4 of what they were last year for summer school because there's not enough money in the budget for community colleges.

Isn't Bush the education president?




You're point is?

[LollipopLolita]

if you missed it, it went thaaaataway

[Dangerous55]

On 2003-03-20 17:17, LollipopLolita wrote:
if you missed it, it went thaaaataway



Well then you tell me what his point is. Is it that we have money for war but not for education? And what does that have to do with oil?

[TeamPhalanx]

Here's a scenerio:

Let's say we (person who is reading this and me) live in the same town. Now, I have sort of a bad reputation - Let's say I've spent some time in jail. Just to make things a bit more interesting, let's say you're a police officer. You're much more stronger than I am, and also live in a much more affluent part of the town.

Now, you've been monitoring my behavior (you don't like people like me in your town) and you suspect that I have a bunch of illegal firearms. You talk to the other townspeople, but most don't agree, and are against doing anything; the people that live on my block, for the most part, are really against you doing anything.

You try to think of legal ways to prove that I have illegal firearms, but you fail. Bottom line is that you have no solid evidence to back your claim.

One day, you decide to break into my house, and go through my stuff in an attempt to find the illegal firearms, that may or may not exist.

So, what happens now?

[pixelate]

I'm not talking about oil motives. I'm talking about the money we don't have.



On 2003-03-20 17:14, Dangerous55 wrote:


On 2003-03-20 17:07, pixelate wrote:

And yet teachers are being laid off all over the country and my college has to cut class to 1/4 of what they were last year for summer school because there's not enough money in the budget for community colleges.

Isn't Bush the education president?




You're point is?



Point being that we don't have the money for the war Bush has been pushing so hard for and now has. His recent budget didn't not even factor in a war with Iraq.

[Dangerous55]

On 2003-03-20 17:25, pixelate wrote:
I'm not talking about oil motives. I'm talking about the money we don't have.

Point being that we don't have the money for the war Bush has been pushing so hard for and now has. His recent budget didn't not even factor in a war with Iraq.




Ok whatever, I thought you were somehow tying that in with oil motives.

[Guntz348]

On 2003-03-20 17:21, TeamPhalanx wrote:
Here's a scenerio:

Let's say we (person who is reading this and me) live in the same town. Now, I have sort of a bad reputation - Let's say I've spent some time in jail. Just to make things a bit more interesting, let's say you're a police officer. You're much more stronger than I am, and also live in a much more affluent part of the town.

Now, you've been monitoring my behavior (you don't like people like me in your town) and you suspect that I have a bunch of illegal firearms. You talk to the other townspeople, but most don't agree, and are against doing anything; the people that live on my block, for the most part, are really against you doing anything.

You try to think of legal ways to prove that I have illegal firearms, but you fail. Bottom line is that you have no solid evidence to back your claim.

One day, you decide to break into my house, and go through my stuff in an attempt to find the illegal firearms, that may or may not exist.

So, what happens now?



What happens now is he gets arrested for breaking and entering, and theft if he takes anything. Also if he's law enforcment, its illegal search and sesuize and your evidence is out the window! =D

And D55 the point is Bush has money to slaughter people for oil but not enough for schools. Maybe it's so people will be unable to learn the truth. Restrict the flow of information, and withhold the truth. Blind side the populace. I saw a film strip about this a long time ago, I couldn't understand much because the naration was in german though.

[Dangerous55]

On 2003-03-20 17:29, Guntz348 wrote:


And D55 the point is Bush has money to slaughter people for oil but not enough for schools.


Bush is slaughtering people for oil? That is moronic. I mean come on, where the hell do you get off saying that? So far 1 has died. ONE. How many Iraqi's has Saddam killed? Thousands. Why is that? Because we sent in ground troops instead of constant air-strikes.

Guntz, that was you're most idiotic comment yet.

[Guntz348]

On 2003-03-20 17:35, Dangerous55 wrote:


On 2003-03-20 17:29, Guntz348 wrote:


And D55 the point is Bush has money to slaughter people for oil but not enough for schools.


Bush is slaughtering people for oil? That is moronic. I mean come on, where the hell do you get off saying that? So far 1 has died. ONE. How many Iraqi's has Saddam killed? Thousands. Why is that? Because we sent in ground troops instead of constant air-strikes.

Guntz, that was you're most idiotic comment yet.




So far he just started. I can't wait to see what shock and awe means, can you? To the rest of the world it'll most likely mean murder, but maybe thats a bit extreme. Oh and if this isn't about oil, then how come the vice president has allready signed a contract with an oil company to "manage" Iraqs crude oil during the US occupation?

[Para]

On 2003-03-20 17:21, TeamPhalanx wrote:
Here's a scenerio:

Let's say we (person who is reading this and me) live in the same town. Now, I have sort of a bad reputation - Let's say I've spent some time in jail. Just to make things a bit more interesting, let's say you're a police officer. You're much more stronger than I am, and also live in a much more affluent part of the town.

Now, you've been monitoring my behavior (you don't like people like me in your town) and you suspect that I have a bunch of illegal firearms. You talk to the other townspeople, but most don't agree, and are against doing anything; the people that live on my block, for the most part, are really against you doing anything.

You try to think of legal ways to prove that I have illegal firearms, but you fail. Bottom line is that you have no solid evidence to back your claim.

One day, you decide to break into my house, and go through my stuff in an attempt to find the illegal firearms, that may or may not exist.
So, what happens now?


wheee im glad TeamPhalanx sees the light with me http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/anime1.gif

but in this situation with iraq, people die.

[LollipopLolita]

i think bush is just having fun bombarding saddam's palace.

how many people think this would be happening if alaska drilling was allowed?

no one side is innocent.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2003-03-20 17:45 ]</font>

[Dangerous55]

On 2003-03-20 17:39, Guntz348 wrote:
So far he just started. I can't wait to see what shock and awe means, can you? To the rest of the world it'll most likely mean murder, but maybe thats a bit extreme. Oh and if this isn't about oil, then how come the vice president has allready signed a contract with an oil company to "manage" Iraqs crude oil during the US occupation?




Oh yeah shock and awe, you mean the thing where we shoot missles at carfefully selected targets? There is a good chance it's not going to happen anyway.


Why did he? Oh hell I dont know, but I bet it's not about spending billions of dollars on the war to get some oil. Who buys most of Iraq's oil anyway? Germany, France, and Russia. I guess you never thought that it may be to help the Iraqi people did you?

You are just plain, flat out wrong, their is no logical reason to launch a war that will cost billions to get oil that will not equal that amount. "No Blood For Oil", great argument.

[ABDUR101]

Not OWNING something which your country depends on and spending billions on a war which will allow you to acquire it..hmmmmmm.

America depends on oil, oil reserves aren't going to last forever. Think military strategy spanning many many years. Whoever controls the oil in the end still has a working war machine and economy, those who don't have to find other ways to keep going.

Thus, whoever maintains control of the oil will be alot better off than most others.

Trust me, if you give it some thought, it's not farfetched.

[LollipopLolita]

why is it called the "oil-for-food humanitarian program" again?

[Guntz348]

On 2003-03-20 17:48, Dangerous55 wrote:


On 2003-03-20 17:39, Guntz348 wrote:
So far he just started. I can't wait to see what shock and awe means, can you? To the rest of the world it'll most likely mean murder, but maybe thats a bit extreme. Oh and if this isn't about oil, then how come the vice president has allready signed a contract with an oil company to "manage" Iraqs crude oil during the US occupation?




Oh yeah shock and awe, you mean the thing where we shoot missles at carfefully selected targets? There is a good chance it's not going to happen anyway.



Close but most likely it means flattening large chunks of citys. The US has knowingly attack and harm innocent people so many times in the past how can you trust them now?




Why did he? Oh hell I dont know, but I bet it's not about spending billions of dollars on the war to get some oil. Who buys most of Iraq's oil anyway? Germany, France, and Russia. I guess you never thought that it may be to help the Iraqi people did you?



I'll tell you why. So he could sell the oil himself and make a huge proffit off of it. Money the basis of all evil. I don't care what religion you belive in, greed is a sin in all of them, and its also a motovater in most of the things humans do, go figure. Oh and because of trade sanction put on Iraq, they can only make and sell about 7% of the oil per year that they could with no restrictions. Imagine what you could do if you could harvest and sell of it, not to mention how much you'd make.




You are just plain, flat out wrong, their is no logical reason to launch a war that will cost billions to get oil that will not equal that amount. "No Blood For Oil", great argument.



The oil in Iraq is worth somewhere in the trillions. Hmmmmmm spend a couple billion dollars and shed some blood for several trillion?

Sounds like a Plan.
>Everybody

Oh and lets not forget here D, this also has to do with Bush cleaning up his dads mistakes. Daddy and unle Ron started this is the 80's

[TeamPhalanx]

On 2003-03-20 17:48, Dangerous55 wrote:...Who buys most of Iraq's oil anyway? Germany, France, and Russia...


That statement is very misleading. Overall, another nation has been the lead purchaser of Iraqi oil... In fact that nation has been a steady customer since 1997... Anyone care to guess which nation I'm referring to?

Anyway, I don't think oil is the core motivation here. I see it more as Bush trying to clean up his dad's mess, trying to draw attention away from what's going on in the states, and goin overboard in his quest for a world free of terrorism.

It would be funny if it was about oil. Since it would mean that he sold himself to the auto industry. Raising the national standard for mileage for motor vehicles just by a few miles would do more to solve the oil problem than the amount that is in Alaska and/or Iraq.

[Zeebo]

That statement is very misleading. Overall, another nation has been the lead purchaser of Iraqi oil... In fact that nation has been a steady customer since 1997... Anyone care to guess which nation I'm referring to?

Which France???



Anyway, I don't think oil is the core motivation here. I see it more as Bush trying to clean up his dad's mess, trying to draw attention away from what's going on in the states, and goin overboard in his quest for a world free of terrorism.


I'd have to disagree. Even though Bush is a idiot I think he is just trying to be a good president and stop another terrorist attack..


AND does any one know how many countries are really involved with USA(Supporting us) I've read 30 but I dont know if that is correct.....

ALSO! Does any one know if ground troops are in the country yet.. I would watch the news but they dont really answer me question... THey just dull me...



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zeebo on 2003-03-20 19:11 ]</font>

[pixelate]

On 2003-03-20 19:09, Zeebo wrote:
AND does any one know how many countries are really involved with USA(Supporting us) I've read 30 but I dont know if that is correct.....



Today, the Whitehouse spokesperson say there are a large number of countries in the coalition but some want to remain unnamed. Makes me wonder if some countries just want to be on our good side and not go against the rest of the world, because if they showed support for the U.S., other countries would look down on them.

[Zeebo]

Wasn't i way off thank you for the info... BUT Does any one know if ground troops are in the country yet.. I would watch the news but they dont really answer me question... THey just dull me...
I'm also curious about this if any one knows...

[Cloud_01]

I was watching the news earlier today. They say that 44 countries support the U.S.

Heh, one of them being Afghanistan. Hmm...I wonder why?

[Zeebo]

ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!??!?!

[_xX_Frosty_Xx_]

It's probably a bit late for me to be posting my opinion in this thread since I don't know what is going on right now, but I guess I'll try anyway.

I mean.......it's just sort of hard for me to believe that we're actually going to be fighting a war against someone that has done nothing yet, and no I'm not deeming him completely innocent. Anyone could just look at the living conditions over there and tell he's done/doing something wrong. I mean the thought of going to war period is just a new feeling for me. Excuse my language, but this upcoming war just fucks up the already fucked up country we're living in right now. I mean, just think about how much all of this is going to cost an already pending country.

Also, it's funny how we can't fund any decent education programs, but the minute we want to blow somebody's ass off of the map we big ballin'. That's real funny to me. The National Debt is already too damn high, so what is starting a war going to help? Nothing. The only thing this war will cause is more bloodshed and pointless deaths here and in Iraq.

Don't even get me started on Bush. I can understand he's "trying to do his job", but who the fuck starts a war because he THINKS,not knows, THINKS the "enemy" has "weapons of mass destruction". Fuck that. You don't see people running up in yo crib because they think you have something you're not supposed to. Say I lost a Playstation 2 game the last time you were over here. I'm not going to burst into your house and search through all of your shit because I CAN'T PROVE YOU HAVE IT. Only an idiot would go entirely off of speculation. That's all I'm sayin'......

[Subliminalgroove]

I have resisted partaking in the war threads on this forum for a while because I figured my time would be better spent on the streets protesting. Well, after a day in jail, I am angry. And this is a place to vent some of that anger... I don't have much to say here now, because if I fully let myself go, I will run on for pages. And no one wasts that. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Zeebo, you speak of the "Coalition of the Willing". Indeed over 35 countries that back this military blunder. But let me ask everyone this, have you seen the list? If you take a look at the list, you will find that the majority of that list falls under 3 catagories:

1. 3rd world nations which recieve ALOT of monatary aid from the US. Monetary aid which could easily be revoked if they did not side with the US in an at least tacit manner. If these countries lost that aid, it is likely their struggling economies would collapse. Economies which are struggling because of heinous acts which the US and Western Culture as a whole commits upon them. But that would lead me to another topic... on to catagory 2...

2. 3rd world nations who have something to gain by being with the US now. If they manage to garner US support by their actions during this current political situation, then there is a bigger chance that the US will side with them in the future. A perfect example of this are the only two African countries who are a part of this "coalition", Ethiopia and Eritrea. Both of whom are locked in an ugly border dispute with eachother. If one manages to please the US more, it is possible they could garner the aid of the US in that border despute. Thus inssuring their victory over the other.

And finally,

3. 3rd world nations who are afraid that they may be next in the warpath if they do not cooperate with the US now.


Yes, there are a number of nations who support this action. However, running a country is alot like running a business, you never do anything for free. There are economic and political reasons for every country who is involved just as there is economic and political reasons why the countries who are not involved are condemning this action. I have huge doubts that ANY country would be a part of this simply for humanitarian reasons. People with big hearts don't have businesses that last long...

As far as I see it, the US would be the least likely to partake in a bit of world humanitarianism just for the hell of it.

And of all of you who have bitten into that particular propaganda-pie, let me ask you how it tastes?


edit: tired... nothing more invigorating than being in a holding cell with 30 other sweaty protestors and unwashed hippies. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Subliminalgroove on 2003-03-21 00:20 ]</font>

[TeamPhalanx]

On the subject of nations supporting this...

What kind of support are we getting?

a) Yeah, go get 'em!
b) If you need troops/supplies, let us know.
c) We're fully prepared to help you out financially.

Biggest purchaser of Iraqi Oil is...

a) United States of America
b) USA
c) Uncle Sam

Best way to combat terrorism...

a) Go after the terrorists.
b) Go after a nation that possibly has chem/bio weapons, but has never attacked us directly.
c) Go after hostile nations that has attcked Americans directly.

[BlackRose]

Well, I've also been trying not to post about this stuff, because my thoughts hardly matter to anyone but me...

But, still, amazingly enough, I just fail to understand why we need to go to war so badly. Yeah, Saddam Hussein is a tyrannosarus rex, but a full-fledged war? Yeah, he violated UN 1441 or whatever, but how many other countries do? I know Israel does... Hmmm, any others? I'll bet good old Uncle Sam does, too. We don't know, probably because nobody checks other countries for violation.
The other excuse is that we're in danger from Iraq. The US is threatened by terrorism, but killing Saddam Hussein won't solve that at all; terrorists could be supported anywhere (and probably are.) Yeah, he may violate chemical weapons treaties, but what was it, his missiles can hit targets 110 miles away instead of 93? Oh, please, we're only in danger from that because our damn troops are over there!

That's sort of water under the bridge though, since we are, in fact, at war now.

What is making me really mad now is that people are actually believing this load of crap about rebuilding it afterwards. Since 1945, the U.S. has bombed more than 40 nations, and executed something like 30 coups in various countries. Out of all the nations we've screwed with, none of the governments we instituted are still in place. What is there to make Iraq any different? We'll march in there, gut the structure of the nation, then leave and go conquer someone else. The only things we'll rebuild and maintain are the oil wells... and just because they'll be OUR oil wells.


Oh well, Bush won't listen to entire nations telling him to stop, he's not gonna listen to me, or any other of his citizens.

[SorceressofTime]

it seems now that at PSOW we have a great war debate going on (again).

my opinion:
i don't disagree with anti-war protestors but i agree with president bush. i too believe what he is doing is right. and on news channels, the US military (or another?) claim to be bombing specific areas to target saddam and destroy him. they are avoiding civilian casualities as much as they can but, in a war they'll always be civilian casualities - as much as we hate it.

though, if during the war terrorists decide to strike my country, i'll be defending it. no matter my age, i still have the will and strength to fight.

this war has taken great interest in me and with this, i know for a fact that leaders are doing what they think is right. and i know that classified information won't be thrown onto television broadcast as the enemy will have access to the information. thus, top secret information is kept within great leaders and why president bush has reasons to why he is doing what he is doing.

[sorry, i skipped all the previous posts and wanted to post my own opinion]

[Ness]

On 2003-03-20 14:05, Guntz348 wrote:


On 2003-03-20 13:49, DJplaeskool wrote:


On 2003-03-20 13:41, ABDUR101 wrote:
It's always those damn radical muslims. Someone should hold a meeting and tell them it's an old trend and to get new material. =|



...you are misguided...
This has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq's muslim heritage...
It has mostly to do with Its parisho-maniacal (wanton for regional dominance) dictator, his dealings in breach of UN resolution 1441, and some with the vasts amounts of oil that are now at his disposal.

oh yeah...and someone should hold a meeting and tell us all the 'American Dream' is also an old trend, since we're 'educating' the masses...not to get into a battle of societal goals or anything...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJplaeskool on 2003-03-20 13:52 ]</font>


I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.



He was being sarcastic. Abdur is the kind of person that wouldn't mean something like that. The thing that amazes me is that there are still enough people loyal to Saddam to where he hasn't been overthrown yet.

[RuneLateralus]

I tried to hold my breath about this because people have such strong opinions of this. Basically, Frosty and Subliminal have my feelings about this. I feel that Bush is in this war for personal reasons and the only countries that support support us for the reasons that Subliminal mentioned.

And realize this. Even if Saddam is overthrown, what will stop the next leader or any future leader in there from becoming corrupt? Sure, things will be better for a few years, but like all quick answers, it will only lead the same, if not more, problems in the future. We will just be in the same position again.

The government rushes to find an easy answer to a complicated problem. And besides, we have enough problems (ie education) in the US. They need to concentrate on those before spending money we do not really have on a war.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: RuneLateralus on 2003-03-21 12:21 ]</font>

[Davion]

Biggest purchaser of Iraqi Oil is...

a) United States of America
b) USA
c) Uncle Sam

No that's in no way the truth. We have an embargo on all Iraqi oil. I.E. We don't buy any of it. I have no idea where you get your information from. France and the other countries have been buying the oil for years. They have massive deals with Iraq, just look at the facts.

Best way to combat terrorism...

a) Go after the terrorists. We just took out a Terrorist base in Iraq linked to Bin Laden in IRAQ

b) Go after a nation that possibly has chem/bio weapons, but has never attacked us directly. Iraq has ties to Terrorists and what will stop them from handing them off to them?

c) Go after hostile nations that has attcked Americans directly. Iraq attacked Kuwait and as a part of the terms for surrender, he was supposed to get rid of his weapons. Like the scuds he still has. SO he lied about that.

And do any of you people get that Saddam HAS USED SCUDS on US and allied troops. So he LIED. L.I.E.D Lied. Don't you get it? We were right.

I really can't begin to say how pissed off I am at so many America haters out there. There is in NO WAY the same amount of people posting about how Saddam kills his own people. Nothing about how much like Megatron he is. Nothing AT ALL LIKE THAT. Don't you see something funny about that? It proves that this site is filled with hateful Anti-Americans who can't stand the President or anything we stand for.

Have any of you seen the pictures of Iraqi people joyously greeting the American soldiers as liberators? Have you seen the explosives Saddam had in the oil terminals even though he said he wouldn't set fire to the oil? Did you hear that when the state run radio was taken out in the first strikes another Arab voice in Arab language was heard in its place "Now is the time we've been waiting for"?

You people are much too conspiracy theoryish. To you, everything America does is wrong. I'm getting sick of it. After all we've done for the world, not to mention the fact that Russia and Germany don't have the nicest histories either. America isn't the perfect country some people make it up to be, but we're in no way as bad as people make us look. No other country is looked at like that. Doesn't that seem odd to you? France has talked about creating a power in Europe to balance off America. Funny, I thought we were allies, but it seems France only likes us when they're being invaded.

My Italian relatives didn't even know what Saddam did to his own people. Their news was so biased that they never saw the other side. If anything. They're news is as slanted as America's. Every country looks at world events differently, and that might be biased sometimes.

And about the protestors. When you're doing it LEGALLY it's fine with me. But There are people shutting down roads and bridges. That costs the American tax-payers too you know. Oh, I'm sure you all heard about the fire-trucks that were kept from getting to their target houses because protestors got in the way, right? When you stop peacefully protesting and endanger the lives of your fellow Americans, you've crossed the line. As far as I'm concerned, people deserve to go to jail for breaking the law. Even if they're protesting. People should be ASHAMED of themselves when they put what they think in front of their fellow Americans.

By the way. What are you really doing for the people of Iraq anyway? Oh sure, you're hurting Americans and getting your point across. That's what matters to you. If you REALLY wanted to help people, then you should do something about it. If you're allowed to, I want to see EVERYONE from the protests in Iraq helping build the country. Think about it. The American soldiers you seem to hate so much are doing more good for the people in Afghanistan than protestors ever did.

Let me recap some things. Saddam LIED about not having the SCUDs. He LIED about not setting oil wells on fire. France and the other countries have been buying the oil and stand to lose a lot of money when Saddam is taken out. YOu protesters only make on 30% of the country's people, so stop acting like the majority even thought you rule PSOW. There are people who will hate America and its President no matter what he does because that's what they are. So No matter what you people who hate my country say about it, you'll see we were right. I'd like you people to wait and see how the Iraqi people act when Saddam's gone.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Davion on 2003-03-22 14:29 ]</font>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Davion on 2003-03-22 14:29 ]</font>

[Davion]

On 2003-03-21 12:18, RuneLateralus wrote:
I tried to hold my breath about this because people have such strong opinions of this. Basically, Frosty and Subliminal have my feelings about this. I feel that Bush is in this war for personal reasons and the only countries that support support us for the reasons that Subliminal mentioned.

And realize this. Even if Saddam is overthrown, what will stop the next leader or any future leader in there from becoming corrupt? Sure, things will be better for a few years, but like all quick answers, it will only lead the same, if not more, problems in the future. We will just be in the same position again.

The government rushes to find an easy answer to a complicated problem. And besides, we have enough problems (ie education) in the US. They need to concentrate on those before spending money we do not really have on a war.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: RuneLateralus on 2003-03-21 12:21 ]</font>


12 years rune. 12 YEARS. Easy way? You know as well as I do that war isn't easy. Education. You're really very sadistic people you know. There are also no facts behind Subliminal's accusations. They're outright wrong. Of course what she didn't say was those people who are behind us know what its like to be under a Dictator's iron fist. We gave more help to Germany and France after WW2 and look at how they're reacting to us. No, I'm sorry. You're idea that this is bribed doesn't stand up to that. Maybe we have some REAL allies that aren't as fickle as France.


And realize this. Even if Saddam is overthrown, what will stop the next leader or any future leader in there from becoming corrupt? Sure, things will be better for a few years, but like all quick answers, it will only lead the same, if not more, problems in the future. We will just be in the same position again.

That means absolutely nothing. That just doesn't make any sense. What if we said that about Hitler? "Sure, we can take him out, but whay will stop someone like him rising up again." What good would that do the world? You people are just America haters and no matter what you will still hate us.

After WW1, America wanted to help rebuild Germany, but no, France and the other countries wanted to blame everything on Germany and make them pay for it. That caused Germany to become pretty ticked off and then what happened?

[Hunter4life]

Thanks for saving me the type-time Davion, i agree fully with you.


I'd like you people to wait and see how the Iraqi people act when Saddam's gone.

Oh what a day that'll be. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[00JOE]

I love how anti-war guys beat the crap out of each other, stealing each other's stuff in San Franciso. Talk about peace, eh? Bunch of hippy crack-heads.

Since everyone seems to be so much smarter than Bush, you go run a country. You try and have the suspence of a whole country on your ass. I think Bush is doing the right thing.

To anti-war hippies, I'd hit you with a shoe.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 00JOE on 2003-03-22 22:46 ]</font>

[SorceressofTime]

from all the anti-war demonstrations going on around the world, there may be more people dead in that than the actual war itself the way they're going.

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-20 17:48, Dangerous55 wrote:

Why did he? Oh hell I dont know, but I bet it's not about spending billions of dollars on the war to get some oil. Who buys most of Iraq's oil anyway? Germany, France, and Russia. I guess you never thought that it may be to help the Iraqi people did you?

You are just plain, flat out wrong, their is no logical reason to launch a war that will cost billions to get oil that will not equal that amount. "No Blood For Oil", great argument.



well, you certainly answered your own question there, and proved a good point: if this war was about oil, and the US happened to seize and control oil fields in iraq, then the US would have subsequent control over oil trade with Germany, France, and Russia. Now to answer my own question: Who has the most oil in the world?

Russia.

So what do they need Iraqi oil for?

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-20 18:10, TeamPhalanx wrote:

Anyway, I don't think oil is the core motivation here. I see it more as Bush trying to clean up his dad's mess, trying to draw attention away from what's going on in the states, and goin overboard in his quest for a world free of terrorism.



exactly. he's drawing attention away from the states ... with the war going on now, and the protection of our "freedoms" being ensured, the Bush administration has made leaps and bounds to diminish our "freedoms" as much as possible .... ever heard of the Patriot Act, or Operation TIPS, or the DMCA? when initially presented, they seemed like a sound idea then, with terrorism fresh in the American mind, but after reading the fine text, they single-handedly strip American citizens of many freedoms of privacy and speech that have, until recently, been taken for granted ..... and these laws, along with biased major media groups and the propaganda circulating in the US, are similar to the platform of the early 1930s Nazi Party

and if you haven't heard of these new laws, or see them for what they really are, or haven't seen the similarities between what is happening now and what has happened in Germany 70 years ago, then there is solid proof of our "valued American education" at work

[brillyfresh]

ok, i HAD to pick this one apart, it's 6am and i'm bored http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif



On 2003-03-22 14:16, Davion wrote:
You people are much too conspiracy theoryish. To you, everything America does is wrong. I'm getting sick of it. After all we've done for the world, not to mention the fact that Russia and Germany don't have the nicest histories either. America isn't the perfect country some people make it up to be, but we're in no way as bad as people make us look. No other country is looked at like that. Doesn't that seem odd to you? France has talked about creating a power in Europe to balance off America. Funny, I thought we were allies, but it seems France only likes us when they're being invaded.


first of all, US history IS pretty ugly ... France doesn't only like us when they're being invaded, but if your feeble sight can look back far enough, France helped the US gain their independence and become a nation in the first place

.... but that's not the ugly part. THE MANIFEST DESTINY, where entire tribes of Native Americans were wiped out by Americans who justified it by saying that God intended us to have this land and not the people who were here first ... entire nations of people, cultures, languages ... gone

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-22 14:25, Davion wrote:
After WW1, America wanted to help rebuild Germany, but no, France and the other countries wanted to blame everything on Germany and make them pay for it. That caused Germany to become pretty ticked off and then what happened?



strike TWO! lol

after WW1, the League of Nations, prototype of the current UN, was formed by the US and European nations such as France, Germany, and UK, to rebuild and maintain Germany and status between the countries ... and can you guess who abandoned the idea and backed out of the League of Nations first? take a WILD guess ...

and Germany wasn't exactly in the position to be ticked off because of the German Depression, until a "democratic" party, with a powerful spokesman, stepped up to right the wrongs in Germany ... can you guess who that was?

please ... know history before you cite it

[Ness]

On 2003-03-20 17:39, Guntz348 wrote:


On 2003-03-20 17:35, Dangerous55 wrote:


On 2003-03-20 17:29, Guntz348 wrote:


And D55 the point is Bush has money to slaughter people for oil but not enough for schools.


Bush is slaughtering people for oil? That is moronic. I mean come on, where the hell do you get off saying that? So far 1 has died. ONE. How many Iraqi's has Saddam killed? Thousands. Why is that? Because we sent in ground troops instead of constant air-strikes.

Guntz, that was you're most idiotic comment yet.




So far he just started. I can't wait to see what shock and awe means, can you? To the rest of the world it'll most likely mean murder, but maybe thats a bit extreme. Oh and if this isn't about oil, then how come the vice president has allready signed a contract with an oil company to "manage" Iraqs crude oil during the US occupation?



I avoided this topic for a long time, but I found something I just HAD to say something about. I'm tired of all these people saying that this is an "oil war". If anyone nedds the oil from Iraq it would be the Iraqi people and the Europeans. We only get 7% of our oil from the middle east. Bush is trying to protect the oil so the Iraqis can use it to rebuild thier country. In case you didn't know, were are about to goto fuel cell and Bush just took affirmative action saying that in 2006 there will need to be hydrogen stations in the US.

*EDIT*
Whoever wrote this needs to be smacked.


Biggest purchaser of Iraqi Oil is...

a) United States of America
b) USA
c) Uncle Sam

We don;'t buy any of our oil from Iraq. We only buy 7% of our oil from Opec. It's Europe that is Opec's biggest customer. That's why Europe is against the war; they think we're going to take thier oil away from them.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ness on 2003-03-23 06:07 ]</font>

[Subliminalgroove]

No, Davion... What I said holds alot of water if you take a look at it. The items I listed for reasons the 3rd world countires have joined the "Coalition of the Willing" are very solid.

Also, a country's people didn't make the decision to side with the US in this, the politicians did. So your point about the countires in the coalition knowing what it is like to be under the iron fist of a dictator makes no sense. It's the dictator making that decision. If the people of the world had a choice, there would not be a war right now. As the majority feels it is the wrong thing to do. The majority feels we should have stuck with the UN a little longer on this, kept up the inspections. But that point is moot now.


And as far as your accusation that those of us who are fighting against this action are not supportive of our troops, that we don't care about them... You need to spend some time at a demonstration, friend.

I want everyone over there to come home. Too many people have died already. I am VERY supportive of our troops. I am NOT supportive of the military action. That is what I am fighting, not the troops and their families.

I have more than my share of friends over there. You think I don't worry for them all day? You think when I am protesting I am not wishing that they were here, drinking coffee with me instead of slogging it through a desert? I have immense pride in my friends and their commrads out there, I just feel they shouldn't be there.

And this talk about how Europe owes us for WW1 and WW2... people, wake up. We jumped into those REALLY late.

People making fun of france for just rolling over and showing their bellies everytime a conflict arises is starting to piss me off. Do you realize the amount of cassualties France had in the first World War? By the time we jumped into the fray, almost every man between the ages of 18 and 26 had died in the trenches. Can you even comprehend that? Almost EVERY single male at the prime of their life. And we walk around as if we made such major sacrifices to achieve victory in that war. Our Doughboys didn't come near that level of sacrifice. Sure France didn't fare well in WW2, but they relied heavily on their stationary defenses, which were no match for the blitzkrieg (sp?). And if you want to talk European countries that suffered heavy cassualties in WW2, I can name a large list.

The simple fact is, we are not the great savior. Our "victories" in WW1 and WW2 were built on the blood and bones of the soldiers from the very countries you belittle.

Now, I am off to practice my proud right as an American to disagree with what this country is doing. If I end up getting clubbed by violent police and thrown in jail at another a demonstation outside of my state capital building, so be it. That is how I am supporting my troops. That is how I am supporting my country. Trying desperatly to convince people that this heinous action is wrong. Trying tirelessly to bring our soldiers home to their family and friends.

I want my coffee with Josh, Marty, Sandra, and Dave, damnit!

[BaronLaw]

I strongly support regime-change in Iraq.

The action is amply justified on numerous grounds.

1. The nexus between Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and nonstate actors (terrorists) presents a threat level too destructive to simply adopt a policy of reaction.

Those who argue that the USA must simply wait for several thousand more citizens to be slaughtered before taking action against a backlash state with WMD are being wholly unreasonable.

Those who argue that Saddam Hussein would never do such a thing (because he's rational) are conveniently forgetting that Iraq attempted to assassinate a former US President in 1993 in Kuwait. If Iraq had been successful, the USA would have launched a war to destroy the Iraqi regime at that time.


Every state possesses the inherent right of self-defense--including the ability to preempt threats.

2. Iraq, as a model of democracy in the Middle-East, can enhance international peace and security.

A democratic Iraq will have seismic effects on the region as a whole and could jump-start the sorely needed process of political reform in the Arab World. A democratic domino effect is in the interest of the civilized world.

3. On humanitarian grounds : The Baathist regime in Iraq presides over a literal slave state. Stalinist in orientation, Saddam Hussein's Iraq is responsible for the deaths of over 1 million people. He has initiated two previous wars and used WMD internally and externally.

The Leftwing is on the wrong side of history on the question of the War to Liberate Iraq. When a fuller picture of Saddam's depredations emerge, they will (or should) be ashamed of themselves.

In the meantime, I'll stand with those who oppose the Baathist totalitarian state in Iraq.

BaronLaw





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BaronLaw on 2003-03-23 12:31 ]</font>

[Davion]

brillyfresh, we have an edit button. I DO know my history.


well, you certainly answered your own question there, and proved a good point: if this war was about oil, and the US happened to seize and control oil fields in iraq, then the US would have subsequent control over oil trade with Germany, France, and Russia. Now to answer my own question: Who has the most oil in the world?

You do know why we took the Oil fields, right? We took them because they're the Iraqi people's and Saddam's troops were setting them ablaze. The reason we took them with ground troops was so they wouldn't be set on fire during a retreat like last time. Not because we have control over the oil. Look, no matter what you people say, Ness is right. We hardly get any oil from OPEC, while Europe gets most of its oil from them.

About the demonstrations, Sublim. I know what a protest SHOULD be. It's not supposed to hurt fellow Americans. Oh sure, you get block traffic, bridges, and such, but did you think about people you hurt? Funny how people aren't saying that we need to take Saddam out. These rallies aren't anti-war as they are Anti-Bush. Don't try and argue that with me, I've seen more Impeach Bush, Texas of Evil, and other posters that accuse the President more than they say anything else. I have an anti-war friend. We get along fine, really. He came back from one of those rallies shaken that the whole thing wasn't about peace, it was hate. Hate for the President. They're protesting how they feel about the Presidential elections too in this.

What don't I know Sublim? How do you put it? I don't know anything, right? Well I know that when you do something wrong and against the law, you will be punished for it. I've said it before. I have NO problem with protests. It's when you start to hurt the country that I get annoyed. You know hoe much money it takes to clean up those things? How much it costs the people of NY because they can't get to work or the hospital? How many books for school could that pay for? These protests aren't about peace. If it was about peace, then you'd do it peacefully. Don't tell me you're peacefull, just don't. I've seen those demonstrations. Remeber "Disagree at your own risk"? Do you? The same thing has happened to ME at those kinds of things. I don't want to hear anything about it until you SHOW me a protest that didn't call the people you dissagree with evil, ignorant, or stupid, actually accomplished something for the people they claim to be protesting for, and wasn't as hateful as everyone I've looked at.

Have you seen a Pro-War demonstration? They don't accuse Anti-War people of being evil. Sure, they might say disagree with them and color it a bit (you know what I mean) but the signs you see them carrying are possitive and not negative. Every anti-war demonstration is negative. They really don't try to bring anyone over to their side. Think about it. If you really wanted to change the President's mind, do you block all traffic around his house? Do you disrupt the lives of others? If anything, it shows the President that they hate him, and what can he do to make you happy? People have always hated him. There is nothing he can do but leave office. Those people don't care about changing his mind, bringing people inside their views, or really helping people. Instead of protesting, try raising money for the civillians in Iraq. Try to do something constructive. The "ride for peace" and candle-light vigils were nice. They did somthing good to show what they think, they didn't hurt others. Instead of protesting for peace, try selling baked good and giving the money to charity for peace. Try helping others, not just showing that you disagree. No, when the government does somthing I don't like, I won't charge into the streets and hurt other lives. I'll put something on my lawn, or stand near the street with a sign, not in the street. Peacefull protests. That's how you show people you care for people.

The American troops are hailed as heros by the Iraqi people. Even the soldiers who surrendered do it happily because they know we don't treat people like animals, unlike Saddam. In Time, I read an interview with an Iraqi sports star. Saddam's son, Udey (not sure about spelling), is head of all sports in Iraq. Do you know what he does to people who don't produce? He tortures them. A soccer star said that they tied his hands in front of him, took off his shirt, draped his knees over a metal pole, and dragged them across the cement floor. That was to rip the skin off their backs. They then forced him into a vat of raw sewage so he would get infected. There was a boxer who had lost a fight after a few seconds. One of Udey's men who came to the US said that Udey himself had the boxer tied to a chair. Udey then said things like "this is how a left hook looks like." and then he'd punch him in the face. He relentlessly pummeled the poor man and when his face was bleeding and raw, Udey had him taken down to the "palace" and he was never seen again. The list goes on. Soccer players how have all the bones in their feet broken or just get them cut off. This was how Udey thought he would make his players better. That's Saddam's evil son, but to I see people in the streets talking about that?


Saddam's troops recently dressed in civilian clothes, rode in a civilian truck, and waved a white flag as they rode towards a group of American troops. When they were "surrendering" the soldiers dressed like civilians opened fire with machine guns, killing many Americans. Saddam continues to violate international law by treating new p.o.ws like animals, and the Arab news Al jazera (spelling is wrong, I don't know how to spell that word either) showed movies of dead American soldiers on the floor of a building where they had been executed. 12 American men are missing now. Do you see people protesting against that? How can you be for the troops when you condemn the destruction of the evil that does that? If American troops did anything like that to Iraqis, there would be an uproar. Where is the outrage when Saddam does it? How do you show you care for our soldiers when they see you condemning their comander, motives, and mission. The soldiers don't see you as people who care about them. Maybe before you protest you should carry signs saying that you love the troops like you claim. Then at least they'd know you really do care for them.

I know that was very long. and thanks A LOT for reading that all if you did. Please know that like I said before, I WANT you to protest. It wouldn't be America if people didn't say what they thought. But it stops being right and becomes destructive to both you (because you turn people off who disagree with you when you do that) and your fellow Americans.

[pixelate]

On 2003-03-23 13:18, Davion wrote:
I've said it before. I have NO problem with protests. It's when you start to hurt the country that I get annoyed. You know hoe much money it takes to clean up those things? How much it costs the people of NY because they can't get to work or the hospital? How many books for school could that pay for? These protests aren't about peace. If it was about peace, then you'd do it peacefully. Don't tell me you're peacefull, just don't. I've seen those demonstrations. Remeber "Disagree at your own risk"? Do you? The same thing has happened to ME at those kinds of things.


I'm sure the amount of money we're spending on the war--which we don't have--far exceeds the costs of protests. The amount of people injured in a war far exceeds those injured in protests.



On 2003-03-23 13:18, Davion wrote:
I don't want to hear anything about it until you SHOW me a protest that didn't call the people you dissagree with evil, ignorant, or stupid, actually accomplished something for the people they claim to be protesting for, and wasn't as hateful as everyone I've looked at.


How many times have you called Saddam evil? You're doing the same thing here.

[Subliminalgroove]

Okay... we are sliding off topic here, but I find I need to address the accusations which you are flinging at me, Davion.

The demonstrations I go to are not violent. We do not block people from going about their buisness, we CERTAINLY don't block an emergency vehicle from helping those in distress. If I was at that particular protest, I would have busted some heads and helped to clear the street.

As I have said before, I do not hate the president. I disagree with his dicisions. I feel that this move was the wrong move, that there were other options open to us which were ignored. The placards which me and my fellows raise do not condemn the man, but rather his policies. Personally, I could care less if he was the most mean and up tight windbag in the world... its the way he is performing his JOB that I take offense to. NOT HIM. I do not hate people. Especially people I have never spoken with. So, I have said it before and I will say it again: "It is the ACTION the government is taking that I have problems with, NOT the individuals who set it rolling."

Simply put, the demonstrations you hear about are the ones that turn violent. The one's filled with people who don't think. Why? Because peaceful demonstrations don't boost ratings. There is a war on, as we all know. Were you a network executive, would you break from ratings pumping war coverage for a couple hundred student protestors protesting peacefully on the steps of the capital building? No, the answer is you wouldn't. There is money to be made and you will not make it there. Where you will make money and boost ratings is coverage of the demonstrations which do turn violent or are extremist.

Which brings me to another thing. Do the protests I am at sometimes turn violent? The answer to that is yes, I have spent a night in jail on 2 seperate occasions and have TONS of bruises as a result. Usually what happens is you have a demonstration of say 2000 people. There are probobly only going to be 70 police in riot gear standing ready to supress that group of 2000 should something go wrong. Those police are under an IMMENSE amount of pressure and they are SCARED. 70 vs. 2000 is not good odds should the crowd turn against them. Not only that, but the demonstrators get worked up, chanting, singing, yelling. Plus, the protestors are frightened of the imposing men and women in what looks to us like battle armor. The emotional tension of the situation rises exponentially. All it takes is one demonstrator to say or do the wrong thing to cause an officer who just thought he was doing his job to react, or viseversa. That's when things explode. That is when you get tear gas, that is when you get moltav cocktails, that is when you get police beaten in the line of duty and dozens of protestors beaten and arrested, that is when people die. Demonstrations, especially large ones, are not the safest place to be simply because the intensity of the emotions involved.

Does that excuse when these things turn violent? No. Do I enjoy it when it happens? HELL NO! But it does happen. Yes there are groups that go out looking for trouble. But they are few and far in between. The peaceful demonstrations vastly outnumber the violent or abusive ones. Otherwise I would never bother to protest.

And your assumption that the Pro-War demonstrators are somehow immune to mob mentality I find humorous and scary. Last week at a demonstration I was at, there was a pro war demonstration which went on accross the street. Two men in particular who were vary vocal on the pro-war side would frequently come over and harrass those of us on the anti-war side. They called us names, tossed rocks and pushed people around. During one of their forays into our camp, they had their eyes on me, they tried to pull me into an alley way and tried to take my shirt off. I don't know where it would have gone from there, because they ran back with broken noses. Granted, these two were just extremes, but many followed their example and tossed crap at us and tried to cause physical harm to many of us.


Also, again you condemn me for not supporting our troops out there. This is something I would just ignore if it didn't hurt me personally. I have too many friends over there in various capacities. Some soldiers, some civilian support, and a freelance reporter. I am frightened for all of them. I think that their lives and the lives of their friends may be tossed away in a conflict that could have been avoided. The way I see it, I support them by trying to bring them home. You speak of always seeing placards that insult bush. I always see placards that read "BRING OUR FATHERS AND MOTHERS HOME" or mothers proudly holding up signs with huge peace symbols and their sons' names and ranks beneath it.

It saddens me that you only see or hear reported by the media are the demonstrations gone bad. It saddens me that the mothers and fathers of the children who bravely wave those signs around in the face of obvious and sometimes violent opposition will never see them. It saddens me that this whole situation has become a disgusting reality show. It saddens me that I have friends who won't talk to me because they feel I am "unpatriotic" for not supporting a war which I feel could have been avoided. It saddens me that in the end I can protest all I want and I won't change what is happening now, I may only have a chance to prevent it from happening in the future.

But most of all; it saddens me that the biggest biproduct of this situation is hatred between other countires, other religions, other ethnicities, our neighbors and friends, and our own families. People are dying over there (I don't care which side they are on, they are still dying). People dying. IT doesn't seem like anything that big to most of us because we see it on the tv screens and over the radio, like some distant game. All the things that those people have done, all that they are, and all that they will be is being snuffed out like a candle in the rain. Meanwhile, most of us here won't even listen to another's opinion without getting insulting or oppressive.

I'm droning on and on. I don't think there is a right in this situation. And I feel the damage has already been done. It was done years ago. I could make an argument that the damage was done thousands of years ago. But it wouldn't do any good.

For now, I am tired, I am sad. And I want this to be over. And I wish that it was never here to tear a rift between us all in the first place.

I'm out,

Sub

[Para]

*supports the no war movement because unjustified reason*
i still think diplomacy shouldve went full course like a 2-3 week delay using canadian compromise and bush wouldve earned even more support for war.
if he did give that 2-3 extra weeks, i would support war... but theres too many variables.. alot of iraqi people are dying... casualties are coming in...

[Ness]

On 2003-03-23 15:25, Nites wrote:
*supports the no war movement because unjustified reason*
i still think diplomacy shouldve went full course like a 2-3 week delay using canadian compromise and bush wouldve earned even more support for war.
if he did give that 2-3 extra weeks, i would support war... but theres too many variables.. alot of iraqi people are dying... casualties are coming in...



You know, it's not Bush's fault the Canadian compromise failed. You also mentioned the French leader rejected it as well. Why don't you get mad and insult him too? Oh yeah! Because you like the French prime minister. Also I will have you know that the US has been trying to get diplomatic resolution ever since the end of the Gulf War.

[Para]

its not that im just against the french.

the french was going for peace. theres nothing wrong with peace. war is wrong. war brings death and destruction. dont you get it?

[Davion]

.... but that's not the ugly part. THE MANIFEST DESTINY, where entire tribes of Native Americans were wiped out by Americans who justified it by saying that God intended us to have this land and not the people who were here first ... entire nations of people, cultures, languages ... gone


I would like to say this about Manifest Destiny. Not all Americans though that was true. I'm not saying what happened was good, but in order to point the finger at the USA, you have to look at every nation the same. I would like to say that EVERY nation has in some part of their history moved out into other lands. Ok, you know what we did, but what did the European nations do when they colonized the Americas in the first place? America was European colony. The idea that it was "new" America that did that to the Native Americans is absurd when the whole idea of building colonies on America was a European idea in the first place.

What did the Spanish do the people in Central America? What did Napoleon try to do? Where did Prussia go? What happened to those countries? Remember "The sun never sets on the British Empire"? Key word=Empire. America has shown that we don't colonize. The very idea that that's what we're doing in Iraq is wrong.


And this talk about how Europe owes us for WW1 and WW2... people, wake up. We jumped into those REALLY late.

They told us to stay ouf of it. I was never saying that they owe us. What I'm saying is they forget what we've done for them and treat us like crap. French people don't like America much. Countries like France and Germany who we helpped rebuild gain political power because they show to their people they'll oppose us.

I know France lost many men in WW2. I never said anything against that. We DID lose our men for their country. That is a fact, and I'm not putting down those French soldiers because we helped them. What kind of point are you bringing up when you said France helped us gain our independence? Of course they did. It did help them too, don't forget, because they hated England. Germany had Hitler. Italy had Mussolini. Both countries are nothing like they were under those evil men. All of that history doesn't change the fact that now our greatest ally is England, and the country who is trying to form a coalition against America is France.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Davion on 2003-03-23 19:14 ]</font>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Davion on 2003-03-23 19:20 ]</font>

[pixelate]

Was the U.S. a little to cocky about the resistance?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2434677

[KodiaX987]

"You know the world has gone crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, France accuses the U.S. of being arrogant and Germany doesn't want to go to war!"

Anonymous and unbelievably funny. XD

[BlackRose]

*laughs* Amen, Kodiax. I'm glad there are some people left on the earth who can laugh about politics when everyone is at eachother's throats.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 05:13, KodiaX987 wrote:



"You know the world has gone crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, France accuses the U.S. of being arrogant and Germany doesn't want to go to war!"

Anonymous and unbelievably funny. XD



I just heard that from someone. I forget where, but that's as funny as heck.

[Dangerous55]

How can people STILL be against this war? We found a chemical weapons plant. THAT IS A MAJOR VIOLATION OF THE UN!!!! That was the whole basis of the French argument,they said Baghdad was cooperating, well it wasnt! Remember, the inspectors were not there too find the WMD, but for the Iraqi's to show us them. They lied, we were right. It is as simple as that. Oh yeah, they launched SCUDS, burned oil fields, violated the Geneva Convention, and have used human shields. What does Iraq have to do for the protesters, French and Germans to realize that this war is just?!?! Maybe nuke New York?

Iraq was never going to tell us that they had that Chemical weapons plant, or the SCUDS.

Come on people, wake up, THAT REGIME IS BAD! They were never gonna cooperate or stop breaking international law.

[pixelate]

On 2003-03-24 05:13, KodiaX987 wrote:
"You know the world has gone crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the Rams won a Super Bowl, France accuses the U.S. of being arrogant and Germany doesn't want to go to war!"

[TeamPhalanx]

On 2003-03-24 12:26, Dangerous55 wrote:
...We found a chemical weapons plant...


So to you the ends justify the means?

If you want to talk about the legal issue... Well, the US isn't really going by the book here.

[Ness]

On 2003-03-24 05:13, KodiaX987 wrote:



"You know the world has gone crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, France accuses the U.S. of being arrogant and Germany doesn't want to go to war!"

Anonymous and unbelievably funny. XD



I have to agree to that. That's extremely ture and funny.

[Ness]

On 2003-03-23 17:21, Nites wrote:
its not that im just against the french.

the french was going for peace. theres nothing wrong with peace. war is wrong. war brings death and destruction. dont you get it?



Boo hoo hoo hoo! Plagues bring death and destruction too. So do UV rays, but I don't see you getting upset about them.

I didn't say you were against the French. I'm saying your agains the US. That's why your not dissing the French for rejecting the Canadian compromise. War was unaviodable and you know that. No "compromise" wil stop it. All it would do was buy Iraq time.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 13:10, TeamPhalanx wrote:


On 2003-03-24 12:26, Dangerous55 wrote:
...We found a chemical weapons plant...


So to you the ends justify the means?

If you want to talk about the legal issue... Well, the US isn't really going by the book here.



So you ignore the fact that Saddam lied, and blame the US for doing wrong when we prove we were right. That's almost as bad as the Iraqi Foreign Minister saying the US is ignoring UN resolutions.

The ends don't justfy the means, but that doesn't apply here. I find it funny that you ignore the fact that Saddam lied. The facts are (1) Saddam lied about not having scuds, (2) Saddam Lied about not setting fire to oil because we found explosives in the main oil terminal. (3) He's told his military they can use the Chemical weapons he "didn't have" (4) He has broken international law by killing POWs and questioning them in front of a camera. (4) He had his soldiers dress up as civillians, they pretended to surrender, and then they raked our soldiers with mechine guns. The man is vile.

[TeamPhalanx]

Doesn't apply here?

Going along with the last example:

I'm currently in parole and have various illegal narcotics, assualt weapons, and burned CD/DVD. You, a police officer, cannot legally prove it; you cannot obtain a warrant.

You break into my house, and find all the stuff.

Explain to me how this isn't parallel with the US & Iraq?

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 14:26, TeamPhalanx wrote:
Doesn't apply here?

Going along with the last example:

I'm currently in parole and have various illegal narcotics, assualt weapons, and burned CD/DVD. You, a police officer, cannot legally prove it; you cannot obtain a warrant.

You break into my house, and find all the stuff.

Explain to me how this isn't parallel with the US & Iraq?



You still don't get it. SADDAM LIED! He was supposed to show us he disarmed. He lied. He was supposed to disarm. he didn't. You keep making this stories calling the US a bad police officer. Why don't you see that Saddam lied?

The differance is we HAVE warrant. Resolution 1441 gave, under older resolutions, the authority for military action. We are doing the right thing, and proving that Saddam lied. But you hate the USA so much that you blame them even though they're right.

[TeamPhalanx]

So, he lied.

I lied to my parole officer.

The US never had solid proof. If the US did, the internation community would have supported the war all the day.

[Zeebo]

Their looking for proof now... OMG! what if suddam wasn't and all those soilders died!?!?!?


also....... A wise priest in chicago said that if the USA isnt going to follow the rules of the UN then why cant any other country just make war? USA needs to set standards!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zeebo on 2003-03-24 14:54 ]</font>

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 14:48, TeamPhalanx wrote:
So, he lied.

I lied to my parole officer.

The US never had solid proof. If the US did, the internation community would have supported the war all the day.



US DID have solid proof. We had taped conversations, satilite pictures, and more proof.

Plus France and Germany both have economical relations with Saddam's Iraq. If we took him out, they would stand to lose profit.

They blame us for wanting oil when only 7% of our oil comes from OPEC. Almost ALL of Europe's oil comes from OPEC.

[TeamPhalanx]

There was never any solid proof. As a matter of the fact, I'm sure you'll recall a certain document that was proven to be a forgery, no? You know, the one the weapons inspector said was obviously false.

US has been the largest purchaser of Iraqi oil.

You watch MSNBC and/or Fox News don't you?

[Hunter4life]

Just something for all those Anti-War people to think about.

This quote is straight from an Iraqi Refugee addressing the anti-war protests.

"Why is it now that you deem it appropriate to voice your disillusions with America's policy in Iraq, when it is right now that the Iraqi people are being given real hope?"

We are saving these people from an evil man. Iraqi civilians cheer as coalition forces liberate and go through their villages. Why is it that all Iraqi people freed or are living outside of Iraq condemn Saddam while those still in Iraq are praising him? Those inside are forced to praise him and if they don't, they are killed. The mere fact that we can argue like this is apparently being taken for granted.

I hate war and hate death but in this case, its pretty much unavoidable. You don't wait for the smoking gun to convict someone because by then, the bullet has been fired. Diplomacy failed with Saddam and now there is no other choice. Can someone please tell me what other choice we have with Saddam? If we don't remove him now, we will regret it.

The situation is like this:

If you (coalition forces) see your neighbor(Iraq) being beaten or robbed, wouldn't you do something? You wouldn't stand still and watch the bad guy (Saddam Hussein) get away with what he's doing.

Anyway, thats my two cents. Any insults were un-intentional.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 15:07, TeamPhalanx wrote:
There was never any solid proof. As a matter of the fact, I'm sure you'll recall a certain document that was proven to be a forgery, no? You know, the one the weapons inspector said was obviously false.

US has been the largest purchaser of Iraqi oil.

You watch MSNBC and/or Fox News don't you?





You have heard Hans Blix say that now he hopes for some REAL answers now, right?

Saddam LIED. He said he didn't have Scuds and he used them. And US buys NONE of Iraq's oil. Stop saying those lies. We have a freaking embargo on Iraq in the first place. There was plenty of soild evidence, you just choose to ignore it because you don't like it.

I watch Fox, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, and an Italian news station that my Mother translates for me.

[Dangerous55]

On 2003-03-24 14:26, TeamPhalanx wrote:
Doesn't apply here?

Going along with the last example:

I'm currently in parole and have various illegal narcotics, assualt weapons, and burned CD/DVD. You, a police officer, cannot legally prove it; you cannot obtain a warrant.

You break into my house, and find all the stuff.

Explain to me how this isn't parallel with the US & Iraq?




Because it is not like Saddam is importing things like that. Let's say you have 10 people in you apartment, and you beat them everyday and you also have a bomb that can take out the entire block. Should the sniper wait to shoot you or get a warrent?



Come on! You know Saddam has those weapons, You clearly are not arguing it. You are arguing if it was legal for the US to take out a madman who oppresses his people and is capable of killing millions. If the UN was not going act, which they were not, then we have the right to SAVE MILLIONS OF LIVES.


We didn't have evidence? Since when? We had pictures of chemical weapon facilities. And what about the VX that the Iraqis mysteriously lost? Or the illegal missles? Or how about month after month that they try to shoot down US and British planes enforcing a post GW1 UN resolution? Or would you like that unmaned plane they were making, you know the one that could carry that mysteriously lost VX nerve gas?

[Para]

On 2003-03-24 15:35, Davion wrote:
I watch Fox, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, and an Italian news station that my Mother translates for me.


i suggest watching other news channels outside the US because any news station in the US would be biased for war so it might be better to watch some non american newstations... just a suggestion not a flame

[Subliminalgroove]

I'm not going to say anything about the war here for personal reasons. If I talk about this I will end up crying again, and I have been doing that all night long. I just want it to end.




Nites has a good point. If you want the whole story I suggest checking the various international newswires along with cnn and bbc. That way you have a better chance of geting the whole story and not just info run through a US or British military censor.

[Zeebo]

Why would you reply if your not going to talk about war^ and well other country's news is not to good to listen to because unlike us they might lie... to create propoganda

[TeamPhalanx]

On 2003-03-24 15:35, Davion wrote:
...And US buys NONE of Iraq's oil...


You are either incredibly stupid beyond belief or incredibly naive and don't confirm things you hear.

You may want to go out and check the records for the past decade or so. You know, about Iraqi oil and the US.

As for the sniper comment, no, the sniper has no right. In fact, the sniper would be tried for 1st degree murder.

Also, having found facilities is a whole lot different than having found launch capable weapons.

Oh, btw, which is more dangerous?

Chemical/Biological weapons or Thermonuclear weapons?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TeamPhalanx on 2003-03-24 16:45 ]</font>

[pixelate]

On 2003-03-24 16:39, Zeebo wrote:
and well other country's news is not to good to listen to because unlike us they might lie... to create propoganda



It happens here, too. Better to get many different views than to stick to one without questioning it.

[Subliminalgroove]

As you can see... "personal reasons." Leave it at that.



You think that american news media is immune to tossing out propaganda? What I suggested is seeing what people are saying on both sides of the fence. Which is why I said international news wire and bbc/cnn.

[ABDUR101]

On 2003-03-24 16:39, Zeebo wrote:
and well other country's news is not to good to listen to because unlike us they might lie... to create propoganda


...ahahahaahha. Oh wow.. I don't think I could have given a better description of american news programs. XD

Yes, we all know that American TV reporters don't lie.

[Ness]

On 2003-03-24 14:48, TeamPhalanx wrote:
So, he lied.

I lied to my parole officer.

The US never had solid proof. If the US did, the internation community would have supported the war all the day.



Lokk, I don't know what those illegal narcotics did to your mind, but if you don't call sattilite images and phone calls proof of his les then I don't know what is. Not only that but we've been trying to do this peacefully eversince the end of the gulf and he just keeps kicking out and hiding stuff from the inspectors. for over a decade we did the same thing and expected different results. Which is a sign of insanity by the way.

[LollipopLolita]

If you have spend time in a different country outside U.S, you will know how awful U.S. news and media is. And you will see why a lot of countries are angry with the U.S. The simple fact is that every country's media and news distort the truth in some way to their advantage and especially in times like this. Yes and of course to create propaganda. No one country is guilty of not lying. The U.S. has lied too, oh my god politicians don't lie?

[TeamPhalanx]

It's all circumstantial. I can lie about not having drugs, and you know, having photos of me in the street corner or taped conversations of me talking with slurred/incomprehensive speech isn't proof.

On a side note, don't you just love the stock market these days?

[LollipopLolita]

Yes! I want the US dollar to keep plunging!

[Para]

i watch cbc which is the canadian broadcast channel or so thats what i think XD

though it is biased to reflect on canadian values,
canadians have been in the middle ground during the whole debate about war or no war.... so if u want, try watching some canadian news.

to be honest i support war in some ways but i dont support it because of other reasons... so im kind of split

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 16:55, TeamPhalanx wrote:
It's all circumstantial. I can lie about not having drugs, and you know, having photos of me in the street corner or taped conversations of me talking with slurred/incomprehensive speech isn't proof.



Oh, stupid me. I kinda though lieing was wrong. What do you think, Phal? It's ok to lie and do wrong things as long as no one finds out? Is that LEGIT Phal? You're so concerned with being true in a fake life, but when it comes to real life lieing doesn't matter to you.

People have been brought in for attempted murder because they have taped conversations.

And about those comments about me and the news. I don't really care what you guys think. I really don't. Every news source is in some way biased. I DO watch international news stations, and I look for facts. I get a large portion of my information directly from the UN website.

EDIT: I'm not going to even comment on you thinking I'm stupid. If I really cared what you thought of me, I wouldn't ever even post here.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Davion on 2003-03-24 17:33 ]</font>

[hollowtip]

http://www.campchaos.com/othershows/video/02.html

this by all means does not represent my views on the war in Iraq. I support Bush's decissions.

[Robomonke]

On 2003-03-24 17:31, Davion wrote:
[EDIT: I'm not going to even comment on you thinking I'm stupid. If I really cared what you thought of me, I wouldn't ever even post here.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Davion on 2003-03-24 17:33 ]</font>

[Robomonke]

oops sry bout that last post...lol what I was gonna say was Davion if you weren't going to respond you shouldn't have written that. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif
But on a more serious note I agree with you and that it is good to get FACTS from international news sources. Also about every news company being biased your right. But 1 thing that everyone is neglecting is that there are Iraqis who like the way they live now. If they all hated Saddam he wouldn't have much of a regime. Also some of them are obviously fighting not because Saddam says but because they are trying to maintain a life that they enjoy. No they don't have all the freedoms we do but they do have a life. The US constantly talks about Saddam as evil and Tyranical which is very true to a degree. But there are also people in Iraq who think he is a good leader. Basically one mans monster is anothers freedom fighter and hero. I'm kinda split between views here but I can say for sure no side is doing everything exactly right.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Robomonke on 2003-03-24 18:14 ]</font>

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 18:11, Robomonke wrote:
oops sry bout that last post...lol what I was gonna say was Davion if you weren't going to respond you shouldn't have written that. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif
Robomonke on 2003-03-24 18:14 ]</font>


Comment on it as in defend myself. I didn't and I only stated that I didn't care what Phal said to me. I could go on and on and give reasons Phal shouldn't call me stupid. but I didn't.

[Dangerous55]

On 2003-03-24 16:42, TeamPhalanx wrote:

As for the sniper comment, no, the sniper has no right. In fact, the sniper would be tried for 1st degree murder.

Also, having found facilities is a whole lot different than having found launch capable weapons.

Oh, btw, which is more dangerous?

Chemical/Biological weapons or Thermonuclear weapons?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TeamPhalanx on 2003-03-24 16:45 ]</font>


The sniper would be tried for 1st degree murder? No.


You want launch capable weapons? SCUDs, Alibaba(wrong spelling), Al Sammoud(again, wrong sp.), that unmanned drone I pointed out before, or just a regular crazy Iraqi.

Which is more dangerous? I would say Biological weapons.

[Sasarai]

I read all of the posts thus far and I found myself slightly upset with the seeming majority of people who do not support the War.

There are so many points made (that are false) that I'd like to respond too, but it would take me far too long; so I'll address the ones I remember.

I keep hearing the "bloodshed for oil" argument. This is just ridiculous; granted Iraq has the largest oil reserves just under Saudi Arabia, but this does not mean that the administration has some ulterior motive. Half of you should have "Conspiracy Theorist" as your title.

As I've stated before, we DO have proof that Saddam has WMDs. If you haven't been watching the news, or if you've been watching/reading/hearing the deceptive nature of liberal news, you probably wouldn't know that we have found a chemical weapons manufacturing plant. We've intercepted a myriad of calls and you can't deny that our espionage is the best in the world. If the administration says he has WMDs, he has them.

To loosely quote the most intolerant liberal (oxy moron, anyone?), Michael Moore. I don't remember the exact words, but he said something to the effect of, "We live under a fictious government, brought about by a fictious election." The only fiction in this situation is the anti-war propoganda being flung around like horse manure. Let's not forget Cook County, democrats. (If you don't know what I'm referring to, look it up and enlighten yourself, since apparently education is so horrible.) http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

I live in Florida as you should all know (points to information on the left) and I live in a fairly conservative area. However, I don't support this war because of the people around me or what I've heard, I support this war because I am open to listen to all the facts. If the liberal media would put fact behind their opinions they might be a credible form on information. Hahahah, what am I saying? [Sarcasm] Opinion doesn't need fact to back it up. [/Saracasm] http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_quickdraw.gif

I watch/read/listen to liberal, conservative and independent news all the time and you know what? The only people who support their words and opinions with fact are the conservative media sources (generally speaking, some of the other politically affiliated media are somewhat truthful, but tend to avoid detail or any real substance).

Almost all of you have replied to this post based solely on personal opinion. Those of you that have bothered to back your words with any substance are almost always disproven. You know why this is? Because the news or things you hear are just plain wrong. Believe in fact, not word of mouth.

I have two friends right now who are in Iraq. One is in the Army, with a Special Force group. She was one of our local hometown heroes and she'd have it no other way than to serve her country. My other friend is in the navy and works as a medic, he too is proud to be a part of a mission to LIBERATE the Iraqi people.[b] This my friends is why we're in Iraq, to remove a madman from power and to free an oppressed people.

I understand that American lives will and have been lost, I also understand Iraq lives have and will be lost, but we are in no way butchers who have invaded Iraq to slaughter and pillage. Face it, soldiers are trained to kill and accept the fact that they may die.

Iraqi innocents will not be killed if they have headed the warnings. Our missiles have an accuracy of 7 feet. Think about that for a moment...7 feet people. Unless you're an Iraqi civilian prancing around one of Saddam's palaces there is no way you're going to be harmed.

Which leads me to my last point. Saddam will be kill/captured/removed and Iraq will be free. We will place an appropriate leader, and have a presence in Iraq until the end of the U.S. Am I happy with that? Yes. I am a taxpayer and I am by no means wealthy, yet I still support the war and all the post-war expenditures to come. We're still in Germany aren't we? 58 years later and we still play a major role in the way that country runs. Sure, they can say they're anti-war, but to sever themselves from the U.S. would be economic and political suicide. So, for whoever made the statement, how can we be assured Iraq will remain safe, uncorrupt and terrorist-free--your point is moot. Our presence will always be felt and enforced.

Alright all you intolerant preachers of peace, have at it.

Edit: Some grammatical and spelling errors corrected.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sasarai on 2003-03-24 18:58 ]</font>

[Saladwood]

Who said the Arab wold wanted this again?

from dw-world.de


"Arab league foreign ministers condemn invasion of Iraq

Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo Monday called for the "immediate withdrawal" of US and British forces from Iraq and condemned the invasion as an "aggression". The resolution was adopted unanimously, except for Kuwait, Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa said. US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in a press briefing the White House was in close contact with Arab leaders. The Arab ministers, including Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, said their UN representatives would request an urgent meeting of the Security Council to demand withdrawal. "


from SF Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/03/24/international1755EST0796.DTL


Arab League: Coalition should withdraw from Iraq; Libya praises 'Iraqi heroism'

NADIA ABOU EL-MAGD, Associated Press Writer Monday, March 24, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(03-24) 14:55 PST CAIRO, Egypt (AP) --

The United States and Britain should withdraw their troops from Iraq immediately and without conditions, and the U.N. Security Council should hold an emergency meeting on the issue, the Arab League said Monday.

The coalition attack on Iraq violates the U.N. Charter and threatens world peace, the 22-member league said in a resolution that did not receive full support.

Kuwait objected because the resolution omitted any reference to the 10 Iraqi missiles that have landed on its soil since the conflict began Thursday.

Several summit delegates chose their words carefully because their nations are hosting U.S. forces. But the chief Libyan delegate, Ali al-Treiki, received sustained applause when he spoke of "Iraqi heroism" battling American and British troops.

"We have to raise our heads high and salute Iraqi heroism as proof that Arab individuals are capable of confronting the mighty, the coercive and the arrogant," al-Treiki said, referring to U.S.-led forces.

Al-Treiki warned delegates at the session's opening, "If Iraq is to fall, many Arab countries will fall as well."

The remark touched on concerns by Arab leaders that allowing the United States to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could threaten their own undemocratic regimes.

Kuwaiti representative Ahmed Khaled al-Kulaib sat through the Libyan speech in silence.

Qatar's foreign minister, Sheik Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabor Al Thani, whose nation hosts the U.S. campaign's military headquarters, said, "It would have been better concentrating on practical solutions to find a way out."

Anti-war demonstrations in the Middle East have been frequent, large and violent. But Arab states have not come together over the Iraqi crisis.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri on Monday accused those Arab countries hosting U.S.-led forces of "stabbing the Iraqi people in the back."

He said he wanted a "unified stance from the Arabs ... to condemn this occupation, to stop the war immediately and withdraw the invaders."

He was supported by Syria, which circulated a draft resolution condemning the invasion and demanding an immediate withdrawal.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said he wanted a resolution affirming "rejection of the military operation, rejection of occupation, and calling for immediate withdrawal.

"It is time to solve the issue peacefully," al-Faisal said.

Kuwait's al-Kulaib lobbied hard for the league to take into account the Iraqi missiles fired into his territory -- some of which were intercepted by Patriot missiles, while others fell harmlessly into the desert or water.

But the final resolution went Iraq's way, and Kuwait objected that it was "unbalanced."

The resolution condemned the invasion of Iraq and demanded "the immediate withdrawal of the American and British troops from Iraq without conditions."

It added that Arab states would request an urgent session of the U.N. Security Council. If rejected, they would seek an emergency General Assembly session on the war.

Sabri said the resolution "represents the consensus of the Arab community -- that no Arab country participates in the crime of imperialist aggression against Iraq."


those of you who don't know:

Members of the Arab League:

Algeria Bahrain Comoros Djibouti Egypt Iraq Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Libya Mauritania Morocco Oman alestine Qatar Saudi Arabia Somalia Sudan Syria Tunisia United Arab Emirates Yemen

You guys should also read the interesting quotes on this page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2880657.stm


From BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2881013.stm


Russia seeks UN ruling on Iraq


Russia says the war with Iraq is illegal
Russia has called for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to examine the legality of the US-led war with Iraq.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said Russia and other countries would ask the UN's legal department for a ruling on the conflict.

He said the US-led coalition had acted "in violation of the norms of international law" by failing to secure a fresh UN resolution sanctioning war.

Russia, together with fellow Security Council members France and Germany, led the opposition to American attempts earlier this month to persuade the 15-member group to back the use of force against Iraq.

Humanitarian consequences

Mr Fedotov said Russia wanted the council to "give all necessary political and legal assessments of the current situation and take a relevant decision corresponding to its powers".

The United States and Britain argued that existing UN resolutions on Iraq provided a legal basis for the use of force if Saddam Hussein did not peacefully relinquish his alleged weapons of mass destruction.

But they had nonetheless sought a further resolution specifically sanctioning the use of force - a move which Russia, France and China - all permanent members of the Security Council - threatened to block.

Mr Fedotov said the US also had to take responsibility for the humanitarian consequences of their actions.

He said the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva was considering holding a special session on the situation in Iraq

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2877253.stm


Russia condemns 'US spy flights'

By Nikolay Gorshkov
BBC correspondent in Moscow



U2s were apparently spotted over the Caucasus
Russia has lodged a formal protest with the United States over the reported flights of US spy planes along Russia's southern borders.
Three flights of U2 strategic reconnaissance planes were said to have taken place along the border with Georgia over the past month.

The latest was sighted on Saturday.

Russia has labelled these flights as "a return to the Cold War practice", which increased tensions in the volatile region already affected by the war in Iraq.

Disapproval

Meanwhile, the Turkish ambassador in Moscow was summoned to the foreign ministry to offer assurances that no Turkish soldiers had crossed into northern Iraq.

Russia has urged Turkey to respect Iraq's territorial integrity and abstain from taking any steps that have not been sanctioned by the United Nations.

Earlier, addressing a leading Russian foreign policy think-tank, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Iraq did not need "democracy on the wings of Tomahawks".

Russia, Mr Ivanov said, disapproved of "exporting democracy" to sovereign states, especially in the Islamic world, where such efforts could lead to more extremism.

In his words, that would run contrary to the aims of the anti-terror coalition.

Mr Ivanov said Russia was concerned by the rift between Europe and America, and did not want the Iraq crisis to undermine its relations with Washington.

[Saladwood]

From Reuters:


The U.S. over the past year was the biggest single buyer of Iraq's oil, accounting for nearly 40 percent of its exports under the United Nations humanitarian ``oil-for-food'' programme, according to U.N. data. U.S. Energy Department figures show Iraq was the fifth largest source of American oil imports in October, providing nearly 8 percent of U.S. foreign crude.

The reason U.S. companies have been such big buyers is simple: Iraqi crude is cheap. Despite the current hostilities, the U.S. refiners expect to keep buying.

``Our assumption is that exports are going to continue, and even if there is an interruption, it won't affect things until February,'' said an oil trader for one of the top three U.S. companies, echoing a view taken by much of the oil community on Thursday.

The largest American companies, such as Mobil Corp. (MOB.N), Exxon Corp. (XON.N), Chevron Corp. (CHV.N), and Valero Energy Corp. (VLO.N), all have been big buyers of Iraq's oil.

U.S. oil companies don't buy oil directly from Iraq, since they have been frozen out of contracts as punishment for Washington's hardline stance against Baghdad. They now buy it second-hand, primarily from a myriad of Russian trading companies, given contracts as a reward for Russia's support for an easing of sanctions against Iraq.

For another interesting read: http://www.iwa-ait.org/iraq-II-e.html


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PSOSaladWood on 2003-03-24 18:51 ]</font>

[Saladwood]

On 2003-03-24 18:39, Sasarai wrote:
Iraqi innocents will not be killed if they have headed the warnings. Our missiles have an accuracy of 7 feet. Think about that for a moment...7 feet people. Unless you're an Iraqi civilian prancing around one of Saddam's palaces there is no way you're going to be harmed.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2881119.stm



US confirms Syrian bus hit


Syria says at least 10 people were injured in the attack
The US military has confirmed that a bus carrying Syrian civilians was hit by an American missile, killing five people and wounding at least 10.
A statement from a US spokesman at the coalition's Central Command headquarters in Qatar said that the US-led forces "regretted" the loss of life, saying the bus was destroyed while coalition forces were targeting a bridge in Rutba, a western Iraqi town near the Syrian border.

"The bus stopped on the bridge and was hit by munitions already released prior to the bus approaching the bridge," it said.

However blame for the incident was ultimately placed on the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein.

"We regret the loss of innocent life brought on by this regime's non-compliance of UN resolutions," the statement added.

'Terrible aggression'

The Syrians were said to be fleeing the fighting in Iraq when a missile hit the bus in which they were travelling.

One of the wounded, Marwan al-Shayesh, told Syrian Television the bus had stopped for a break when the missile struck.

"Passengers were coming down from the bus when there was a huge explosion. We ran away and looked back to the bus and saw more than 10 wounded inside," he said.

Syrian officials say the missile strike violates the 1949 Geneva Convention to protect civilians during times of war.

Syria has delivered an official protest to the US and Britain over the attack which it has condemned as a "terrible aggression".

US and British diplomats were summoned to the Syrian Foreign Ministry on Monday.

Syria "reserves the right to claim damages and warned against the danger of targeting innocent civilians," the Sana news agency reported.

Syria strongly opposes the US-led war on Iraq and has called for a peaceful solution to get Saddam Hussein to disarm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2882579.stm



Eyewitness: Visiting the wounded


One woman said the ceiling had fallen on their heads
BBC World Service reporter and Baghdad resident Subhy Haddad has been to visit civilians injured in Monday's air raids.
There has been a very heavy air raid in Baghdad today. At the moment the all-clear siren has not yet sounded because the raids are continuing.

I have heard several blasts, but we cannot see the air raids because there is a heavy sandstorm today, as well as the smoke from the burning ditches dug by the Iraqi authorities to confuse the attacking aircraft.

I was taken today, with several other journalists, by the Iraqi Ministry of Information to visit the al-Nouman hospital in northern Baghdad.


An injured boy is treated in al-Nouman hospital
A surgeon in the hospital, Issam Jassim Hadi, said 29 people had been injured in a missile or bomb attack on northern Baghdad at noon (0900 GMT). Five of the injured died on the way to hospital, he said.

The surgeon said most of those injured by these attacks, which destroyed at least seven houses, were children and women. Most of them were seriously wounded.

Residential area

We interviewed some of the injured who were able to speak. One of them, a 12-year-old girl, Shad Khalil, said that all the six members of her family were seriously injured when the missiles fell on the area she lives in.

Among the injured was a 40-year-old woman called Thana Wahid Jassim who works as an engineer in a local private company.


Women at al-Nouman hospital wait for news of wounded relatives
She said a missile had fallen on her house. All the members of her family, including her husband, were seriously injured, she told us. Her husband was undergoing surgery.

She said the blast was so strong that the ceiling fell on their heads.

We asked some of the injured whether there were any military targets in the area.

They all said the only famous building in the area was the Royal Cemetery, where the old kings of Iraq are buried.

It is a residential area - I know it very well.

Believing the US

Also, it seems some of the missiles fell on residential areas but they did not explode.

Civil defence forces are trying to defuse them and take them away.


Smoke from Iraqi defences is hanging over the city
Do the people on the streets believe America is trying to avoid civilian casualties? How can they when they see residential areas coming under attack?

The Iraqi people are hearing the reports of fighting in the towns in the south and moving towards Baghdad - even the president talked about them in his speech on Monday.

The Iraqi reports said the Americans had not been able to break through the barriers of the main cities in southern and western Iraq.

Street fighting fears

According to foreign reports the troops are about 100km from Baghdad now.

There are heavy defences around Baghdad.

People in Baghdad are very worried. They are expecting hard times to come, even worse than the bombardment.

But what preparations can they make? Ordinary people are just trying to hide themselves in cellars, or in bunkers or shelters during the bombing.

I cannot imagine what they would do if there was street

[Saladwood]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24302798.htm

We shall rebuild Iraq's economy by awarding account to US companies.


U.S. awards contract to manage Iraqi port


WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Agency for
International Development, the U.S. government's aid agency, on
Monday awarded Stevedoring Services of America (SSA) a $4.8
million contract to manage the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr, even
before U.S. or British forces take control of the town.

In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers announced it had
awarded a contract to extinguish oil well fires and repair
damaged oil facilities in Iraq to Kellogg, Brown and Root, the
Houston firm which prepared contingency plans for the Army.

The contracts were the second and third awarded under the
Bush administration's preparations for reconstruction in Iraq,
where U.S. and British forces are fighting to overthrow the
government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Reports last week said the government had lost control of
Umm Qasr, Iraq's main deep-water port at the head of the Gulf,
but there now appears to be some remaining resistance.

USAID said in a statement: "SSA will be responsible for the
effective operation of the port, allowing food and other
humanitarian and reconstruction materials and supplies to be
delivered smoothly and efficiently."

"The Seattle, Washington-based company will provide an
initial port assessment, develop improvement plans to overcome
port-imposed constraints, and supply technical expertise to
ensure an adequate flow of through shipment.

"The company will be responsible for the port pilots who
will guide ships up the channel, and will manage the access of
trucking companies to the port and establish a system of
controls to avoid theft and corruption," it added.

The statement did not say when work would start or how long
the company would manage the port.

In a separate statement, the Army Corps of Engineers said
it had selected Kellogg, Brown and Root to handle the Iraq oil
well problem in its initial phase.

Lt. Col. Eugene Pawlik, an Army Corps spokesman, said the
company had engaged two subcontractors -- Boots & Coots and
Wildwells -- and that at least one of them, Boots & Coots, was
already on the ground in southern Iraq trying to put out fires
at nine oil wells.

He said the Kellogg, Brown contract was of "limited
duration at the moment" and could not attach a value to it,
calling it a "cost plus contract (with) no defined cost."

In addition to extinguishing oil well fires, other tasks
include assessing damage to oil facilities, cleaning up of oil
spills, repairing damaged infrastructure and operating oil
facilities, the Army Corps statement said.

As part of the preparations for reconstruction, the U.S.
government has invited at least five large engineering
companies to submit bids for a contract which could be worth up
to $900 million, U.S. and company officials said this month.

The winning company would repair Iraqi health services,
ports and airports, and schools and other educational
institutions, they said.

A U.S. official said that USAID would probably announce the
winner of the big contract on Wednesday.

British companies have complained that they were not
invited to send in bids for that contract but the USAID
official said they would be eligible for subcontracting work.

[Sasarai]

As the article stated, the bus was hit while targeting a bridge. I cannot in anyway justify the accident and I am sorrowed by the incident. However, you can't stop a missile after it's been fired. It all boils down to a "wrong place at the wrong time."

As we all know, Syria most adamantly hates the U.S. and will exploit this accident to its fullest.

On another subject, the Arab nations can continue to protest the U.S. action in Iraq but you will not see the U.S. leave because of their wishes. As you can all attest to, just because the leader of a nation does/says one thing, it does not mean the people support him.

Remember, you're all given the right to free speech because of a War. Be glad that you can fully enjoy your civil rights, lacking in most of the Arab world. Granted they have a different civilization and different cultural values, but no civilization should have the right or mindset to dehumanize people.

One last thing, no one has spoken on the soldier who rolled 3 grenades into some tents in Camp Pennsylvania. Isn't it funny that he just happens to be a Muslim-American. I love radical and fundamentalist Muslims, don't you? (Physically ill and disgusted.) I don't hate Muslims, so don't assume it.

Edit: Clarification and added material.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sasarai on 2003-03-24 19:19 ]</font>

[LollipopLolita]

On 2003-03-24 19:10, Sasarai wrote:
As the article stated, the bus was hit while targeting a bridge. I cannot in anyway justify the accident and I am sorrowed by the incident. However, you can't stop a missile after it's been fired. It all boils down to a "wrong place at the wrong time."

So how come US is hitting bridges now? I thought they were chasing Saddam? Palaces? What has the bridge got to do with it? Chase Saddam, hunt him down, not the country, not the people. Iraq is not Saddam. Wrong place, wrong time is not good. Was Saddam there on the bridge? Anywhere near by? 7 miles near that bridge?



On another subject, the Arab nations can continue to protest the U.S. action in Iraq but you will not see the U.S. leave because of their wishes. As you can all attest to, just because the leader of a nation does/says one thing, it does not mean the people support him.

Right, that's actually very America. Ignore how other countries feel.



One last thing, no one has spoken on the soldier who rolled 3 grenades into some tents in Camp Pennsylvania. Isn't it funny that he just happens to be a Muslim-American. I love radical and fundamentalist Muslims, don't you? (Physically ill and disgusted.)


Last I heard there are Christian American radicals and fundamentals too. What was his name again... McVeigh? Wait maybe he's Muslim, no?

The main point is this, everyone is damn guilty. No one is innocent. Everyone has hidden agendas.

There are too many factors at play and no one, and especially no one here can say I know this and I know that because no one knows the full spectrum of factors at play. No one here is educated enough to justify deep insight on the happenings.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2003-03-24 19:20 ]</font>

[Zeebo]

One last thing, no one has spoken on the soldier who rolled 3 grenades into some tents in Camp Pennsylvania. Isn't it funny that he just happens to be a Muslim-American. I love radical and fundamentalist Muslims, don't you? (Physically ill and disgusted.)

When did this happen? did any one die? did he get captured? Did not see any news of this. Do tell me more please....

[Davion]

Ok great. More information. I would like to know something. How does any of that change the fact that Saddam lied about not having scuds? How does that change the fact that he's breaking international law? How does that change the fact that no matter what Arab states say, Saddam is an evil who's own people have been overjoyed when our military rolled into their towns?

You all can post whatever you want against this war. When it's over, and you see how the people in Iraq respond, you'll see that we were right in taking Saddam out.

Salad, You did a great job finding all that information. Now go and look at the atrocities Saddam has done to his own people. How often people make such one sided posts.

What was that all of you have been saying about the American media? It's a biased propoganda machine? Salad, how are those sites showing a good, well rounded view of what's going on? No mention of the movies of murdered (I say murdered because they were killed outside of combat) American soldiers? No names of mothers and children Saddam's murdered? Where are all of those stories? You seem more concerned with showing how evil America is, you're not even touching what Saddam's done.

[Guntz348]

On 2003-03-24 19:16, LollipopLolita wrote:

...

The main point is this, everyone is damn guilty. No one is innocent. Everyone has hidden agendas.

...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2003-03-24 19:20 ]</font>


Every single human being. Thank you lolita, I said that before and didn't think that anyone agreed with me.

[LollipopLolita]

How does that change the fact that he's breaking international law?

In case you haven't heard, US has also broke international laws.


Salad, how are those sites showing a good, well rounded view of what's going on?
If you check those sites she shows, it's Reuters and BBC. Which btw are very well rounded news agencies, in case you haven't heard. Reuters is the leading news agency. While BBC belongs to the Brits. Oh you know, those Brits, US allies in the war? Why would they generate false news or propaganda against the war which they are in?

She posted those news to counter the points brought up, to bring up both sides of the argument.

And where are your links btw?

Like I said:

The main point is this, everyone is damn guilty. No one is innocent. Everyone has hidden agendas.

There are too many factors at play and no one, and especially no one here can say I know this and I know that because no one knows the full spectrum of factors at play. No one here is educated enough to justify deep insight on the happenings.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2003-03-24 19:30 ]</font>

[Sasarai]

On 2003-03-24 19:16, LollipopLolita wrote:


On 2003-03-24 19:10, Sasarai wrote:
As the article stated, the bus was hit while targeting a bridge. I cannot in anyway justify the accident and I am sorrowed by the incident. However, you can't stop a missile after it's been fired. It all boils down to a "wrong place at the wrong time."

So how come US is hitting bridges now? I thought they were chasing Saddam? Palaces? What has the bridge got to do with it? Chase Saddam, hunt him down, not the country, not the people. Iraq is not Saddam. Wrong place, wrong time is not good. Was Saddam there on the bridge? Anywhere near by? 7 miles near that bridge?



On another subject, the Arab nations can continue to protest the U.S. action in Iraq but you will not see the U.S. leave because of their wishes. As you can all attest to, just because the leader of a nation does/says one thing, it does not mean the people support him.

Right, that's actually very America. Ignore how other countries feel.



One last thing, no one has spoken on the soldier who rolled 3 grenades into some tents in Camp Pennsylvania. Isn't it funny that he just happens to be a Muslim-American. I love radical and fundamentalist Muslims, don't you? (Physically ill and disgusted.)


Last I heard there are Christian American radicals and fundamentals too. What was his name again... McVeigh? Wait maybe he's Muslim, no?

The main point is this, everyone is damn guilty. No one is innocent. Everyone has hidden agendas.

There are too many factors at play and no one, and especially no one here can say I know this and I know that because no one knows the full spectrum of factors at play. No one here is educated enough to justify deep insight on the happenings.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2003-03-24 19:20 ]</font>


Firstly Lollipop, bridges in all military action are main targets, this is to ensure that enemy troops cannot send reinforcements and to restrict the movement of the enemy. Sorry Lollipop, but that's plain obvious.

Sencondly, how other countries feel is simply not American concern. America has the passion and courage to protect the world, whether or not they choose to defend themselves or not. If we feel Iraq is a threat to internatiol peace and security, screw that, if we feel Iraq is a threat to us then we will act preemptively and hold the sovereign right to do so.

Thirdly, yes there are Christian radicals and no I'm not Christian. I have no religious affiliation, or to keep things simple I am Atheist. To make it clear, I was also thoroughly disgusted by the actions of Timothy McVeigh. For that matter, any terrorist attack. I'll admit, my earlier remark was ignorant. I apologize for that whole-heartedly.

Lastly, I said the same thing earlier Lollipop. I said in an earlier post, or under another topic (I don't remember) but I agree. None of us know the full extent of the matter and the other motives, if there are any (which I believe there aren't). I for one believe our President and his administration, in the end our insight and opinions can only be formed around what we've actively researched, dependent on the credibility of our sources.

To whoever asked, a soldier (whose name or rank I cannot remember) rolled 3 grenades into command tents overnight, while the soldiers inside were asleep. I believe 1 man did die, and several others were injured. However, the rogue soldier was captured and will be court marshalled once he is brought back to the U.S.

[Zeebo]

Which btw are very well rounded news agencies

btw?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2003-03-24 19:16, LollipopLolita wrote:

...

The main point is this, everyone is damn guilty. No one is innocent. Everyone has hidden agendas.

...

[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2003-03-24 19:20 ]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Every single human being. Thank you lolita, I said that before and didn't think that anyone agreed with me.

I also agree with you!


And where are your links

you know not all of us go on the internet... Some of us watch tv.... the reason im saying this is because for the first time im agreeing with him.... on some matters

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 19:16, LollipopLolita wrote:


So how come US is hitting bridges now? I thought they were chasing Saddam? Palaces? What has the bridge got to do with it? Chase Saddam, hunt him down, not the country, not the people. Iraq is not Saddam. Wrong place, wrong time is not good. Was Saddam there on the bridge? Anywhere near by? 7 miles near that bridge?



Lolitia, Do you know how hard it is to run a war? Mistakes happen, and maybe that bridge needed to be taken out for reasons we don't know. We shouldn't comment on how a war should be waged until we've seen everything the military knows. Let me refer you to an edit you made.


There are too many factors at play and no one, and especially no one here can say I know this and I know that because no one knows the full spectrum of factors at play. No one here is educated enough to justify deep insight on the happenings.

I think that sums it up well.


Last I heard there are Christian American radicals and fundamentals too. What was his name again... McVeigh? Wait maybe he's Muslim, no?

The main point is this, everyone is damn guilty. No one is innocent. Everyone has hidden agendas.

Umm, have you ever posted anything against how bad Saddam is? I've only ever seen you point the finger at America as being the only "Damn guilty" party.

Somehow saying "Muslim" and "Terrorist" in the same sentence became taboo. Somehow we're being mean if we look at Muslim charity closer. If a radical Christian group attacked on 9/11, the same thing would be happening to them.

I would like to ask this. Did Christians fly the planes into the Twin Towers? Does Usama (or Osama, how the heck do you spell his name anyway?) claim Christianity as the power behind his wars? No, and the truth is these terrorist groups hide behind Islam as a way to protect themselves. After all, who would bomb a Mosk? (spelling?). But I don't see you treating them with the same filter you press the United States through.


I'm not saying all Muslims are bad. I have some very good friends who are Muslims. And I'm not saying Christians are perfect either. Both Islam and Christianity have been used by power hungry people to scare the masses into following them. Back in the middle ages, the Pope could supposedly have you sent to hell if you didn't agree with him. Now, men like Usama are doing the same thing.

That's kinda offtopic, but I wanted to say that to make sure people knew I don't feel any anger towards Islam.

EDIT: Dang this topic is getting posts fast. I can't even think through a post without several more showing up talking about the thing I'm posting about.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Davion on 2003-03-24 19:40 ]</font>

[BlackRose]

What a longwinded thread... I wonder, what's being accomplished by arguing back and forth? Yeah, we know how everyone feels... but we also knew that by page two of this thread. We've got a bunch of anectodes and opinions, some quoted news; affirmations and contradictions galore. But nobody's thinking any different after reading this thread, all this convincing has failed to convince anyone. Insight is good, but rifling of comments back and forth is... fruitless. I look at the people who talk the most and they seem insecure, repeating what they want to believe because they really don't.

I suppose my point is rather generalized; I see innumerable debates on Iraq, but no effect of them. I've never seen anyone change their notions about the war. So I wonder, why do it? Why bicker, when you aren't changing anybody's mind? Don't answer that, I can imagine that most people disagree. But what you do is your own choice, and frankly I don't give a damn.



...nevermind...

[Zeebo]

Lolitia, Do you know how hard it is to run a war? Mistakes happen, and maybe that bridge needed to be taken out for reasons we don't know. We shouldn't comment on how a war should be waged until we've seen everything the military knows. Let me refer you to an edit you made.

Yeah maybe it was to prevent from suddam from escaping though the bridge or something!!



Umm, have you ever posted anything against how bad Saddam is? I've only ever seen you point the finger at America as being the only "Damn guilty" party

neither have I....


That's kinda offtopic, but I wanted to say that to make sure people knew I don't feel any anger towards Islam.

Good Point
I know im sounding like a "yes man" but im totally agreeing with waht he says......


What a longwinded thread... I wonder, what's being accomplished by arguing back and forth? Yeah, we know how everyone feels... but we also knew that by page two of this thread. We've got a bunch of anectodes and opinions, some quoted news; affirmations and contradictions galore. But nobody's thinking any different after reading this thread, all this convincing has failed to convince anyone. Insight is good, but rifling of comments back and forth is... fruitless. I look at the people who talk the most and they seem insecure, repeating what they want to believe because they really don't.

Speak for your self ( thing in bold)





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zeebo on 2003-03-24 19:46 ]</font>

[pixelate]

On 2003-03-24 19:38, Sasarai wrote:
Sencondly, how other countries feel is simply not American concern. America has the passion and courage to protect the world, whether or not they choose to defend themselves or not. If we feel Iraq is a threat to internatiol peace and security, screw that, if we feel Iraq is a threat to us then we will act preemptively and hold the sovereign right to do so.



When it comes into international light, though, America should be concerned with how other countries feel, because if America is going to be a member of the United Nations, it should show an open ear.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 19:25, LollipopLolita wrote:

How does that change the fact that he's breaking international law?

In case you haven't heard, US has also broke international laws.


Salad, how are those sites showing a good, well rounded view of what's going on?

If you check those sites she shows, it's Reuters and BBC. Which btw are very well rounded news agencies, in case you haven't heard. Reuters is the leading news agency. While BBC belongs to the Brits. Oh you know, those Brits, US allies in the war? Why would they generate false news or propaganda against the war which they are in?

She posted those news to counter the points brought up, to bring up both sides of the argument.



How did the US break international law? Tell me, and I want proof and sources.


She posted those news to counter the points brought up, to bring up both sides of the argument.

Oh, so you're saying that all of those posts showed fair and equal information about both sides? Sorry, I only saw anti-American stuff in those links. Regardless of the source, things can be biased. I know what those news sources are, btw, but no matter how unbiased they are, the information Salad chose to show was biased.

For the record. I get my news from many sites, including the ones Salad linked to. I don't want ANYONE telling me I'm brainwashed by the American Government's censors. BTW, all coutries make their news biased. Do you think the French news is kind to the US?

[Zeebo]

When it comes into international light, though, America should be concerned with how other countries feel, because if America is going to be a member of the United Nations, it should show an open ear.

agreeing a priest in chicago said USA being in the UN and making war despite what the UN thinks is not right.. It is stating that any country any time can declare war on anyone with out concerns.... But as we know USA wont let them to do so. But when it comes to us....

[Sasarai]

This topic originated as an information source. Which spiraled into a debate. Debate is good, because expression of opinion is monumental to human nature. I am happy to have the response this topic has generated. I in no way have any hate for those of you who have taken the counter-point (anti-war) and I'm absolutely thrilled to see people state what they believe and stick to it. No hypocrisy here.

I don't believe any of us who have replied to the topic are trying to "convince" each other, we're just debating a very important and personal subject.

Debate is crucial when events such as war take place. Though the outcome of the debate may be "fruitless," it doesn't nullify the importance of the things each and everyone of us has to say. Keep those posts coming!! If anything, people like Zeebo can continue to be informed (off-handedly) of the current events.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 19:45, pixelate wrote:

When it comes into international light, though, America should be concerned with how other countries feel, because if America is going to be a member of the United Nations, it should show an open ear.



12 years. We've let them do it their way for 12 years. What did it do? Nothing. Saddam still has his Scuds, still has his labs. Do you think France has an open ear? Threatening to veto ANY resolution that had an ultimatum in it before Saddam himself had a chance to reject it. Does that seem open to you?

Now of course we have the 45 other countries with us, and people would have us think that they only joined us because they're either afraid of losing our money or they're afraid of us taking them out. First, we would never do the latter. We might not care that much about how the world views us, but we're not THAT stupid. Second, France and Germany recieved an amazing amount of help and money after the world wars. Look how they responded.

There are some big names on the ticket to, not just the 3rd world countries people are mentioning.

England, Spain, Japan, Italy, I can't remember all of them, but there are plenty. Look for them, you'll see what I mean.

[Zeebo]

If anything, people like Zeebo can continue to be informed (off-handedly) of the current events.

YES! exactly! reading and listening to news bores me! but when people add a little spice to it.... I like to read it.. Ive read everyline in this posts...

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 19:52, Sasarai wrote:
This topic originated as an information source. Which spiraled into a debate. Debate is good, because expression of opinion is monumental to human nature. I am happy to have the response this topic has generated. I in no way have any hate for those of you who have taken the counter-point (anti-war) and I'm absolutely thrilled to see people state what they believe and stick to it. No hypocrisy here.

I don't believe any of us who have replied to the topic are trying to "convince" each other, we're just debating a very important and personal subject.

Debate is crucial when events such as war take place. Though the outcome of the debate may be "fruitless," it doesn't nullify the importance of the things each and everyone of us has to say. Keep those posts coming!! If anything, people like Zeebo can continue to be informed (off-handedly) of the current events.



You put down your thoughts very well.

[LollipopLolita]

How is a bridge essential in chasing saddam down is he's the evil one?

Davion, if you would read those news posts, or just got to reuters and BBC you will see that the US has broken internation laws, specifically UN laws. It's on BBC "US-led coalition had acted "in violation of the norms of international law" by failing to secure a fresh UN resolution sanctioning war." It's even in Salad's posts Which is why Kofi Annan ain't exactly jumping up and down.

Did I say that I think Saddam is not guilty? No. Did I say that Bush is entirely guilty? No. Do I think they're both wrong? Yes. Of course Saddam is equally crazy, but Iraq is not Saddam. I said no one is innocent. Do I think war is justified? Maybe. Do I think the agression is justified? No. So please, do not put words in my mouth Davion. Everyone broke the law. Not just one country.

The point of posting those news posts is to read up more, to get more information and educate yourself. I read all the news I can about the war, and contradictions should be shown fairly to educate the masses.

Osama might claim Allah told him to do this and that, but if you only knew Islam well enough, he had no powers calling jihad and he is misusing Islam. Terrorists and radicals will use any reason to back them up, will twist any words around to justify their ideals. Which is why they are called radicals.

And who would bomb a Mosque? Christians. Have I seen this? Yes many times. It happens often. Jews do it too. Hell I have seen at least 5 Mosques burnt down in my lifetime.

No one here can really parade around and say they know this and that. No one is qualified. I can't do it, and you can't do it either.

And what the hell is the use of arguing about all of this when it's just yak yak yak I say this you say that and no one can say jack. No matter what the world still revolves, the war is still going on. So all the arguing is pointless. But if you're going to put your foot in and debate something, be open to ideas, because a debate is where an exchange of ideas happen. Don't just assert your points to no end without considering any others. If you're going to debate and not listen to anyone but just voice your own opinions, then might as well talk to the wall. It'll listen to you allright. And a lot of people arguing in this thread is wasting time, energy and oxygen.

Do I support the war? No. Do I not support the war? No. Why? Because I truly feel, to be fully on one side is stupid. Each side has it's own reasons.

Just because I understand one side does not mean I approve of it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2003-03-24 20:01 ]</font>

[Sasarai]

On 2003-03-24 19:45, pixelate wrote:


On 2003-03-24 19:38, Sasarai wrote:
Sencondly, how other countries feel is simply not American concern. America has the passion and courage to protect the world, whether or not they choose to defend themselves or not. If we feel Iraq is a threat to internatiol peace and security, screw that, if we feel Iraq is a threat to us then we will act preemptively and hold the sovereign right to do so.



When it comes into international light, though, America should be concerned with how other countries feel, because if America is going to be a member of the United Nations, it should show an open ear.



The U.S. showed and open ear to the U.N. and the French screamed into it, effectively deafening the administration. That is why Pres. Bush and Sec. of State Powell essentially gave up on the U.N. These men knew that their efforts at diplomacy would be fruitless and decided to take action, rather than play hide-and-seek with Saddam any longer.

[Zeebo]

45 other countries with us

ehm ur a little off date arnt you=P i saw in a newspaper yesterday it was 49 (not making big diff) but more accurate....

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 20:00, Zeebo wrote:

45 other countries with us

ehm ur a little off date arnt you=P i saw in a newspaper yesterday it was 49 (not making big diff) but more accurate....



49 eh? Well, I've been missing some of that action I guess.

"The Operation Iraqi Freedom 49ers." I see a franchise coming.

[Zeebo]

And a lot of people arguing in this thread is wasting time, energy and oxygen.

ehm that hurts my feelings! Whats that about being open minded????



49 eh? Well, I've been missing some of that action I guess.

"The Operation Iraqi Freedom 49ers." I see a franchise coming.

LOL! I like the sound of that

Also Davion are you against or with the war...



I know Iraq had Us POW's... But do we have Iraq Pows....?




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zeebo on 2003-03-24 20:10 ]</font>

[LollipopLolita]

Arguing and debating is two different things.



On 2003-03-24 19:42, BlackRose wrote:
But what you do is your own choice, and frankly I don't give a damn.


Yuppp, hell I agree with you. You're gonna do whatever you want, so do whatever you want.

Saddam is crazy Bush is crazy I am crazy Blackrose is crazy. Maybe that's why I am the only one who agrees with Blackrose.

But I do know this truth.

Pan Arms' arms makes Pan Arm's Blade. And I need pics of Pan Arms' arms.

[Sasarai]

On 2003-03-24 20:06, Zeebo wrote:

And a lot of people arguing in this thread is wasting time, energy and oxygen.

ehm that hurts my feelings! Whats that about being open minded????



49 eh? Well, I've been missing some of that action I guess.

"The Operation Iraqi Freedom 49ers." I see a franchise coming.

LOL! I like the sound of that

Also Davion are you against or with the war...



I know Iraq had Us POW's... But do we have Iraq Pows....?




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zeebo on 2003-03-24 20:10 ]</font>


Several news sources have reported that the U.S. has claimed that several thousand Iraqis have either defected or surrendered. As far as I know, there aren't any exact figures. PSOSaladWood, care to dig up 50 links? LoL!

Frankly, I believe the number may be too large, but I'm certain there are some Iraqi POWs.

Not to speak for Davion, but I believe he is pro-war, or at least supports military action as it was imminent.

[pixelate]

On 2003-03-24 19:54, Davion wrote:
12 years. We've let them do it their way for 12 years. What did it do? Nothing. Saddam still has his Scuds, still has his labs. Do you think France has an open ear? Threatening to veto ANY resolution that had an ultimatum in it before Saddam himself had a chance to reject it. Does that seem open to you?






On 2003-03-24 19:58, Sasarai wrote:
The U.S. showed and open ear to the U.N. and the French screamed into it, effectively deafening the administration. That is why Pres. Bush and Sec. of State Powell essentially gave up on the U.N. These men knew that their efforts at diplomacy would be fruitless and decided to take action, rather than play hide-and-seek with Saddam any longer.



In response to both quotes:

Then the U.S. shouldn't be a part of the U.N., because if we're going to do our own thing and not respect U.N. decisions, we're not a trustworthy member. And untrustworthy members don't make for good protectors of the world--which isn't our job in the first place.

[Zeebo]

But I do know this truth.

Pan Arms' arms makes Pan Arm's Blade. And I need pics of Pan Arms' arms.


Arguing and debating is two different things.

What i ment is what if we like to argue or debate... Doesnt mean you have to call it stupid... I think some of ur opinions dont make much sense (no offense) but you dont see me commenting...



Then the U.S. shouldn't be a part of the U.N., because if we're going to do our own thing and not respect U.N. decisions, we're not a trustworthy member. And untrustworthy members don't make for good protectors of the world--which isn't our job in the first place.

Well I beileve every country had disagreed with the UN once in a while.... And Biological weapons are helping the world??


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zeebo on 2003-03-24 20:18 ]</font>

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 19:58, LollipopLolita wrote:

by failing to secure a fresh UN resolution sanctioning war.

That is spin. Resolution 1441 GAVE all the USA needed in order to use military action. It said that "Serious consequenses" would have to be envoked if Saddam didn't comply FULLY with the inspectors. Leaking out a few things here and a few things there isn't fully. There is no international law keeping any country from waging war against another.


So please, do not put words in my mouth Davion. Everyone broke the law. Not just one country.

I never put words in your mouth. I said what I never saw you say. You might think that you are fair, but I've lost any sign of it in your posts which almost always paint America as the problem.



Osama might claim Allah told him to do this and that, but if you only knew Islam well enough, he had no powers calling jihad and he is misusing Islam. Terrorists and radicals will use any reason to back them up, will twist any words around to justify their ideals. Which is why they are called radicals.

And who would bomb a Mosque? Christians. Have I seen this? Yes many times. It happens often. Jews do it too. Hell I have seen at least 5 Mosques burnt down in my lifetime.

You have shown quite well that you missed everything I said about that. I said the exact same thing you said about Usama, but do you mention that? No, you only ignore it and correct me for saying the same thing you just posted.

I'd like to ask. Who would kill Missionaries? Muslims. Have I seen it? Heck, I've had friends and family murdered. Heck, I've seen hundreds of churches burned down in my lifetime, and two very large towers that used to stand in NY.

Once again, I have nothing against Islam. It's those who hide behind it and do the things I stated that I have a problem with. By posting what you said you obviously don't give a straw to think that Cristians might be the same as Muslims. Everybody guilty? Once again you've only brought up Christains as guilty in this idea.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 20:15, pixelate wrote:


In response to both quotes:

Then the U.S. shouldn't be a part of the U.N., because if we're going to do our own thing and not respect U.N. decisions, we're not a trustworthy member. And untrustworthy members don't make for good protectors of the world--which isn't our job in the first place.



We're also protecting ourselves and any country has the right to do so. We are in the UN because it's a forum in which countries can talk about things and MAYBE resolve them peacefully. We in no way violate or ignore the UN by doing what we think is right.

We are the only people who respected the UN's mandates. 1441 was signed by all members of the security council, and they are ignoring it themselves. You can say the same thing to France, Germany, and Russia about not being a part of the UN. But you didn't, and that proves my point againt that people look at the USA as the problem when both sides could of given in to the other.

EDIT: Yes, I am pro-war. But war is not somthing I like. The right thing isn't always a good thing. War is not a good thing. Lives being lost is never a good thing, but sometimes not doing anything is worse that agressive action. I'll post somthing later about how I feel about war fully.

EDIT AGAIN: This topic has gone a good long way without getting locked. I guess we're doing a better job at not getting personal and not cussing off than before.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Davion on 2003-03-24 20:24 ]</font>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Davion on 2003-03-24 20:25 ]</font>

[Sasarai]

On 2003-03-24 20:15, pixelate wrote:


On 2003-03-24 19:54, Davion wrote:
12 years. We've let them do it their way for 12 years. What did it do? Nothing. Saddam still has his Scuds, still has his labs. Do you think France has an open ear? Threatening to veto ANY resolution that had an ultimatum in it before Saddam himself had a chance to reject it. Does that seem open to you?






On 2003-03-24 19:58, Sasarai wrote:
The U.S. showed and open ear to the U.N. and the French screamed into it, effectively deafening the administration. That is why Pres. Bush and Sec. of State Powell essentially gave up on the U.N. These men knew that their efforts at diplomacy would be fruitless and decided to take action, rather than play hide-and-seek with Saddam any longer.



In response to both quotes:

Then the U.S. shouldn't be a part of the U.N., because if we're going to do our own thing and not respect U.N. decisions, we're not a trustworthy member. And untrustworthy members don't make for good protectors of the world--which isn't our job in the first place.



Fair enough, but there seems to be evidence (I will admit now, I don't have any confirmation of this) that France and all the nations linked to the U.N. have all broken the trust required to be a team player.

There was no U.N. decision Pixel, France made sure of that. The last U.N. unanimous decision was 1441 which, as aforementioned, gave the U.S. and the other nations of the U.N. to use military force against Iraq if there was failure of compliance--and there was.

If we aren't protectors of the world, who then? The U.S. I feel has an obliation as a priveleged and powerful country to assist and defend the world from attrocities. No, we cannot stop them all, yes, we are guilty of many.

You seem to take the isolationist stance not seen since the advent of WWII. Money makes the world go round and the U.S. has money invested everywhere, effectively the U.S. makes the world function.

Without our presence in every corner of the world, the other nations would be left to their own devices, which I feel with the utmost sincerity, would lead to a much more chaotic world.

[LollipopLolita]

God Davion. I think they're the same, I already said they're the same. You asked who would burn Mosques, I answered. You keep jumping on me, and that's what you do Davion, you come on way too strong and jump on people's toes. Which is why people either argue back or give up and not post back. Just because someone doesn't say something doesn't mean they don't feel that way. That's jumping to conclusions. You can try to prove your point, doesn't mean anyone and everyone should and will agree with you.

I've seen churches burnt, I've seen mosques burnt, I've seen temples burnt. I've seen Buddhists burning, I've seen Hindus burning, I've seen Muslims burning, I've seen Christians burning all with my own eyes. I've seen Buddhists and Hindus kill Missionaries too. Okay? I think they're all nuts. Not the religion, but the people.

You should run for office.

[pixelate]

On 2003-03-24 20:22, Davion wrote:
We're also protecting ourselves and any country has the right to do so. We are in the UN because it's a forum in which countries can talk about things and MAYBE resolve them peacefully. We in no way violate or ignore the UN by doing what we think is right.



9/11 was just people protecting their country. They thought it was right, so they weren't violating or ignoring the U.N.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 20:28, pixelate wrote:


On 2003-03-24 20:22, Davion wrote:
We're also protecting ourselves and any country has the right to do so. We are in the UN because it's a forum in which countries can talk about things and MAYBE resolve them peacefully. We in no way violate or ignore the UN by doing what we think is right.



9/11 was just people protecting their country. They thought it was right, so they weren't violating or ignoring the U.N.



Hold the phone. Are you saying the terrorists attacked us to defend themselves?

[pixelate]

On 2003-03-24 20:33, Davion wrote:
Hold the phone. Are you saying the terrorists attacked us to defend themselves?



9/11 was a preemptive attack to defend a way of life, just like our war is a preemptive strike to defend our way of life.

[Not saying that I agree with any of the attacks, but it's another view--their view--to consider. We say terrorist. They say freedom fighter.]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pixelate on 2003-03-24 20:42 ]</font>

[Zeebo]

9/11 was just people protecting their country. They thought it was right, so they weren't violating or ignoring the U.N.

??! WHAT! 9/11 was a hatrid towards us expessed in a very agressive way.... They did ignore the U.N. like us but they did it for other reasons.. TOtally different... They did it out of hatrid.. What i believe were doing this for is to protect people from the Evil man which is currently called Suddam... Bio weapons is nothing to worry about? Why would he not let U.N. search? We gave them time... As I recall France would veto? Did any other country?? And 49 counties is alot of support... Even if they are 3rd world.. What should that matter? They are still a country and still have many people living in them.... My point is the 2 are alot different but at some aspects the same....
SO PLEASE DON'T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS....


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zeebo on 2003-03-24 20:44 ]</font>

[pixelate]

On 2003-03-24 20:41, Zeebo wrote:
??! WHAT! 9/11 was a hatrid towards us expessed in a very agressive way.... They did ignore the U.N. like us but they did it for other reasons.. TOtally different... They did it out of hatrid.. What i believe were doing this for is to protect people from the Evil man which is currently called Suddam...



There are some people in the U.S. who support the current war out of hatred for terrorists or "the Evil man" Saddam as you put it. We may be in the war to protect people, but for some people who support it, they're driven by their hatred for those affiliated with terrorism or those seen as "Evil."

[Zeebo]

That's true...... But do you see what IM trying to say.........


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zeebo on 2003-03-24 21:01 ]</font>

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 20:27, LollipopLolita wrote:
God Davion. I think they're the same, I already said they're the same. You asked who would burn Mosques, I answered. You keep jumping on me, and that's what you do Davion, you come on way too strong and jump on people's toes. Which is why people either argue back or give up and not post back. Just because someone doesn't say something doesn't mean they don't feel that way. That's jumping to conclusions. You can try to prove your point, doesn't mean anyone and everyone should and will agree with you.

I've seen churches burnt, I've seen mosques burnt, I've seen temples burnt. I've seen Buddhists burning, I've seen Hindus burning, I've seen Muslims burning, I've seen Christians burning all with my own eyes. I've seen Buddhists and Hindus kill Missionaries too. Okay? I think they're all nuts. Not the religion, but the people.

You should run for office.



Ok, I've taken into account what you've said, and it does seem to look right to me. I do feel very strongly about things, and I'm sorry for coming on so strong.

You said they were the same but the only facts you brought up showed Christians in the bad light. I'm not jumping on you. You ignore the things I said that you agreed with and stated them almost the same way. I said many many many times that it was the people who abused the religion, not the religion itself that was the problem. I only said who would bomb a Mosques (btw, thanks for the correct spelling) because when you hide behind a religious sign you can look better when people attack you. I'm referring to the terrorists hiding behind Islam. You're the one who brought up acts of evil from one religious group to another. I've said so many times the same things you're saying, but you reply to me correctively like I was wrong. All the things you said about Muslims, I said about Christians. You said they're all the same, but you only gave those examples. I know how you feel, but I was giving the other side.


Just because someone doesn't say something doesn't mean they don't feel that way. That's jumping to conclusions. You can try to prove your point, doesn't mean anyone and everyone should and will agree with you.

When someone only posts anti-American things, what would you think about them? Would you think they have a fair view? Sure they might have a fair view inside, but what they show on the outside might lead me to think otherwise. It's not all my fault for someone coming across biased.

And I post what I think for the purpose of others reading it to see how I think. I remember a topic where I was railed on because I "missed the point". I got the point, and I made a new one. People treat me like I know nothing, like I'm an idiot, like I'm a brainwashed, blind, Bush lover who is so stuck in his own views that he can't listen. I get all that because I disagreed with people. I'm called to young to understand by Neko. Phenomenally stupid by Phal. Why? Because they don't agree with me. I might come across angry, but I'm always fending off someone on some front. And sometimes the acusations are so strong I fend them off with the same strength.

Please. I was saying the exact things you said, but when I said them I was wrong. I don't get it, and I'm just trying to get you to see that I agree with you that they are all equal. You only see me in that light because we agrue the same idea but from differant viewpoints.

I'm sorry for coming across like I do.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 20:55, pixelate wrote:


On 2003-03-24 20:41, Zeebo wrote:
??! WHAT! 9/11 was a hatrid towards us expessed in a very agressive way.... They did ignore the U.N. like us but they did it for other reasons.. TOtally different... They did it out of hatrid.. What i believe were doing this for is to protect people from the Evil man which is currently called Suddam...



There are some people in the U.S. who support the current war out of hatred for terrorists or "the Evil man" Saddam as you put it. We may be in the war to protect people, but for some people who support it, they're driven by their hatred for those affiliated with terrorism or those seen as "Evil."



This goes back to our conversation on AIM Pix. How were the terrorists protecting their own by blasting thousands of people who had nothing to do with anything against them? I mean, if they attacked only the Pentagon, I would almost understand what you mean. But by kiilling thousands of inocent people, they proved nothing but their hatred. They didn't just attack America. It was called the "World Trade Center" for a reason, and people of every creed were killed there.

[pixelate]

On 2003-03-24 21:11, Davion wrote:
This goes back to our conversation on AIM Pix. How were the terrorists protecting their own by blasting thousands of people who had nothing to do with anything against them? I mean, if they attacked only the Pentagon, I would almost understand what you mean. But by kiilling thousands of inocent people, they proved nothing but their hatred. They didn't just attack America. It was called the "World Trade Center" for a reason, and people of every creed were killed there.



The World Trade Center housed a large number of financial institutions. And the World Trade Center was a symbol of America's push for greed and intruding on other cultures' way of life, according to them. We may not see the World Trade Center as a push for greed and intrusion, but they did; that's why they felt they were protecting their own, not just the physical lives of their people, but the culture they want to keep.

They dislike more than just our military being in their countries--which hitting the Pentagon may show; they also dislike our businesses being in their countries. Remember that big fuss one country had over beef fat being used in McDonald's french fries because the cow is sacred to them? It's that difference in culture that they don't like.

[LollipopLolita]

Trust me Davion, I have seen the evil side of every religion. Where I am from, we have multiple religions and ethnic and religious cleansing is still happening as we speak. And things like that go back way too far and too deep.


It's not all my fault for someone coming across biased.

Realize that you're coming off that way too. Doesn't mean that just because someone is coming down on you hard, you'd have to do the same. That's stooping down to their level. But treating them the way people should be treated, and not based on how you're feeling or if you like them, is what should be done.

I already said from the beginning that they're all crazy. How many times have I said that it's everyone's fault? That everyone is guilty? Still you keep smashing back. And that's how you present yourself and that's how everyone is going to see you. You don't have to yell at people and look down on them, you can ask them what they mean, clarify and exchange ideas. No one is completely right. The more you consider all factors, the more you think them over and realize all the factors, the better off you will be. But if you will only stick to what you believe in and not change your viewpoint ever, that's when you back yourself into a corner.

Just because I understand where someone is coming from or what they are feeling does not mean I approve of them, but when you just keep presenting one side, it's not fair. Just because I am showing light on how the opposing forces feel do not mean I completely agree with them. But you have to realize and accept that there are just anti american sentiments, some which are justified. America hasn;t been innocent. But the same goes for everyone else.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2003-03-24 21:53 ]</font>

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 21:27, pixelate wrote:


On 2003-03-24 21:11, Davion wrote:
This goes back to our conversation on AIM Pix. How were the terrorists protecting their own by blasting thousands of people who had nothing to do with anything against them? I mean, if they attacked only the Pentagon, I would almost understand what you mean. But by kiilling thousands of inocent people, they proved nothing but their hatred. They didn't just attack America. It was called the "World Trade Center" for a reason, and people of every creed were killed there.



The World Trade Center housed a large number of financial institutions. And the World Trade Center was a symbol of America's push for greed and intruding on other cultures' way of life, according to them. We may not see the World Trade Center as a push for greed and intrusion, but they did; that's why they felt they were protecting their own, not just the physical lives of their people, but the culture they want to keep.

They dislike more than just our military being in their countries--which hitting the Pentagon may show; they also dislike our businesses being in their countries. Remember that big fuss one country had over beef fat being used in McDonald's french fries because the cow is sacred to them? It's that difference in culture that they don't like.



Well, I'm not going to argue this, and I suggest that no one else does either. This kind of thing is only opinon based, and there is no way to argue against it. Pix can think that if he wants.

[Zeebo]

Well, I'm not going to argue this, and I suggest that no one else does either. This kind of thing is only opinon based, and there is no way to argue against it. Pix can think that if he wants.

you said it so i wont.....

[LollipopLolita]

On 2003-03-24 21:38, Davion wrote:
Pix can think that if he wants.

It's not what Pix think, it's what they think. And we know this because they said so. Again, understanding does not mean approving.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 21:36, LollipopLolita wrote:
Trust me Davion, I have seen the evil side of every religion. Where I am from, we have multiple religions and ethnic and religious cleansing is still happening as we speak. And things like that go back way too far and too deep.


It's not all my fault for someone coming across biased.

Realize that you're coming off that way too. Doesn't mean that just because someone is coming down on you hard, you'd have to do the same. That's stooping down to their level. But treating them the way people should be treated and not base don how you're feeling is what should be done.

I already said from the beginning that they're all crazy. How many times have I said that it's everyone's fault? That everyone is guilty? Still you keep smashing back. And that's how you present yourself and that's how everyone is going to see you. You don't have to yell at people and look down on them, you can ask them what they mean, clarify and exchange ideas. No one is completely right.

Just because I understand where someone is coming from or what they are feeling does not mean I understand them, but when you just keep presenting one side, it's not fair. But you have to realize and accept that there are just anti american sentiments, some which are justified.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2003-03-24 21:38 ]</font>


Please. How many times do I have to say it? I'm saying the same things you are. Everytime I say the same thing you say, I'm wrong. I trust you when you say you've seen those things. That was never the problem. There never was a problem. I didn't need to give the other side because you already did. I was just finishing it. Of course there are justified anti-american sentiments.

I know I come across biased sometimes. I never said I didn't. I only said that because you told me that I jump to conclusions. I gave a reason why I think the way I do about the people that look biased to me. I just said that sometimes I only think the things people had lead me to think about them.

When I'm posting, I'm usually defending America. If I come across biased it's sometimes because I'm fending off accusations of others. Not all the time, but I'm just saying sometimes.

I try not to yell at people. It is really impossible to add yell tags to posts or calm tags to posts. Sometimes, the way I write might come across yelling, but that's not how I feel. yes, I get angry sometimes, but I try not to let it get in the way of my posts. I've also never been a person to look down on someone because they differed from me. If I've come across that way, I'm sorry. I also do change how I think depending on what is said. I know when I'm wrong, and I take back what I say or make sure people know that I don't mean to yell.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 21:43, LollipopLolita wrote:


On 2003-03-24 21:38, Davion wrote:
Pix can think that if he wants.

It's not what Pix think, it's what they think. And we know this because they said so. Again, understanding does not mean approving.



Why was I wrong again Lolita? What did I do? I said that Pix can think what he wants to think, and I'm not holding it against him. What did I say that was wrong?

[RuneLateralus]

The thing is Pix is not stating what he thinks and feels. He was stating how "they" (as in Al Qaida, Osama, and Saddam) feel.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: RuneLateralus on 2003-03-24 21:59 ]</font>

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 21:58, RuneLateralus wrote:
The thing is Pix is not stating what he thinks and feels. He was stating how "they" (as in Al Qaida and such) feel.



He was saying what he thinks. He thinks that we should look at it from the terrorist's veiw too. He said to us they're terrorists, to themselves they're freedom fighters. I don't look at it that way, but I'm saying it's ok that Pix thinks that.

I'm going to bed now. So if I don't respond, I'm not ignoring or walking away from the topic.

[Zeebo]

The thing is Pix is not stating what he thinks and feels. He was stating how "they" (as in Al Qaida, Osama, and Saddam) feel.

Well how does HE know??

[LollipopLolita]

Seriously, it's not what Pix thinks, is what they think. Even Rune understood. It's called presenting their side of it.

I've said things where it's how they think, what it's like for them, but you always think that's how I think. Happens with other people's views. But it's two different things.

[LollipopLolita]

On 2003-03-24 22:04, Zeebo wrote:
Well how does HE know??



THEY SAID SO

Lots of people know that's how they feel. They publicized it and broadcast it.

[RuneLateralus]

On 2003-03-24 22:04, Zeebo wrote:

The thing is Pix is not stating what he thinks and feels. He was stating how "they" (as in Al Qaida, Osama, and Saddam) feel.

Well how does HE know??



Because they state it in there messages and speeches of why they stand against America?

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-23 13:18, Davion wrote:
You do know why we took the Oil fields, right? We took them because they're the Iraqi people's and Saddam's troops were setting them ablaze. The reason we took them with ground troops was so they wouldn't be set on fire during a retreat like last time. Not because we have control over the oil. Look, no matter what you people say, Ness is right. We hardly get any oil from OPEC, while Europe gets most of its oil from them.


to answer your own question (again), yes, europe gets most of its oil from opec, but when we seize those resources from Iraq, won't we then have control over Europe's oil supply? i don't think anyone in europe would be too crazy about having the US calling all the shots in Europe as far as petroleum-based products are concerned ... why do you think they aren't intervening?



Funny how people aren't saying that we need to take Saddam out. These rallies aren't anti-war as they


actually, some of those people say that we need to take iraq out, and for those people (not implying you, you haven't said that): get it through your thick skulls! All the citizens of Iraq are not the bad guys! Saddam Hussein is! so stop with your "NUKE IRAQ" and "F@#K IRAQ" bs on Vega 1! (i don't know why i still go to vega ...)



are Anti-Bush. Don't try and argue that with me, I've seen more Impeach Bush, Texas of Evil, and other posters that accuse the President more than they say anything else. I have an anti-war friend. We get along fine, really. He came back from one of those rallies shaken that the whole thing wasn't about peace, it was hate. Hate for the President. They're protesting how they feel about the Presidential elections too in this.


for good reason ... consult http://www.copvcia.com and http://www.cooperativeresearch.org ... read thoroughly, and THEN tell me that Bush isn't that bad



What don't I know Sublim? How do you put it? I don't know anything, right? Well I know that when you do something wrong and against the law, you will be punished for it. I've said it before. I have NO problem with protests. It's when you start to hurt the country that I get annoyed. You know hoe much money it takes to clean up those things? How much it costs the people of NY because they can't get to work or the hospital? How many books for school could that pay for? These protests aren't about


books for school? lol .. how bout the $90 billion budget that's NOT going to "books for school"?



The American troops are hailed as heros by the Iraqi people. Even the soldiers who surrendered do it happily because they know we don't treat people like animals, unlike Saddam. In Time, I read an interview


haha! i can assure you that they surrendered for alternate reasons, like not wanting to be annihilated http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[pixelate]

On 2003-03-24 21:58, RuneLateralus wrote:
The thing is Pix is not stating what he thinks and feels. He was stating how "they" (as in Al Qaida, Osama, and Saddam) feel.


Yes, I'm trying to present different views. I'm trying to think outside of my own views, to understand where the other side may be coming from.



On 2003-03-24 22:01, Davion wrote:
He was saying what he thinks. He thinks that we should look at it from the terrorist's veiw too. He said to us they're terrorists, to themselves they're freedom fighters. I don't look at it that way, but I'm saying it's ok that Pix thinks that.



Yes, we should look at all kinds of views. But just because I present a view, doesn't automatically mean I agree with it or that it is my own.

Sorry that I wasn't clear about what's my personal view or not. I only want to present as much as possible so people can think outside of themselves and get into that uncomfortable area where they start to question their own views.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pixelate on 2003-03-24 22:21 ]</font>

[ABDUR101]

Jesus H. Christ. Davion, you're repeating what Lolita is saying, and then in another paragraph you contradict what you just said.

She says everyone is wrong, and you just go back and say America is right-right-right. You aren't even looking at everyone's view, or rather, you're looking at their views and ignoring them entirely. Give it a rest for shits sake, you're just spinning your tires.

And whoever said that America is the sovereign protector of the world needs a nice bitch slap back to reality. The world did not deem the US it's protector, and I don't know if this is actually understood by many americans, but it pisses other countries off to no end when America jumps in and takes control of a situation.

Everyone says Saddam is doing all of this BS to his own people, well hey, you know what, when that happened in so many other countries, their leaders doing things to their own people, the people revolted and booted the leaders out and made anew what was wrong.

Now, if the soldiers in Iraq's army are throwing down their weapons so readily and greeting all of the Americans with smiles and they so haaaappppyyy that Amelica is there to protect them and save them...ok, think about that for a second. The people that are supposedly giving up, throwing down their weapons and surrendering. Gee, with all of these unhappy fucking Iraqis, with weapons, you'd of thought there'd of been a rebellion and they'd of ousted Saddam and his Elite guard by now. Considering Saddam is throwing people in man-sized meat grinders and starving everyone, not to mention gassing everyone else.

Makes sense right?

I'm not there, I haven't seen anyone get chipped into tiny bits, so what the hell do I know? What the hell does anyone know? You see it on TV and it's automatically true?

That, is the epitome of being naive.

You could watch every news station, of every part of the world, and you'd still get shit for the truth. Not everyone is biased, but how can you wade through so much BS in search of the truth? You're only going to beleive what makes you feel comfortable so you can rationalize the actions you agree with.

No matter how much you try and rationalise this war, it means shit nothing, because there are alot more people in the world that are against it than there are Americans who agree with it.

Thats like Iraq invading Kuwait, everyone was against it happening, so the US went in and took care of it. Funny when you look at it like that, yeah? Everyone was against Iraq invading Kuwait, so the US took it upon itself to go in and help, but now so many are against the war in Iraq and the US takes it upon itself to go in.



On 2003-03-24 22:01, Davion wrote:
He was saying what he thinks. He thinks that we should look at it from the terrorist's veiw too. He said to us they're terrorists, to themselves they're freedom fighters. >>>I don't look at it that way<<<, but I'm saying it's ok that Pix thinks that.

And that is exactly the problem. You aren't looking at it from anyone else's perspective, which is the most important part of understanding whats happening. You don't have to look at it in the same light, but you have to look at it from someone else's perspective, otherwise you'll never understand fully.

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-23 19:11, Davion wrote:
What did the Spanish do the people in Central America? What did Napoleon try to do? Where did Prussia go? What happened to those countries? Remember "The sun never sets on the British Empire"? Key word=Empire. America has shown that we don't colonize. The very idea that that's what we're doing in Iraq is wrong.


do you think expanding from 13 states to 50 isn't colonization? and just because the US is a "democracy" doesn't rule it out as not being an empire ... you know why we don't need to colonize? because we replace leaders of nations, good or bad, that simply don't agree with American interests, with American-favored leaders, and once we "make sure" that that nation is on our side, who needs to colonize?

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-24 15:55, Nites wrote:


On 2003-03-24 15:35, Davion wrote:
I watch Fox, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, and an Italian news station that my Mother translates for me.


i suggest watching other news channels outside the US because any news station in the US would be biased for war so it might be better to watch some non american newstations... just a suggestion not a flame



absolutely! take NBC for example: NBC is a subsidiary of GE, known to be a major weapons manufacturer ... do you think they report everything they know or find to the general public, especially if it affected GE negatively?

and then there's ABC ... i noticed that before the war broke out, Peter Jennings only reported 3 statements made by Iraqi citizens about the US, all negative ... i didn't know it only took 3 people to confirm the opinion of an entire nation ...

and then Comedy Central ... Jim Breuer ... funny guy, and then i lost all respect for him when he made insults of Arab soldiers riding camels and speaking gibberish ... i really hate it when someone tries to imitate another language or group of people they know nothing about

my point? don't believe that major media groups tell you everything they know, and don't assume that their report is solely objective and unbiased

if you're gonna put stock in any media organization, opt for independent media ... you don't see the news they publish everyday and everywhere in the US because they aren't backed by some major corporation, and therefore aren't in the position to lose funding from that corporation if they publish something the corporation doesn't agree with, even though it's REAL, IMPORTANT NEWS



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: brillyfresh on 2003-03-25 01:11 ]</font>

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-24 16:39, Zeebo wrote:
Why would you reply if your not going to talk about war^ and well other country's news is not to good to listen to because unlike us they might lie... to create propoganda



LMAO!!! you don't think america does that?? do you actually believe that you can choose what you want to do when you join the Armed Forces, like the sickeningly ubiquitous Army/Navy/Marines commercials would have you believe? what you just said could easily be said in every other country in the world of the US

and speaking of propaganda, ever heard of "propaganda bombs", made popular in Korea in the 50s? what do you think the "ultimatum" pamphlets dropped in iraq really said? unless you got a copy, which would have to come from iraq, and could read arabic, you don't really know if that wasn't just american propaganda



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: brillyfresh on 2003-03-25 01:13 ]</font>

[ABDUR101]

On 2003-03-24 23:04, brillyfresh wrote:
and then Comedy Central ... Jim Breuer ... funny guy, and then i lost all respect for him when he made insults of Arab soldiers riding camels and speaking gibberish ... i really hate it when someone tries to imitate another language or group of people they know nothing about


Yeah, that pissed me off when he started that. Anyone who saw it and knows anything about Islam could see that he was making a mockery of the beleifs, expecially concerning Hijab(worn by women).

That just totally turned me off from him as a comedian, that was sooo un-needed. He was doing what was widely accepted though, and thats just the ignorance that pisses off alot of people. Ohhhhhh welllll.

[brillyfresh]

sorry for the back-to-back posts everyone, i'm playing catch up, 2 days away and so many posts ... this thread is a lively one http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif



On 2003-03-24 18:39, Sasarai wrote:
I keep hearing the "bloodshed for oil" argument. This is just ridiculous; granted Iraq has the largest oil reserves just under Saudi Arabia, but this does not mean that the administration has some ulterior motive. Half of you should have "Conspiracy Theorist" as your title.


no, not Saudi Arabia, Russia ... why do so many people think that all the oil in the world is in the Middle East? familiar with Alaska? lol

and as for "ulterior motive", the same could be said for the US, and your term "ulterior motive" could also pin you "Conspiracy Theorist"



As I've stated before, we DO have proof that Saddam has WMDs. If you haven't been watching the news, or if you've been watching/reading/hearing the deceptive nature of liberal news, you probably wouldn't know that we have found a chemical weapons manufacturing plant. We've intercepted a myriad of calls and you can't deny that our espionage is the best in the world. If the administration says he has WMDs, he has them.


can you even comprehend the the number of WMDs that the US possesses/produces? Anthrax is produced in, of all places, Texas, and on the nuclear side, radioactive waste dumping is A OK in Nevada (thank you Gore) ... and to anyone who would dare tell me that the US would never use nuclear weapons against another country, WAKE UP!! we already have! we have already proven that we are not only capable, but that we did launch a nuclear attack (2 in fact) on innocent civilians (around 60,000 dead in Hiroshima alone, counting fallout) ... and did anyone step in to impose weapons inspections on us afterwards? no way, the rest of the world was in too much shock from what had happened, and the UN didn't exist then yet



To loosely quote the most intolerant liberal (oxy moron, anyone?), Michael Moore. I don't remember the exact words, but he said something to the effect of, "We live under a fictious government, brought about by a fictious election." The only fiction in this situation is the anti-war propoganda being flung around like horse manure. Let's not forget Cook County, democrats. (If you don't know what I'm referring to, look it up and enlighten yourself, since apparently education is so horrible.) http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

I live in Florida as you should all know (points to information on the left) and I live in a fairly conservative area. However, I don't support this war because of the people around me or what I've heard, I support this war because I am open to listen to all the facts. If the liberal media would put fact behind their opinions they might be a credible form on information. Hahahah, what am I saying? [Sarcasm] Opinion doesn't need fact to back it up. [/Saracasm] http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_quickdraw.gif

I watch/read/listen to liberal, conservative and independent news all the time and you know what? The only people who support their words and opinions with fact are the conservative media sources (generally speaking, some of the other politically affiliated media are somewhat truthful, but tend to avoid detail or any real substance).

Almost all of you have replied to this post based solely on personal opinion. Those of you that have bothered to back your words with any substance are almost always disproven. You know why this is? Because the news or things you hear are just plain wrong. Believe in fact, not word of mouth.


while we're citing Cook County, why don't we cite Dade County, which i'm sure you're familiar with (point to your left sasarai), and the indiscrepancies there during the 2000 election ... don't you smell fish? ..............

.
.
don't smell it yet? well go to http://www.13myths.org and look at the 2000 election result list ... also note the factual references they list .... smells like fisherman's wharf now ....

and with the evident corruption in our voting system, what happens to our voice having effect anymore? we're a democracy, a government where citizens vote for their leaders and representatives, right? we vote for them so they in turn can defend our freedoms, but since the Bush administration passed the Patriot Act and Operation TIPS, what freedoms are those now?

still want fact? in addition to the links here and in my other posts, here's a couple more:

http://www.globalresearch.ca
http://www.rise4news.net
http://www.truthout.com

i don't call myself a liberal, as i don't agree with much of the liberal platform, and the same goes for conservative ... that makes voting so difficult, after all, who do you choose, the puppet on the left, or the puppet on the right?

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-24 19:38, Sasarai wrote:
Thirdly, yes there are Christian radicals and no I'm not Christian. I have no religious affiliation, or to keep things simple I am Atheist. To make it clear, I was also thoroughly disgusted by the actions of Timothy McVeigh. For that matter, any terrorist attack. I'll admit, my earlier remark was ignorant. I apologize for that whole-heartedly.


as much as i'd like to believe that it isn't, this war, for some, has a lot to do with religion. every time bush addresses the nation, he plugs God at some point, and sometimes more than once, in his speech ... and for the other side of the fence, about the Iraqi flag, saddam added the arabic script to the flag during the first gulf war in 1991 to bolster his citizens' faith in him ... translated to english, the script reads, "God is the greatest"

how ironic that these two nations, one predominantly Christian, the other, Muslim, share the same god ... and each side will back their cause with divine favor

fyi, i too am atheist, and, to wander a bit off-topic, today on pso, someone wanted mats from me, so he created a team named "GODROX" .... i LOLed when i entered, he asked why, and halfway to the check room counter, i told him i felt weird in a team with that name when i am atheist ....
-he stops- "N@ WAY!"
"yep"
-he runs to lobby transporter- "Good bye. >Slab"
"???"
-he logs off-
"lol"

and to go even further off-topic (sorry) i'm actually an ordained minister at ulc.org ... yes, it's legal, anyone can do it, and belief in their views is totally optional (you can keep your religion, if you have one) ... so for any of you who wanna get hitched for real on pso, come see me
LOL http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-24 19:39, Davion wrote:

I would like to ask this. Did Christians fly the planes into the Twin Towers? Does Usama (or Osama, how the heck do you spell his name anyway?) claim Christianity as the power behind his wars? No, and the truth is these terrorist groups hide behind Islam as a way to protect themselves. After all, who would bomb a Mosk? (spelling?). But I don't see you treating them with the same filter you press the United States through.


actually, where i live, after 9/11, some guy got drunk and drove his car into a mosque ... he's in jail now for a long while http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif



EDIT: Dang this topic is getting posts fast. I can't even think through a post without several more showing up talking about the thing I'm posting about.


i know what you mean (look above) http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

[KodiaX987]

By the time you guys finish this argument, the US troops will have killed Saddam at least 15 times over!

[Zeebo]

By the time you guys finish this argument, the US troops will have killed Saddam at least 15 times over

Well It can happen.....


as much as i'd like to believe that it isn't, this war, for some, has a lot to do with religion. every time bush addresses the nation, he plugs God at some point, and sometimes more than once, in his speech ... and for the other side of the fence, about the Iraqi flag, saddam added the arabic script to the flag during the first gulf war in 1991 to bolster his citizens' faith in him ... translated to english, the script reads, "God is the greatest"

I see.... Do you have any proof of this?? It sounds like BS to me....... Bush is just trying to protect people from bio weapons. Sure there are also bad reasons hes doing this but this is one that i think he is really trying to do. Why else would they not let us search?? They have to be hiding something...

[Dangerous55]

I am lost. I left last night and this topic was about the US breaking Inter. Law to take out Iraq. Now its about religion, I think.


I jsut want to say, even if we broke international law. It's like going 150 down a highway just to get a dying guy to a hospital.

[Zeebo]

I am lost. I left last night and this topic was about the US breaking Inter. Law to take out Iraq. Now its about religion, I think.

Well something like that....


I jsut want to say, even if we broke international law. It's like going 150 down a highway just to get a dying guy to a hospital.

Whats that sopose to mean... I dont get that medaphore if it even is a medaphore... confused http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Sasarai]

On 2003-03-24 22:22, ABDUR101 wrote:

And whoever said that America is the sovereign protector of the world needs a nice bitch slap back to reality. The world did not deem the US it's protector, and I don't know if this is actually understood by many americans, but it pisses other countries off to no end when America jumps in and takes control of a situation.



Whoa Chief, I said America holds the sovereign right to defend itself and the world if we feel the threat is great and imminent.

Just to clarify things, people usually take the word sovereign and link it to royalty. I'm not saying that you do Abdur101, but this is for people who don't know and might be confused.

sovereign adj. 1. Paramount supreme 2. Having supreme rank or power. 3. Self governing; independent 4. Of superlative strength or efficacy 5. The ruling power

By my statement, I said that the U.S. reserves the right to defend itself and others. World War II unwillingly forced America to take that role Abdur.

America takes control of situations because without us nothing would ever get done. Russia took control of the hostage situation. Sure, the world was horrified with the hostages who died in the gassing, but Russia showed no regret and simply took the stance of, "We did what we had to do." Why can't America do the same?

[LollipopLolita]

hey zeebo i said arguing is stupid, debating is not. i never said someone is.

if anything, this thread is worth a good laugh.


repairing paint to front of tank - $10

ridding Basra of bad art - no charge

replacing concrete wall - $300

putting tank tracks on Saddam's face - Priceless

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200303/r996_1906.jpg

and that kids, is my last post here!

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-25 08:22, Zeebo wrote:

as much as i'd like to believe that it isn't, this war, for some, has a lot to do with religion. every time bush addresses the nation, he plugs God at some point, and sometimes more than once, in his speech ... and for the other side of the fence, about the Iraqi flag, saddam added the arabic script to the flag during the first gulf war in 1991 to bolster his citizens' faith in him ... translated to english, the script reads, "God is the greatest"

I see.... Do you have any proof of this?? It sounds like BS to me....... Bush is just trying to protect people from bio weapons. Sure there are also bad reasons hes doing this but this is one that i think he is really trying to do. Why else would they not let us search?? They have to be hiding something...



proof of it? just look at the flag, that's what it says ... my 2 bosses are from Lebanon and Kuwait, they translated it for me ... and as for bush's speeches, just watch one, and you'll hear the word God thrown in there once, maybe twice ... in America, of all places, where freedom of religion is encouraged, i really hate when religion is mixed with politics, positively or negatively, and especially when our chief executive does it, like he assumes every US citizen is Christian, or should be

http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20021122.html

just another way to be arrested and detained for no reason at all other than suspicion ... thank you Bush administration for the Patriot Act and Operation TIPS *sarcasm*

down lower on that link is an article concerning a Palestinian activist being detained without being charged ... he can't be deported either because he has to nation to be deported back to ... and my boss from Kuwait ... he is a Palestinian exile, perfectly nice guy, and the only thing i think he could be found guilty of is flirting too much with women other than his wife http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif .... what's going on now really hits him hard, he keeps the news on constantly at work all the time .... now imagine being exiled from the nation you call home, and not being allowed to return because that nation doesn't exist or isn't recognized, having your family members murdered by Israeli fanatics who use American-made weapons and explosives ... so why do you think Palestinians don't like the US?

my other boss is from Lebanon ... he moved to the US from Beirut in 1980 ... and if you can remember was going on in Beirut then ...... it's no wonder he's wigged all the time http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

but that's different, and irrelevant, to the topic at hand ... but feel lucky to not be born and raised in the middle of a war zone, and consider the effects war has not just on the people who are killed, but the ones who live to see the atrocities of it first-hand

[TeamPhalanx]

Yikes... so many pages to read through... Anway...

Davion, you still haven't answered the question. Do you know the facts and choose to ignore them, or just go believing whatever you hear?

Did you look up about the United States of America, Iraqi oil and the past last decade? Or does your position still remain the same?

Whomever said that a sniper would not be tried for 1st degree murder, you shouldn't even make posts regarding anything about the law, since it's clear you have no clue about the justice system.

Also, for all of you that for some reason or another, think that there was evidence, check this out:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un.transcript.1/index.html

It's the weapons inspectors' report. You know, those guys that have a ton of info on this stuff.

To the person who thinks chemical/biological weapons are more deadlier than thermonuclear ones, here's something you probably don't know.

We can treat victims of Chemical and Biological weapons. So far, science has not found a treatment for the effects of a thermonuclear weapon, which is being vaporized.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-24 22:22, ABDUR101 wrote:
Jesus H. Christ. Davion, you're repeating what Lolita is saying, and then in another paragraph you contradict what you just said.

I repeated what Lolitia said but from the other side and I'm wrong for doing it?


On 2003-03-24 22:01, Davion wrote:
He was saying what he thinks. He thinks that we should look at it from the terrorist's veiw too. He said to us they're terrorists, to themselves they're freedom fighters. >>>I don't look at it that way<<<, but I'm saying it's ok that Pix thinks that.


And that is exactly the problem. You aren't looking at it from anyone else's perspective, which is the most important part of understanding whats happening. You don't have to look at it in the same light, but you have to look at it from someone else's perspective, otherwise you'll never understand fully.



You really don't understand what I was trying to say in that. I do look at it from other perspectives. I looked at it from Pix's and I said it's ok. I said it's fine for Pix to think that. FINE, as in it's ok with me and I'm not being an idiot.

I looked at it from what I thought Pix thought. I said it was ok for him to think that. What did I do wrong again when I said he is fine to think that?

Are you looking at it from MY viewpoint, Abdur? Do you think it's ok for me to disagree with someone? I disagree, but I said it's ok for him to look at it that way.

Before you jump on me for saying that, again, I'm not saying Pix think's the terrorists are freedom fighters.



On 2003-03-25 14:23, TeamPhalanx wrote:
Yikes... so many pages to read through... Anway...

Davion, you still haven't answered the question. Do you know the facts and choose to ignore them, or just go believing whatever you hear?

Did you look up about the United States of America, Iraqi oil and the past last decade? Or does your position still remain the same?

Show me any facts that we've been buying oil from the country we have placed an embargo on, and then I'll think about changing my mind. I'm not going to take your word for it just like you're not taking mine




To the person who thinks chemical/biological weapons are more deadlier than thermonuclear ones, here's something you probably don't know.

When was the last time people survived a Chem or Bio attack? How do you know how well we can treat people?

Chem and bio weapons are just as bad as thermonuclear ones. If Saddam uses them, the US military will bi almost untouched, but the Iraqi civilians and army don't have any protection. I don't think they are worse than thermonuclear weapons, and I don't think I ever saw anyone say the bio and chem weapons were worse. I only saw you say thermonuclear are worse.

[Saladwood]

Again, PIX DID NOT THINK THAT.

[Guntz348]

On 2003-03-25 15:10, Davion wrote:

When was the last time people survived a Chem or Bio attack? How do you know how well we can treat people?

Chem and bio weapons are just as bad as thermonuclear ones. If Saddam uses them, the US military will bi almost untouched, but the Iraqi civilians and army don't have any protection. I don't think they are worse than thermonuclear weapons, and I don't think I ever saw anyone say the bio and chem weapons were worse. I only saw you say thermonuclear are worse.





Actually from what I've heard most of the agents that the US is accusing Saddam of having will go right through those suits and possibly masks. There are many agents, most of which are owned, created for or by, and controlled by the US (surprise suprise), that are far more deadly then any thing Saddam could possibly have. And these are just the ones the Defence Department developed for there use. A nuke spares no one with in it's blast radius and no one really knows what fall out would do. The nukes that US have now are about 50 times more powerfull then those of the 40's and 50's, if I'm not mistaken. They are relitivly untested since there's no safe place to do so and we can only theorize over how much damage they would do. In my opinion the last effects from a nuke, not to mention the direct blast, would be far worse then a chem/bio attack.



Edit: Typos shall now be taken as an act of aggresion and actions may be taken...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Guntz348 on 2003-03-25 15:20 ]</font>

[Davion]

On 2003-03-25 00:56, brillyfresh wrote:

actually, where i live, after 9/11, some guy got drunk and drove his car into a mosque ... he's in jail now for a long while http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

You didn't understand what I meant by saying that about the Mosque. I was saying that they hide behind Islam and use it to defend themselves because if they do get bombed they can say "Look at them, they bombed a Mosque."

By they way. Have all of you guys heard about them putting the Iraqi TV headquarters in a day care center? They're hiding behind babies now.

Not only that, but they're using civilian clothes in order to fake surrender and then attack US troops.

Anyway. There is a city in Iraq that is revolting against Saddam. I got this from Fox news' website and since Phal quoted CNN, I thought it was ok to quote another "biased American news source".


In what appears to be a critical moment for coalition forces, the Shiite majority in Basra has started a popular uprising against Saddam Hussein's forces, a Sky News correspondent and a United Kingdom pool correspondent reported Tuesday. Iraqi troops are reportedly firing at the Shiite protesters, who have the support of British troops in the area.

The Iraqi soldiers are firing mortars into the crowds of people.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-25 15:11, PSOSaladWood wrote:
Again, PIX DID NOT THINK THAT.



Again, I NEVER SAID HE DID.

[TeamPhalanx]

Show me any facts that we've been buying oil...


I'm not going to show you. It's very here. You go and do a quick 5 minute research on the matter. I recommend cnn.com and/or google. It's about you finding out the facts for yourself, not relying on biased sources, which I'm guessing you have been doing.



When was the last time people survived a Chem or Bio attack? How do you know how well we can treat people?


The only examples that I can think of at the moment are the recent Anthrax scare and that Japanese subway attack a while back.

How do I know people can be treated? Because it has been done.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-25 15:38, TeamPhalanx wrote:


Show me any facts that we've been buying oil...


I'm not going to show you. It's very here. You go and do a quick 5 minute research on the matter. I recommend cnn.com and/or google. It's about you finding out the facts for yourself, not relying on biased sources, which I'm guessing you have been doing.



When was the last time people survived a Chem or Bio attack? How do you know how well we can treat people?


The only examples that I can think of at the moment are the recent Anthrax scare and that Japanese subway attack a while back.

How do I know people can be treated? Because it has been done.



Ok so you think that Chem and Bio weapons hold no threat? Of course we can treat them, but the large portion of people will die if we can't treat them quickly.

[TeamPhalanx]

Again, no. In reality chemical/biology weapons are really a dumb choice of weaponary.

Biological weapons suck because they take forever to work, and contrary to what Hollywood has said over the recent years, most are not air-born, which would be the most effective method.

Even in the case of Anthrax (btw, the Anthrax Iraq has, they got from us) it's not that deadly. To be brief, anthrax itself doesn't kill. A gene on its plasmid creates the toxin that kills. That's why there weren't too many casualties. It takes time for enough toxin to build up in the body. Those that did die did so because they didn't know they were infected. They were infected by inhalation anthrax, the symptoms of which are nearly identical to inflenza. By the time they realized something was wrong, too much toxin had built up (this is about a week though).

In the case of chemical weapons, again, delivery is a problem. If you want something effective, you have to make it air-born. Problem is that it dissipates too fast for it to be an effective weapon. In the Tokyo subway attack, less than 20 people (If I recall correctly) died, while thousands of people were injured. The concentration of the chemical has to be quite high for it to kill you.

Basically, neither chemical nor biological weapons are capable of killing a large amount of people. Yes, they have the potential, but the potential isn't realized. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, are capable of killing millions of people.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TeamPhalanx on 2003-03-25 16:18 ]</font>

[Dangerous55]

On 2003-03-25 14:23, TeamPhalanx wrote:

Whomever said that a sniper would not be tried for 1st degree murder, you shouldn't even make posts regarding anything about the law, since it's clear you have no clue about the justice system.



To the person who thinks chemical/biological weapons are more deadlier than thermonuclear ones, here's something you probably don't know.

We can treat victims of Chemical and Biological weapons. So far, science has not found a treatment for the effects of a thermonuclear weapon, which is being vaporized.




So a police sniper on a roof, who can clearly see a guy beating some dude and has a bomb their and ready to set it off can't shoot him? Uh, yes he can. But I forget how this has to deal with the topic.


As far as the deadliness of WMD's. Well I really dont think you can compare them. They both kill. Both are terrible.

[ABDUR101]

On 2003-03-25 15:22, Davion wrote:


On 2003-03-25 15:11, PSOSaladWood wrote:
Again, PIX DID NOT THINK THAT.



Again, I NEVER SAID HE DID.


....ok, let me point it out for you.



On 2003-03-25 15:10, Davion wrote:
You really don't understand what I was trying to say in that. I do look at it from other perspectives. I looked at it from Pix's and I said it's ok. I said it's fine for Pix to think that. FINE, as in it's ok with me and I'm not being an idiot.

I looked at it from what I thought Pix thought. I said it was ok for him to think that. What did I do wrong again when I said he is fine to think that?


..seriously, do I even have to say anything?



Are you looking at it from MY viewpoint, Abdur? Do you think it's ok for me to disagree with someone? I disagree, but I said it's ok for him to look at it that way.

I've looked at it from everyone's point of view who has posted, obviously thats the only way I'm going to understand where they are coming from.



Before you jump on me for saying that, again, I'm not saying Pix think's the terrorists are freedom fighters.

You just said he did in the above paragraphs, as marked with bold text.

Seriously, there's no use to even replying to this. If points are going to be missed and lost within afew posts of each other, and people are going to contradict themselves, why even take the effort, yeah?

Have fun and play nice! =)

[Zeebo]

hey zeebo i said arguing is stupid, debating is not. i never said someone is.

if anything, this thread is worth a good laugh.

Im a bit behind.... But i totally agree i was stating the same thing.... and also yes i got the 200th post!

[TeamPhalanx]

Let me remind you of what you said:


Let's say you have 10 people in you apartment, and you beat them everyday and you also have a bomb that can take out the entire block. Should the sniper wait to shoot you or get a warrent?

You never said anything about being a cop. If you're not, that's 1st degree murder. If you are, that's still 1st degree murder.

The whole act of sniping someone = First Degree Murder. Go search through every single criminal case where there was a sniper. I guarantee that the sniper was charged with First Degree Murder. (Well, okay, limit the search the modern day times. Say, post 1920)

[Morfos]

Did you know that Saddam Hussein actually was disarming? He got rid of some of his anthrax. Besides, if he didnt dissarm in a couple months UN would of supported the war and we wouldn't have to be paying 85 Billion $$$. That money could of been used to help solve poverty,saveing the earth, funding schools, hospitals etc...

[Morfos]

On 2003-03-19 21:08, Manpukkuken wrote:
This war is a crime.
And there will be a time,when Bush will have to face consequences.
No country can act like being ruler of the world,ignoring the opinion of the majority of nations.
And for the coalition supporting Bush:
Who except UK really plays a role in world?s policy?
Poland?Ethiopia??Australia???
But nations who do (Germany,France,Russia and the whole UN Security Council) were simply overruled like some 3rd class mini-states...
There is no legitimation for this war,therefore it?s a crime against Nation?s Law.





exactly. I agree.

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-25 15:10, Davion wrote:
Chem and bio weapons are just as bad as thermonuclear ones. If Saddam uses them, the US military will bi almost untouched, but the Iraqi civilians and army don't have any protection. I don't think they are worse than thermonuclear weapons, and I don't think I ever saw anyone say the bio and chem weapons were worse. I only saw you say thermonuclear are worse.


the entire Iraqi Republican Guard are already equipped with gas masks, so maybe just the civilians

[Zeebo]

Did you know that Saddam Hussein actually was disarming? He got rid of some of his anthrax. Besides, if he didnt dissarm in a couple months UN would of supported the war and we wouldn't have to be paying 85 Billion $$$. That money could of been used to help solve poverty,saveing the earth, funding schools, hospitals etc...

Ummmmmm........... very interesting... But how do you know this is true?


the entire Iraqi Republican Guard are already equipped with gas masks, so maybe just the civilians

Maybe they are but their being percacious(typo i know) because they know what kind of person Suddam is....

[Davion]

On 2003-03-25 17:58, ABDUR101 wrote:


On 2003-03-25 15:22, Davion wrote:


On 2003-03-25 15:11, PSOSaladWood wrote:
Again, PIX DID NOT THINK THAT.



Again, I NEVER SAID HE DID.


....ok, let me point it out for you.



On 2003-03-25 15:10, Davion wrote:
You really don't understand what I was trying to say in that. I do look at it from other perspectives. I looked at it from Pix's and I said it's ok. I said it's fine for Pix to think that. FINE, as in it's ok with me and I'm not being an idiot.

I looked at it from what I thought Pix thought. I said it was ok for him to think that. What did I do wrong again when I said he is fine to think that?


..seriously, do I even have to say anything?



Are you looking at it from MY viewpoint, Abdur? Do you think it's ok for me to disagree with someone? I disagree, but I said it's ok for him to look at it that way.

I've looked at it from everyone's point of view who has posted, obviously thats the only way I'm going to understand where they are coming from.



Before you jump on me for saying that, again, I'm not saying Pix think's the terrorists are freedom fighters.

You just said he did in the above paragraphs, as marked with bold text.

Seriously, there's no use to even replying to this. If points are going to be missed and lost within afew posts of each other, and people are going to contradict themselves, why even take the effort, yeah?

Have fun and play nice! =)



Darn it Abdur, how many times to I have to say this. You don't understand what I meant by posting that. I was saying it was ok for Pix to MENTION that we should look at it from the terrorists viewpoint. I never said he thought they were freedom fighters. Zeebo and I had already asked him if he meant that and he answered. Now I know people would argue the fact that we shouldn't look at it from the viewpoint of the terrorists, I was saying to them it was ok for Pix to say we should look at it from the other side. That was my whole point. It never was that he thought 9/11 was a preemptive strike because I never thought he did. I was saying to people who would argue the point with him that it was ok for him to say it. I was trying to stop stupid arguments.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-25 19:06, Morfos wrote:
Did you know that Saddam Hussein actually was disarming? He got rid of some of his anthrax. Besides, if he didnt dissarm in a couple months UN would of supported the war and we wouldn't have to be paying 85 Billion $$$. That money could of been used to help solve poverty,saveing the earth, funding schools, hospitals etc...



Sorry, you have no idea about what disarming is. If he was disarming, would he have those scuds he fired at us? You know, the ones he said he DIDN'T have?

We also have no proof that he got rid of any Anthrax, and if he did he should of showed us months ago. The whole thing was slowly leaking out information bit by bit to prolong the inspections just like they had been doing for a decade before. But of course, you think this is for reasons other than that, so you would hate Bush no matter what the facts are.

We would be spending the money on the war anyway. Even if the UN backed us, war is war and it costs to wage it.

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-25 15:38, TeamPhalanx wrote:


Show me any facts that we've been buying oil...


I'm not going to show you. It's very here. You go and do a quick 5 minute research on the matter. I recommend cnn.com and/or google. It's about you finding out the facts for yourself, not relying on biased sources, which I'm guessing you have been doing.


good idea TeamPhalanx! why don't i do it for you davion? ok ... browsing ... oh! look at this link!

http://www.alaskawild.org/releases/ArcticTruthArchives/2001/NOV2001AT/ARCTIC_TRUTH11_29_01.pdf

well it looks like we buy oil from Iraq ... it's called the "Oil-For-Food" program ... and also note that you were right about there being an embargo, but that embargo was from 1991 to 1995

and mind the date of this article (Nov 29, 2001)

then there's this link, and JUST TELL ME how credible this source is:

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/text/0408wthsrpt.htm

at the bottom it reads that Iraq stopped exporting oil around April 2002, so it wasn't exactly the decision of the US to not buy oil from Iraq, but Iraq's decision to suspend oil export

therefore, both of you, just in the way you phrased your statements, are both right and wrong




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: brillyfresh on 2003-03-25 19:55 ]</font>

[Saladwood]

[quote]On 2003-03-25 19:50, brillyfresh wrote:
good idea TeamPhalanx! why don't i do it for you davion? ok ... browsing ... oh! look at this link!

http://www.alaskawild.org/releases/ArcticTruthArchives/2001/NOV2001AT/ARCTIC_TRUTH11_29_01.pdf</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

I already posted that the US buys oil from Iraq in this very thread. Lolita already mentioned the Oil for Food program, and Alaska. It just comes to this: if you want to feel that your opinions are justified, you read what you want to read, ignore the rest.

Hell it takes time to disarm. And not like the US or other countries do not have weapons. No matter how you look at it, Lolita is right, no one is innocent, they are all guilty.

Sorry Davion but you're really strongheaded and come on strong. Lolita is right about that one, and that's why a lot of people try to counter your statements showing you some proof, but it all gets disregarded.

What is amusing to me are the people who say they get all sides of the stories, facts and news by only watching US TV.

This war is not as simple as it seems, or anyone here puts it to be, there are a lot of factors at play. And it's one huge grey area, no black or whites. And that's life.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PSOSaladWood on 2003-03-25 20:04 ]</font>

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-25 18:51, TeamPhalanx wrote:
Let me remind you of what you said:


Let's say you have 10 people in you apartment, and you beat them everyday and you also have a bomb that can take out the entire block. Should the sniper wait to shoot you or get a warrent?

You never said anything about being a cop. If you're not, that's 1st degree murder. If you are, that's still 1st degree murder.

The whole act of sniping someone = First Degree Murder. Go search through every single criminal case where there was a sniper. I guarantee that the sniper was charged with First Degree Murder. (Well, okay, limit the search the modern day times. Say, post 1920)



by definition, first degree murder is premeditated, i.e. planned out

and there are crooked cops who commit murder ... being a police officer doesn't place you above the law ....... well, it's not supposed to http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

[Davion]

On 2003-03-25 19:50, brillyfresh wrote:


On 2003-03-25 15:38, TeamPhalanx wrote:


Show me any facts that we've been buying oil...


I'm not going to show you. It's very here. You go and do a quick 5 minute research on the matter. I recommend cnn.com and/or google. It's about you finding out the facts for yourself, not relying on biased sources, which I'm guessing you have been doing.


good idea TeamPhalanx! why don't i do it for you davion? ok ... browsing ... oh! look at this link!


well it looks like we buy oil from Iraq ... it's called the "Oil-For-Food" program ... and also note that you were right about there being an embargo, but that embargo was from 1991 to 1995

and mind the date of this article (Nov 29, 2001)

then there's this link, and JUST TELL ME how credible this source is:


at the bottom it reads that Iraq stopped exporting oil around April 2002, so it wasn't exactly the decision of the US to not buy oil from Iraq, but Iraq's decision to suspend oil export

therefore, both of you, just in the way you phrased your statements, are both right and wrong




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: brillyfresh on 2003-03-25 19:55 ]</font>


The oil for food program was created so the money could go to help the Iraqi people and not Saddam.

btw, this link

They hate Bush, what do you think they'd say about him? The second link, however is a good source.

I seem to be wrong on the fact that we don't get oil from Iraq, I admit that, but you should really try to say your thoughts without being so negative towards people. Every post of yours has been hostile and rude and you seem to get something out of treating people like dirt.

From what I read on the UN website, there were limits on the trade of oil from Iraq, and any information on the Oil for food plan didn't have any information about America's invovlment.

I would like to mention that as far as I've ever seen on this topic, I'm the only person ever to look at their arguments when they relize they're wrong and take them back. I don't want anyone telling me I don't do that.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2003-03-25 20:42 ]</font>

[Zeebo]

Sorry, you have no idea about what disarming is. If he was disarming, would he have those scuds he fired at us? You know, the ones he said he DIDN'T have?

We also have no proof that he got rid of any Anthrax, and if he did he should of showed us months ago. The whole thing was slowly leaking out information bit by bit to prolong the inspections just like they had been doing for a decade before. But of course, you think this is for reasons other than that, so you would hate Bush no matter what the facts are.

We would be spending the money on the war anyway. Even if the UN backed us, war is war and it costs to wage it.

Yeah i was thinking it wasn't proven thats why i ASKED HIM! =P But you cleared it up for me faster so eh....

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-25 19:55, PSOSaladWood wrote:

[quote]On 2003-03-25 19:50, brillyfresh wrote:
good idea TeamPhalanx! why don't i do it for you davion? ok ... browsing ... oh! look at this link!

EDIT by brillyfresh- *abbreviated link* </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

I already posted that the US buys oil from Iraq in this very thread. Lolita already mentioned the Oil for Food program, and Alaska. It just comes to this: if you want to feel that your opinions are justified, you read what you want to read, ignore the rest.


i read those articles too, but i just followed TeamPhalanx's advice, did a quick 5-minute research, although i used yahoo instead, "us buy oil from iraq" being my search entry, and still found that article in 3 minutes, all to save davion from "putting all that effort" into a quick 5-minute research



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: brillyfresh on 2003-03-25 20:35 ]</font>

[Davion]

On 2003-03-25 19:55, PSOSaladWood wrote:

Sorry Davion but you're really strongheaded and come on strong. Lolita is right about that one, and that's why a lot of people try to counter your statements showing you some proof, but it all gets disregarded.


Did you miss that I said I was sorry for that? Do you even care? Have any of you ever mentioned that when you're posting about me? All you're saying is what I do wrong you never even mentioned how I said I was sorry for the things Lolita mentioned. I mean I know I make mistakes, but lay off a bit when I say I'm sorry. Cut me some slack.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-25 20:11, brillyfresh wrote:

i read those articles too, but i just followed TeamPhalanx's advice, did a quick 5-minute research, although i used yahoo instead, "us buy oil from iraq" being my search entry, and still found that article in 3 minutes, all to save davion from "putting all that effort" into a quick 5-minute research



You know what's funny. I DID do that search and I DID find the information Phal told me about. You just jumped in before I had a chance to respond. You really, really like talking down to me, don't you? It must make you feel very strong doing that. I never gave anything that would say I didn't do that search, but you jump to the idea that I didn't and attacked me for it.

EDIT: is it just me, or does the topic window look real wide?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Davion on 2003-03-25 20:15 ]</font>

[Zeebo]

Cut me some slack.

=[ poor dev you don't mind if I call you dev do you?


You know what's funny. I DID do that search and I DID find the information Phal told me about. You just jumped in before I had a chance to respond. You really, really like talking down to me, don't you? It must make you feel very strong doing that. I never gave anything that would say I didn't do that search, but you jump to the idea that I didn't and attacked me for it.

Omg, HAHAHAHHAHA, BURN!


is it just me, or does the topic window look real wide?

I was just about to post that!
Mod umm help... what's happening?

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-25 20:08, Davion wrote:
The oil for food program was created so the money could go to help the Iraqi people and not Saddam.

btw, this link *abbreiviated link* -EDIT: brillyfresh (sorry that link was long)

They hate Bush, what do you think they'd say about him? The second link, however is a good source.


but they did buy oil from iraq

and i didn't read anywhere on the page anything that expressed the author's personal opinions of bush



I seem to be wrong on the fact that we don't get oil from Iraq, I admit that, but you should really try to say your thoughts without being so negative towards people. Every post of yours has been hostile and rude and you seem to get something out of treating people like dirt.


i apologize, i didn't intend to be hostile or rude .... maybe sarcastic, but i have backed up these past couple posts with links to veritable sources, and up until this post, no one has anything to say about those sources .... no agreement, no argument, nothing ... did anyone even check out the depth of the link to From The Wilderness and Cooperative Research?



I would like to mention that as far as I've ever seen on this topic, I'm the only person ever to look at their arguments when they relize they're wrong and take them back. I don't want anyone telling me I don't do that.



i won't tell you then ... what i do is make sure there is solid proof to what i say that isn't opinion before i post it ... everyone else should too, if they don't already

that way, once everyone in this thread has all the facts necessary, we can then express formidable opinions and debate about them ... i LOVE a good debate

[Davion]

On 2003-03-25 20:28, Zeebo wrote:

Cut me some slack.

=[ poor dev you don't mind if I call you dev do you?


You know what's funny. I DID do that search and I DID find the information Phal told me about. You just jumped in before I had a chance to respond. You really, really like talking down to me, don't you? It must make you feel very strong doing that. I never gave anything that would say I didn't do that search, but you jump to the idea that I didn't and attacked me for it.

Omg, HAHAHAHHAHA, BURN!


is it just me, or does the topic window look real wide?

I was just about to post that!
Mod umm help... what's happening?



First off, yes I care if you call me Dev. Second, quit the crap would you? People have been telling me things about how I post that I have admited, but they continue to post like I never did. I just wanted to remind people that I did take into account what they said to me.

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-25 20:14, Davion wrote:


On 2003-03-25 20:11, brillyfresh wrote:

i read those articles too, but i just followed TeamPhalanx's advice, did a quick 5-minute research, although i used yahoo instead, "us buy oil from iraq" being my search entry, and still found that article in 3 minutes, all to save davion from "putting all that effort" into a quick 5-minute research



You know what's funny. I DID do that search and I DID find the information Phal told me about. You just jumped in before I had a chance to respond. You really, really like talking down to me, don't you? It must make you feel very strong doing that. I never gave anything that would say I didn't do that search, but you jump to the idea that I didn't and attacked me for it.


sorry bout that ... just getting pumped a little too much ... it's hard to express voice tone with text sometimes



EDIT: is it just me, or does the topic window look real wide?


it's that alaska link ... i edited my posts and abbreviated the link in your quote and Salad's in my previous posts ... can you edit out the links in your posts please, since the link is already in the original post? then it won't be so wide

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: brillyfresh on 2003-03-25 20:39 ]</font>

[Davion]

On 2003-03-25 20:30, brillyfresh wrote:


On 2003-03-25 20:08, Davion wrote:
The oil for food program was created so the money could go to help the Iraqi people and not Saddam.

btw, this link *abbreiviated link* -EDIT: brillyfresh (sorry that link was long)

They hate Bush, what do you think they'd say about him? The second link, however is a good source.


but they did buy oil from iraq

and i didn't read anywhere on the page anything that expressed the author's personal opinions of bush



I seem to be wrong on the fact that we don't get oil from Iraq, I admit that, but you should really try to say your thoughts without being so negative towards people. Every post of yours has been hostile and rude and you seem to get something out of treating people like dirt.


i apologize, i didn't intend to be hostile or rude .... maybe sarcastic, but i have backed up these past couple posts with links to veritable sources, and up until this post, no one has anything to say about those sources .... no agreement, no argument, nothing ... did anyone even check out the depth of the link to From The Wilderness and Cooperative Research?



I would like to mention that as far as I've ever seen on this topic, I'm the only person ever to look at their arguments when they relize they're wrong and take them back. I don't want anyone telling me I don't do that.



i won't tell you then ... what i do is make sure there is solid proof to what i say that isn't opinion before i post it ... everyone else should too, if they don't already

that way, once everyone in this thread has all the facts necessary, we can then express formidable opinions and debate about them ... i LOVE a good debate



Bush is a Conservative. Eviromentalists don't like him.

If you love a good debate, then you should act like it is a debate and not treat people like they're crap even if they're wrong. Otherwise, you're just yelling your opinons at them and people will almost never look at it your way because they'll just get angry with you.

Thanks for your apology, I can't tell you how rare those are.

EDIT: Billy, just read your second post. Thanks again, and you might want to edit that alaska link and cut it in half or something. People can copy the link into bar one peice at a time.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Davion on 2003-03-25 20:37 ]</font>

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-25 20:36, Davion wrote:
EDIT: Billy, just read your second post. Thanks again, and you might want to edit that alaska link and cut it in half or something. People can copy the link into bar one peice at a time.


i did while you were posting ... and read my edit ... LOL we said the same thing simultaneously

EDIT- oops Lolita got it already, nevermind

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: brillyfresh on 2003-03-25 20:44 ]</font>

[LollipopLolita]

i edited it

[Zeebo]

yey no more scrolling to read...

[Subliminalgroove]

Okay... I am tired of hearing about whether or not we are in this for the oil. The fact is we have had intrest in middle east (including Iraqi) oil since the 1920's.

since we are on the whole "show me the proof schtick," here is an extremly enlightening article that I think will shed some light as to some of the many reasons we are embroilled in this conflict. http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html In my opinion the birth of this struggle goes back to the Iran-Iraq war. If you read through this you will find out why. . . We have alot of intrest in controlling the middle east, not only oil but to protect our "investments" <cringe>.

There are other reasons why we are out there. But I feel certain it is not because Saddam has been using chemical weapons on his Kurdish population. Which is something he did DURING the Iran-Iraq war. Something which we "condemned" but did NOTHING about, we turned the other way and IGNORED it. Why? Because we were supporting them. Yup. You read that right, we were giving military support to Saddam. Mr. Badman Himself. The article I posted will go into more info about why we were doing that.

Also, I am tired of people crying the humanitarian reason for this conflict. It just doesn't make sense. We are killing and wounding a large number of civilians with our "accurate" missles. Yes, they may be accurate to within 7 miles, but they are still missiles. They have a warhead. Big warheads. They are designed for causing a great deal of destruction. Not only do you have the initial firebomb of blast radius, but you have the great amount of debris and detritus that rockets out in all directions as a result of that blast. The collateral damage from these missliles is great. If we are firing them into cities, civilians WILL be hurt and killed. They are not sniper rifles.

Anyway, I'm not trying to insult anyone. I am just trying to help in the info area. I am tired of hearing about this whole thing. And I am tired about hearing of people dying. And I want the whole damn thing to end.


We miss you Marty. Where ever you are, I hope you are comfortable and happy, this turmoil and pain past you now. Watch over the rest of the crew in that desert. Coffee night will never be the same without you.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Subliminalgroove on 2003-03-26 00:14 ]</font>

[Hunter4life]

Ok, its true that civilian lives are being taken but unfortunatly, its immpossible not to have innocnent deaths in a war. But lets put it this way: Saddam has killed more than we will ever kill with our missles during the 2nd Gulf War. HE is actually causing the civilians to die by PUSHING them in front of his troops. Saw it in the news with report and footage last night. (I usuallly don't belive news but with footage it makes a scary picture) Then with their human shields, the Iraqi troops attack us. so it is sometimes his own troops killing the civilians by using them as shields for themselves and their weapons. Coalition troops have no choice but to defend themselves and unfortunatly that means the deaths of some civilians.


Oh and Sublim, i feel sorry for you and your friend. It's always hard when someone you care about dies.

I would type more but the bus just flew by and my mom is ticked at me.

[TeamPhalanx]

Dammit, could we all stop it with the super-long quotes? I can't be the only one annoyed when a person's post consists of mostly of quotes from another person's post.

Going back to the oil issue, before this whole mess, the US, along with other nations such as Russia was one of those nations that supported lifting the limit set on Iraq - That is, they wanted Iraq to be able to sell as much oil as they wanted, provided that the profits continue to go to the people.

It's good see that some people actually know some things about the law. If you're sniping someone, you have to plan it ahead of time. Given that the entire act fits the definition of what a 1st degree murder is, which is murder with premeditation/intent/deliberate.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-25 20:33, brillyfresh wrote:

it's that alaska link ... i edited my posts and abbreviated the link in your quote and Salad's in my previous posts ... can you edit out the links in your posts please, since the link is already in the original post? then it won't be so wide

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: brillyfresh on 2003-03-25 20:39 ]</font>


I'll do that.

EDIT: Harken. It seems it already has. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Davion on 2003-03-26 07:19 ]</font>

[Morfos]

The original name of this war was

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

lol spells out oil!

[Dangerous55]

On 2003-03-25 18:51, TeamPhalanx wrote:
Let me remind you of what you said:


You never said anything about being a cop. If you're not, that's 1st degree murder. If you are, that's still 1st degree murder.

The whole act of sniping someone = First Degree Murder. Go search through every single criminal case where there was a sniper. I guarantee that the sniper was charged with First Degree Murder. (Well, okay, limit the search the modern day times. Say, post 1920)



So a police sniper (which is what I meant) who snipes someone
with a bomb and is beating someone would be charged with 1st Degree Murder? Do you actually think that? And this is not just a guy who was a sniper in the police, he is a Police sniper who is with is counterparts ready to handle the situation. Why would you think he would be charged with first degree murder? He isn't just shooting some Joe on the street. But a guy with a bomb and is beating someone.

[Dangerous55]

On 2003-03-26 09:06, Morfos wrote:
The original name of this war was

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

lol spells out oil!




OK Jay Leno.

[Zeebo]

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

How do you know this if it is true very ironic...


OK Jay Leno.

I don't get it...


So a police sniper (which is what I meant) who snipes someone
with a bomb and is beating someone would be charged with 1st Degree Murder? Do you actually think that? And this is not just a guy who was a sniper in the police, he is a Police sniper who is with is counterparts ready to handle the situation. Why would you think he would be charged with first degree murder? He isn't just shooting some Joe on the street. But a guy with a bomb and is beating someone.

Yeah.... I was gona say the same stuff.. You see snipers out side of hold ups and stuff and if they should shoot they dont get nothing.....


it's that alaska link ... i edited my posts and abbreviated the link in your quote and Salad's in my previous posts ... can you edit out the links in your posts please, since the link is already in the original post? then it won't be so wide

Err so that was the problem

[TeamPhalanx]

I'm assuming you gave the sniper example in parallel with the current situation. You do not have proof that the suspect has a bomb - That's why you can't get a warrant. You do not have cause (suspect did not threaten to blow the up the block, in fact, suspect denies having any bomb) and you do not have any orders from your superiors.

I don't care if were a 12 year veteran with the Army and made the Green Beret. If you fire, you're going to jail for life or getting the death penalty. It is still premeditated murder, with obvious malice if you're going to snipe the suspect. No matter which state definition you go by, the sniper is going bye-bye.

[Davion]

On 2003-03-26 11:50, Zeebo wrote:


it's that alaska link ... i edited my posts and abbreviated the link in your quote and Salad's in my previous posts ... can you edit out the links in your posts please, since the link is already in the original post? then it won't be so wide

Err so that was the problem



I copied the link into my post too. He edited his, and he asked me to do the same so it wouldn't be so wide. A mod beat me to it.

[Zeebo]

I copied the link into my post too. He edited his, and he asked me to do the same so it wouldn't be so wide. A mod beat me to it.

I see...


I'm assuming you gave the sniper example in parallel with the current situation. You do not have proof that the suspect has a bomb - That's why you can't get a warrant. You do not have cause (suspect did not threaten to blow the up the block, in fact, suspect denies having any bomb) and you do not have any orders from your superiors.

Yet the suspect doesnt let us look inside, He stays inside locking the door... Not knowing if he is maybe hiding something.... We gave him alot alot of time to open that door and we sometimes dont have time to ask... sometimes it just might be to late...
If you wait to long maybe the element of suprise is lost and you might just get shot...

[Sasarai]

Information update:

Saddam (or whoever is still commanding the country) moved hundreds of missiles into civilian areas. Why?
So he can garner more support for the end of this war. He hopes that the U.S. will target the missiles stored within residential areas, thus causing more Iraqi civilian casualties.

The still loyal Iraqi forces are hiding within hospitals and homes, hiding behind women and children to ambush our troops. We have consciously avoided bombing or using any other weaponry on those targets because we do not want innocent casualties.

Personal reply:

I've been reading through the numerous links and reading the anti-war opinions carefully. I still don't believe the main motivation for this war is oil, but it is clear that it is a goal. However, I will say that the Iraqi assest (oil) will still belong to the Iraqi people when all is said and done (or so our administration has said).

Reported from Fox News:

Iraqi refugees are returning to Iraq and they're quoted to have said, "We are going back to be with our families." Others have said, "We wish to fight along the liberators."

One last personal word:

I don't think people are taking into account one, honorable, factor. Yes, Iraqi civilians (and others as seen with the Syrian tour bus) are dying, however, I feel that in this war our armed forces and leaders have done all they possibly can to prevent casualties. Short of abstaining from war, there is no way that civilian casualties can be avoided and I believe we've made a conscious effort to keep them at a minimum. The accuracy, if nothing goes wrong, is seven feet Sumbliminal Groove.

No one can deny that we are avoiding collateral damamge and we're bending over backwards to provide humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people. "We're toppling a brutal regime and liberating an opressed people." Sean Hannity, Fox News.

As I'm sure you all know, that is my view on the war.

In closing, I'd like to say that America may possess weapons of mass destruction, however we don't use them against our own people, and haven't used them since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. TeamPhalanx and others may argue that we are potentially more dangerous than any other nation, but we as a people don't want to see war, we wish for peace and sometimes peace can only be achieved by active force, this is the way our world has worked and will continue to work.

[Zeebo]

Saddam (or whoever is still commanding the country) moved hundreds of missiles into civilian areas. Why?
So he can garner more support for the end of this war. He hopes that the U.S. will target the missiles stored within residential areas, thus causing more Iraqi civilian casualties.

I see that sux but i gotta admit thats pretty smart... No more bombing only ground troops....


The still loyal Iraqi forces are hiding within hospitals and homes, hiding behind women and children to ambush our troops. We have consciously avoided bombing or using any other weaponry on those targets because we do not want innocent casualties.

What cowards!!!!!


Iraqi refugees are returning to Iraq and they're quoted to have said, "We are going back to be with our families." Others have said, "We wish to fight along the liberators."

Sorta good since they know the land and every place where they could be hidding........ You know tunnels and such....

[Subliminalgroove]

7 feet... that's what I meant. Sorry about the typo, Sasari. However, there is still the nasty blast radius and chunky salsa effect. Which was my point. I am just tired of people screaming their heads off about how our missles aren't hurting civilians. Those missles may be smart, but if one hits a target and there are 2 children playing nearby. It is not smart enough to prevent the firebomb from tearing those children apart. That is my point that there ARE civilian casualties. That this is not some precise as surgury action. That people who shouldn't be dying are dying. I just want people to realize that. That is not my argument against the war. I just want everyone to know what is happeneing.

Kinda like knowing that the juicy steak you eat is from a cute cow and not from a nice little package from a grocery store. I was merely trying to make sure people realise the price of this war.

mmmm steak, I know what I'm eating tonight.


bah... work....

I'm out

[TeamPhalanx]

Actually, I'd argue that nations such as North Korea, India, Pakistan (you those, those that wave a flag that says "We have Nuclear Weapons.") pose a greater threat to the world than Iraq.

It comes down to the numbers. Worst case scenerio with the stuff Iraq has is that thousands of people die. Worst case scenerio with the stuff the other nations have is that billions of people die.

Take a look at this war and compare it to past ones. When you do that, look at all the stuff that triggered the war. Why did the war start? If you compare the reasons for past wars and compare it to this one... It's pretty sad.

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-26 12:08, Zeebo wrote:
Yet the suspect doesnt let us look inside, He stays inside locking the door... Not knowing if he is maybe hiding something.... We gave him alot alot of time to open that door and we sometimes dont have time to ask... sometimes it just might be to late...
If you wait to long maybe the element of suprise is lost and you might just get shot...


that's like saying it's perfectly alright to barge into someone's house, without a search warrant, to find something you have no proof of there being in the first place

ehh ... the police sniper comparison is getting way too analyzed

[brillyfresh]

On 2003-03-26 12:49, Subliminalgroove wrote:
7 feet... that's what I meant. Sorry about the typo, Sasari. However, there is still the nasty blast radius and chunky salsa effect.

chunky salsa effect ...... enhh

i saw some "chunky salsa effect" last night ... one of those b&w targeting monitors showing a tank in its crosshairs, and the anchor enthusiastically belts out "NOW LOOK FOR A MOVING WHITE DOT ... THAT IS AN IRAQI SOLDIER!!" ... then the moving white dot moves frantically across the screen past the tank, then BOOM almost the entire screen lights up in an explosion, totally engulfing the "white dot" .... talk about chunky salsa effect, that dude got fragged ... i hope that FOX News anchor got a real kick out of that :/

[Ness]

Look I don't know why you guys are still arguing. The war has already begun and throwing pointless insult and false accusations at Bush won't stop the war. I've said it many times, I don't like Bush. Nonetheless, I do support him in the war effort because he has given suffcient proof that Iraq is a threat. My problem is that I personally see North Korea as more of a threat because the actually have nuclear weapons and are building more.

[emoc0re]

well i dont know whats been going on here, i read the first 2 pages but i wasnt about to read the next 15 so yeah this is what i think..(once again sorry if all this has been said)

i am for this war, and i also think its terrible that people are still out there protesting and everything. my 3 best friends are out there right now and i want to do nothing else but to support them. when i see there protests on tv i get extremly pissed, and do they think that doing that will actually stop the war? c'mon. there was this group of people at my school (about 20) that were protesting and i went out there and said, oh yeah there really gonna stop the war because some high schoolers dont like it.

when this whole possibly war with iraq started i told my dad that noone would support us until we said screw the UN and went in ourselves, then after that everyone will join right in. and if you watched after the war started all these countries joined in. Now i predict that when the war is pretty much done France will come in and say "hey we backed you the whole way" psh..

well thats all i got to say.

[Subliminalgroove]

Thank you for your input, but please read the whole thing next time before you post. Just common courtesy. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wink.gif

[SorceressofTime]

On 2003-03-26 06:19, TeamPhalanx wrote:
Dammit, could we all stop it with the super-long quotes? I can't be the only one annoyed when a person's post consists of mostly of quotes from another person's post.


exactly. everyone's posts are interesting but, if they're too long, i don't read them at all.

[Abaddon]

The cat's out of the bag now
>_>
<_<

[Morfos]

I wonder who's next on Bush's long list?
hmm.

3.North Korea
4.Pakistan
5.Iran
#6-12:hmmm

[Sasarai]

I saw that "white dot" video on Fox News...and it was crazy. I know what you mean SubliminalGroove, about the firebomb and debris that is thrown out from the blast.

I've said before, I don't want innocent Iraqi people to be injured or worse, killed, but this is war--if they haven't left the coutry (Jordan and Qatar are eqquiped for 10s of thousands of refugees) then (tries to say this tactfully) they're SOL.

No offense SubliminalGroove, but I have no doubts these people have been properly warned and if they choose not to leave, the U.S. will not stop its advance and bombing on Baghdad. I'm sure in all wars, the leaders estimate what they consider an "acceptable loss of life," to complete the campaign...

[LollipopLolita]

I know I said I wouldn't post anymore, but I think everyone should read this no matter which side you're on:

http://dear raed.blogspot.com/



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2003-03-28 14:08 ]</font>

[Zeebo]

fasinating........


the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.

I like that..(from the site)